On December 18th (Tuesday), Wikihub will be unavailable from 7-9am.


Page Tree:

Child pages
  • W4 - Overviews and General Remarks

This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

16 April - Welcoming Remarks - Harriet Hemmasi

  • On the wiki - naming connecting ideas, imagine what it'll be able to do
  • Laying out roadmap to survival in digital environment; new methods of engagement w/ scholarship
  • Small group of people got together for traveling medicine show - carried children for miles, enjoyed seasonal entertainment; would return for each night of weeklong engagement
  • Comedian entertained, doctor would subsequently sell snake oil, with doctor's name and list of ailments that could be cured
  • "Would cure anything" - a lot of people would buy everything; did help people
  • Today's entertainment is mostly free on the Web; go back time and again
  • PB is like medicine man - going to far lands, curing scholars' aches and pains, home remedies and snake oil/ointments but eager to find elixir for anything; eager to trade stories and currency and continue circulating among communities
  • But we're in a state of transition, and needs/currencies are also transitory
  • Catalyst for changes is technology
  • Advances in tech (done to us, ones we've done)
  • Have altered fundamentals of teaching/learning/research
  • How scholarship is generated/assimilated/preserved/interpreted/reused/etc are critical to academy/academic library
  • Blurred lines of responsibility; emergence of global info society relying on knowledge economy and sustainable infrastructure
  • Doesn't threaten assistance of libraries, but positioned libraries as key partners in addressing issues facing changing economies/modes of communication
  • Brown Univ library is more than warehouse of books/place for study/computer lab/holder of licenses
  • Libraries at heart of managing and mining information
  • Need for medicine man not based on clever tech or rich digital content -- based on need for tools that integrate intelligent knowledge acquisition w/ ingenuity of scholars/teachers/learners
  • Library engaged in developing appropriate architectures/systems/tools to support scholarship
  • Sustainable methods to respond to today's/tomorrow's information requirements
  • Brown's Scholarly Tech group and Women Writer's Project integrated into library
  • Library has opportunity and responsibility to promote new scholarship/new literacites without giving up fundamental reading/writing
  • Place for production processing & distribution & consumption of knowledge - learn in dialect and language of own choice
  • Expand ability to question, produce and reproduce knowledge
  • Library plays a small part in medicine man show-- long live the medicine man, long live Bamboo!

16 April - Introductory Remarks - Chad Kainz and David Greenbaum

  • CJK: Challenge for DAG and I and others, especially in last several months: "What is Bamboo?"
  • Between W3 and now, a lot of things came into focus; for a long time we've been the traveling show - collecting stories, solving problems, etc.
  • Some of the demonstrators we've done, built new collections and collaborations
  • For every connection w/ Bamboo, because relationship developed into this workshop
  • We're trying to solve the "pub problem" - we have a community now, and we're all in the big pub sharing ideas, and since we're in the pub we can talk to each other and over a virtual beer we can make a connection
  • Work of working groups/program staff/ extended community w/ Bamboo-- lots of power/ideas/possibilities here
  • Possibilities that are actually achievable
  • In initial program document, things looked 15 years away; now this looks like it could actually work
  • Hope that excitement continues for all of us; transition into first of many projects
  • Pass along more elixirs to some of these issues/challenges; not only us in the room but for campuses, extended communities
  • DAG: Where we are as a project - we're at an important point, having painted broad picture, how we can narrow down
  • Phase of PB of "after the honeymoon"
  • Honeymoon - W1 with a lot of opportunities, what people are doing/wan to do; free-thinking in Oct/Nov
  • Now: In this new environment, what's the best work for us?
  • One of important goals, as we develop program document, continue to flesh out 7-10 year issues
  • Turn this to a 3-year focus
  • Wrote document specifically for the workshop; not yet supposed to be full program document to be shared w/ funding group
  • At least one fundamental part that's missing-- take Boromean Ring diagram, and add necessary part in the middle
  • Humanities practices and disciplinary actions need to be woven in
  • As mentioned in W3, will be in process of writing proposal
  • Still intend to put together a 3-year picture of what PB will do starting 2010
  • First phase is a 1-year proposal: set of 3 1-year proposals with context of 3-year framework
  • Going to flesh out 7-10 year vision, make a turn at the workshop to look at what first 3 years would look like
  • Important thing: starting today, will do a lot between W4 and W5, and W5 and proposal
  • Need to now begin discussions @ institutional level w/ teams that are there, and leaders at institutions about institutional interest in PB
  • What parts of PB are you particularly interested in
  • What would it look like for an institution?
  • What total resource pool for PB will be
  • Hoping we can, based on interest here, schedule series of discussions w/ institutional leaders
  • Resource picture is becoming clearer; way this is going to work is that part of Mellon foundation that has funded us (RIT), assuming that proposal will fund part of our work
  • Mellon is expecting us to have other community source projects cost-sharing w/ us (and institutions)
  • At least 2 major pools of resources for implementation process: RIT and cost-sharing from institutions here
  • Begun to explore other resource opportunities; will need your help w/ that
  • Corporate partners, some IBM, other parts of Mellon foundation, NEH, etc
  • Institutions: "What will PB do for us?"
  • We can't give you that answer - we need to now who'll be in the effort, and what kind of resources you'll have
  • Important here: as we think about what PB is going to do is continue to compile examples of how to leverage Bamboo
  • Where some of the best investments are

Flow between workshops

  • CJK: Between now and W5, focusing in onto major parts of PB, what elements will we implement at first in first phase; there's discussion of "phases" in document-
  • Beginning to narrow down what's going on, look at how we want PB to work (if you were at Arizona, the fuzzball diagrams I put up aren't as fuzzy anymore)
  • Sense of how we want work/ideas to happen
  • How we're going to do this: have a discussion, but over course of next several days we'll be doing polls to find out where your/your institution's interest are
  • Non-binding, just to get a sense of where's the energy, if the energy's over her,e then look over here
  • If there's no resources/availability/etc not in a particular space, need to separate out what we need to do immediately, what we need to think more about
  • We want to get initial impressions after reviewing materials; what you think now, coming in
  • Do the same at the end, after our discussions here
  • Have any ideas changed?
  • On Mon/Tues, Berkeley and Chicago staff will be meeting at UofC to debrief, decompress, think about everything
  • What should we do between 4 and 5, what are priorities, how can we structure work
  • Want to get that to you as quickly as possible
  • Over course of workshop, there'll be points where we ask for input
  • Sometimes you'll feel like you can't give an answer or even impression here today, but we'll want to have some sense of some of these topics for our work next week
  • Give you a weekend to chew on it, and send us an e-mail for our discussions on Mon/Tues
    between now and W5, we'll put together a strawman proposal and circulate it to everyone
  • Nail down what proposal will be like; get your feedback immediately
  • Like v1.0 - "drafty draft", many craters and potholes
  • Important part: are we hitting the right things that we think we can do; if so, build out the detail, build out the proposal
  • Schedule conversations w/ institutions and organizations to gauge interest/commitment
  • What being part of PB means; a lot have been asking for printed materials - value statements, elevator pitch
  • Also need room for conversations re: what it means for institution to be in PB
  • We won't know what we can do with PB (what we have at this workshop today) until we know who's interested in being part of PB in our implementation proposal
  • Have to work that dialog in; lots of going around on this
  • Funding picture from Mellon, but also all of you-- what can we do, who's willing to do that
  • Take some time to work through it
  • With extended teams, it's important to have conversations w/ us to get a better sense of where we're going, what it means for your institution/community
  • Continue editing and refining process until when we submit this, and well after
  • Need to keep tuning this, making sure the program and long-term mission are right
  • Over time, we'll continue to refer to it and look back on
  • "Back in 2008, we had this idea..." Hopefully in 2011 we'll look back at that
  • Things have changed, but maybe we can evolve that concept
  • Will continue that process for editing/refining program document
  • Reaching into middle of June: version 1.0 of draft of proposal-- taking strawman concept, putting some more words around it, and asking for feedback on proposal
  • We will then tear it apart, and that's what we need to do
  • Revise, go back, edit, build out first draft proposal based on program document
  • That's a lot of stuff between now and middle of June
  • A lot of things we've been talking about re: breaking up activities, running activities in parallel
  • In next 3 days, getting a sense of what real picture looks like; what we should/shouldn't be doing in first stages
  • Not enough funding/time to do everything, so what are the priorities?
  • Narrow our focus and get something out the door
  • Goal ultimately in implementation proposal - something important to PB community
  • That's our target, that's what our funding agency would like us to do
  • So we will try, and hopefully succeed
  • We need a lot of help, and there's a number of communities not only here who are interested in helping
  • That's where we're going to lead us up to our meeting in middle of June in DC at UC-Berkeley center
  • "Can we schedule this right before DH09?" - so we did
  • We hope a number of people do go to DH09 after that

After W5

  • Have to wrap up planning project
  • Finishing/finalizing our program
  • Have to finish/finalize implementation proposal, complete with all details associated with it
  • Mid-July timeframe
  • Mellon officers want to review, go back and forth, etc. - this takes ~2 months
  • Have to have it officially to them in October
  • Decision made in January
  • Roughly a six-month process
  • Need to finalize what each institution/subset is going to contribute/participate in
  • "Sign on dotted line" part of this
  • Polls, etc. are nonbinding, getting feedback, etc. re: your environment
  • But after W5 after we have a tighter proposal/document, saying "who's in, and who's going to wait and see?"

Schedule walkthrough

DAG: UofC and Berkeley are having discussions w/ their administrators too
Thank you to all working groups - lots of helpful feedback; some text in program document was written by working groups

  • Day 1:
    • Then will ask to sit w/ members of institutional team (sit alone if you're the only person from your group) - think about how you'd like to "vote" on sections (subsections)
    • We'll give you some dots (in Berkeley colors) and tell us your interest from institutional point of view
    • High/medium/low
    • Right before lunch - so if team needs to talk into beginning of lunch, please do so before you break for lunch
    • Can have discussion right after lunch
    • This is NON-BINDING - we know it's an early indication; institution may change their mind
    • From a program point of view, we'll take this input, but not as a final decision of what PB is going to do
    • Need leadership council to reflect on this
    • Got a lot of sorting out
    • In afternoon: will move to sec 4 of proposal
    • At end of the day, hear some more about section 5 - all about consortial model, very important to have some feedback from institutional perspective - refine goals you think need to take place in PB as consortium
    • Report-back, wrap-up, reception sponsored by Brown
    • This is first time we've asked people specifically to work from institutional point of view - previously, a mix of different institutions
  • Day 2:
    • Different sort - will ask people to sit not by institution but by community (primarily humanities scholars/faculty, librarians, technologists)
    • Afternoon: working groups meet
    • Are there areas from their POV they really want to argue for that we've missed
    • Where should those working groups go? Should they be changed so they can move ahead?
    • Discussion between different working groups
    • By day 2, will have heard feedback from all points of view
  • Day 3 - principles for prioritizing
    • Ask institutions to do a re-vote on section 3/4
    • You may have changed your mind
    • Are there sections you as an institution want to lead?
    • What parts do people think are important?
    • Please send both CJK and I an e-mail over weekend w/ any more feedback from institutional POV
    • Would like that by Sunday, so when we meet Mon/Tues as program staff, can take feedback into account
    • Based on WG discussion, what would be the next evolution of WGs?
    • Workshops with emphasis on work - day 2 may be a tough day
    • Please give us feedback/suggestions for what we might adjust in the future

17 April - Welcome (Sheila Bonde)

Sheila Bonde (Brown)
Dean of the Graduate School
Professor of Archaeology
Professor of History of Art and Architecture

  • Imagine future of the academy - not just jobs current grad students will find, but the kind of academy they'll create 10/20 years from now
  • Work that PB is doing is important
  • Work w/ co-collaborators in scholarly tech group: really are co-collaborators on projects
  • Ask website visitors to help locate people; place them in context (monks)
  • How we imagine the past of the academy, monastic communities
  • Strategies to present those to scholars, invite them in
  • Allergic to fly-throughs: most monks did not fly
  • Abstracting, to invite critical engagement
  • Want them to say "why the heck did you do that?"
  • How people move through space; strategies of access/analysis
  • How people could/couldn't move through space
  • How women were sometimes invited in; only if deceased could enter some of the spaces
  • Allows me to ask different kinds of questions
  • Interested in the work we've been in exploring in looking at larger location of monasticism in landscape
  • Collaborating not only w/ scholarly tech group, but also Earth Lab (geosciences)
  • Data set of places owned by monastery and incorporating into Google Earth
  • Wonders of TEI/encoding, varieties of ways people have their name
  • Kinds of names help localize where people come from, see how monasteries track people interacting w/ landscape
  • Engagement with people/texts allow us to use monastic how-to manuel to track innovation about job descriptions
  • Cellarer (stores and tries wine), etc.
  • How a scholar such as myself has interacted w/ digital technologies in re-creation of texts, archaeology, etc
  • Use these strategies in my teaching

Q & A

Q: Tech as two things - enables work cross-disciplines?
A: As archaeologist, work in teams of people
Kinds of tech that I've used have urged me to move into paleobotany, other fields
Engage fully in the technology, like GIS; have had domain distribution map for a long time (on paper, with dots), but now can produce GIS layers showing nature elements, etc.
Nagging me to think about links rather than sequential chapters; looking at thematic links

Q: In 1985, as professor at Harvard, came down here to work on project on huge workstation
Brown has a long tradition of doing this since the 70's
This could've been someone else showing it with "advanced" systems 25 years ago
Still having the same conversation - this could've happened in 1985 (and did happen then)
Linking contents
Opportunity of PB is to get us out of that lull so we're not treading water, and having the same kind of conversation
Getting the infrastructure that we need; accumulation of parts
Hopefully in 20 years, this won't have to be reinvented again and again
A: My projects, other monastic projects, can eventually share the data we've amassed

18 April - Reflections - Cliff Lynch

  • Want to highlight some mushy places where there's a lot of ambiguity
  • How to sort out ambiguities
  • One of questions heard come up multiple times
  • What makes sense in PB context?
  • People committed to advancing Dig Hum
  • Need to keep testing this question
  • \Tenure/promotion/ etc surfaced early, but PB is in a poor position to address directly
  • Disciplinary / institutional kinds of questions, not cross-institutional
  • Looking at social networking work, how is PB specific?
  • Worth doing, but is it worth doing through alignment w/ 1+ scholarly societies on footprint that's different than PB participants
  • Look carefully at last of workplans - that discussion gave me sense of how we can get rapid inter-institutional leverage by being smart re: what we do
  • Technical specs prob not so clear to faculty/scholars, but bottom line is we could perhaps use PB as a framework
  • Could make use of resources at other institutions w/o doing a lot of paperwork (terms other institutions, contract,s etc) - this would be useful outcome, probably doable very quickly (start on it at least)
  • Need more of those kinds of opportunities
  • Need to be more specific re: services/what we want to package here
  • Talk a lot about services, but there's few examples
  • Specificity is important to make more tangible
  • What services to include, which have a larger base?
  • We've talked about Zotero - it's a nifty piece of work, but it's a piece of work that has a user base that is much bigger than PB, cuts across people in all disciplines
  • How much do you want to get wrapped up in that, how much do you want to say "it's great environmental stuff, but it's not a core service, belongs at some other level"
  • We need to be a lot clearer about assumptions re: centralization vs. distributed things
  • I hear conflicting stories about that in the different parts of the plan, assumptions, maybe I'm just not understanding
  • Does appliance go in institutions, run by PB central?
  • If each institution runs it, how do we deal w/ federation, backup services?
  • How do we handle configuration management/upgrade?
  • How do we deal w/ CIOs who are unhappy about standard config, because it doesn't map to what they think they're doing re: security
  • Talked about exposing campus services, content, maybe held at participant institutions/partners
  • Also talked about re-hosting onto these appliances
  • Going to want some mix of both - don't think that if Hathi Trust becomes a partner, don't necessarily want to replicate book scans in Appliances, unless you've got a huge budget for storage
  • Ambiguity re: centralized vs. decentralized activity
  • Lots of the plan has a "directory like feel" - especially Services Atlas
  • Directory of services, resources, etc.
  • I think here, need to be very careful re: being realistic about incentives
  • Never seen a directory that maintains itself over time
  • Sometimes seen one where there's a thrash of activity as people populate, but character is that they age and become out of date and look silly fast
  • Become resources no one trusts because they're obviously out of date, unless someone's really responsible for maintaining it
  • Gets to centralized vs. distributed, who's doing to step up to responsibility for managing
  • Please don't delude yourself that it's gonna happen somehow¬† because everyone likes the idea
  • Going back to question of aligning incentives, and being mindful of what will motivate people and not, where they get credit: very taken by idea that someone at my table mentioned yesterday re: "could you turn something like the narratives/recipes into a journal?"
  • If not, not much motivation to spend itme doing it - lots of work, what do you get for it?
  • If you can legitimize these into a publication stream, the whole time/investment/reward may change
  • I look around for other places where you can find those kinds of potential alignments.
  • Last points:
  • Originally, viewed as writing a plan for a project that would run 3-5 years
  • As David indicated, basically now there's a multi-level process where you'll lay out a larger picture for 3-5 years, deal w/ funding year-to-year
  • This is going to make it more complicated to do longer-term investments
  • Have to identify in-progress milestones you can point to at the end of the year
  • That's going to push us to looking for places w/ quick wins - prob not a bad thing
  • Would urge to think carefully - this is stupid little practical thing - how you want to connect annual funding cycle with academic calendar
  • New funding cyle in middle of academic year, or so that you can do a full academic year of things that corresponds to funding cycle
  • Not sure what the right answer is, but there are things that might be more strategic than you'd expect
  • A few of the reflections I've had as I've listened to interesting discussions over the last couple days
  • Q: Mark Williams, Re: journal idea, we've got a place that would be happy to host that kind of thing

18 April - Wrap Up

  • Trying to get your guidance and input - what should we focus on, etc
  • Program staff going to spend Mon/Tues looking at all this info and working towards a couple things:
  • Putting together strawman proposal for next 2 years or so based on this
  • Fundamental piece that needs to be done is, based on that, focus proposal/program document - statement of what PB is, what value is (for talking to deans, etc)
  • Case statement: core vision of PB, include some arguments specific for different faculty stories, different parts of academy
  • Work from strategic communications group; there's people who particularly want to help w/ crafting of this summary of what PB is, what the value is
  • Please let us know if you want to work on this
  • Will begin series of discussions w/ institutions, do that in April/May/June
  • Talk w/ you based on what we've developed coming out of this workshop, talking about kind of institutional interest/challenge/interest, etc - what kind of commitment? What do they need clarified?
  • Please send us ASAP (no later than Mon) the areas that you put gold leadership dots on

  • What are we doing in W5?
  • We're getting a shape and feel for it
  • We have dates and a location, but we want to be sure that W5 is the right thing for you al
  • Want to hone in on what PB should be doing; need a little time to think
  • Things change, we have to rethink things, etc
  • Want to make sure the right things happen for W5, keeping dates open for now
  • Will let you know as soon as we have a clearer sense of what we need to be doing - you'll have a better sense of what to do in June
  • Don't think we'll ever come up with a "proper definition" of what is PB, but maybe we'll get close
  • Depending on institutions, we may need to lay out model for PB community/over first few years
  • Institutions may be interested in leading, co-leading
  • W5 could be both a summation and launch
  • Depends on what we can do in the meantime, what kind of conversations we can have
  • Realistically, after W5, in July/Aug, we'll need to do another cycle of conversations w/ institutions
    maybe at that point there's even a clearer definition of value/deliverables
  • Maybe then they can say "Yes, we can do this"
  • Allowing us to move forward with implementation proposal
  • A conversation re: starting things "now"? What might that be?
  • We still have to keep the planning discussion going, but there are things we can do- don't want to just initiate something that ends up being a dead end
  • Think about what W5 means
  • Post-June, maybe then is the time to begin some of the key work we've identified between nowa nd June, start that as series of initial projects,not wait until January for next official round of funding
  • Launch some things that are clear

  • A number of people here, and in discussions, have good ideas about things that are seeds, prototypes, first steps for moving ahead
  • A lot of reasons we do the workshop, a lot of voting, discussion, principles: hard choices will have to be made
  • Mon/Tues - we'll put together next draft, "here's the best way to go next"
  • Have to start moving ahead soon

  • Q: A lot of discussion, program staff will have to do soon
  • Going to be asking, case by case basis, need more feedback?
  • Not as much of the process that happened between earlier workshops - re: working groups?
  • A: Both existing working groups have been doing valuable work, and there's teams of people who talk w/ us in this area
  • After Mon/Tues, get back to working group facilitators and say "based on what we've heard, coudl the working group continue to do some pieces between W4 and W5, go the next step."
    looking at working groups, other groups, maybe do some reconfiguring - that's very important for people who want to make some small contribution even, crafting text, visualizations - keep momentum going

  • Can't beat face-to-face, but want suggestions about how to keep conversation going - anything we can do re: wiki, program staff, etc. to help this community
  • Please let us know

  • Q: Talking w/ people re: education working group vs education action group
  • We'd like to migrate the material from working page to action group page - a more legible, recent place you can go
  • Want to facilitate conversations across working/actions groups - this is critically important between 4 and 5
  • What does that mean in terms of you, re: wiki? Posting something on working group page, redirecting?
  • From perspective of that group, at least, seems like best way to go
  • A: Good suggestion; will contact exiting facilitators and talk about potential transition; include this relationship in follow-up e-mail

  • Things that came out of discussion, points you've made, please e-mail Chad/David - we don't want to lose this
  • There's a lot of "stuff", discussed a lot of ideas, some of it captured on the wiki, can review all those things
  • If you get ideas later, please forward it on
  • We're all in this together, we need help in the working groups, coalescing different activities/ideas
  • Small teams of folks with interest in helping in particular areas - helping with that, would be great

  • What I'm doing for PB, trying to continue conversations & open conversations w/ technology partners
  • Trying to tell the what PB is, and getting the message across
  • If any of those turn into something, something real, we'll want some time building a relationship that's more than a coffee shop conversation
  • We will let you know in terms of what's happening; if you want to engage with this, these are potentially new avenues
  • How can we get the right people at the table to have these conversations?
  • No labels