Katherine Skinner Educopia Institute and MetaArchive Cooperative Matt Schultz Educopia Institute and MetaArchive Cooperative NDIIPP Partners Meeting Arlington, Virginia July 20-22, 2010

2

 Founded on the premise that cultural memory organizations should maintain their historical role as cultural stewards  Chose technical and organizational infrastructure that capitalizes on cultural memory organization’s proven methodologies  Distributed preservation  Partnership to keep costing affordable 3

4 14 US Members + Lib. of Congress MetaArchive 17 members 11 states/districts 3 countries MetaArchive 17 members 11 states/districts 3 countries

 Auburn University  Boston College  Clemson University  Emory University  Florida State Univ.  Folger Shakespeare Lib.  Georgia Tech  Indiana State Univ.  Library of Congress  Penn State University  Pontifícia Universidade Católica (Rio)  Rice University  Univ. of Hull  Univ. of Louisville  Univ. of North Texas  Univ. of South Carolina  Virginia Tech  NDLTD  SDSC 5

To address sustainability and attractiveness of preservation need to consider our:  Collections  Technical Infrastructure  Organizational Infrastructure 6

 Format-agnostic solution  Works with any repository system  Collections must be available via http 7

 MetaArchive provides a cost-effective cooperative structure:  based on re-use of LOCKSS for archives  Network participation as a MetaArchive- LOCKSS cache is simple and inexpensive 8

Organizational model  Preservation solution needed a long-term, sustainable infrastructure  Question arose: Who’s in charge of a Cooperative of peer institutions?  Separated the administrative apparatus and member institutions  provides a clear line of leadership and responsibility  helps to keep any one member’s goals from unduly influencing the cooperative’s direction  gives leverage for external partnerships 9 9

1. Accommodate programmatic growth and avoid organizational memory loss. 2. Grow programs/projects without losing core strengths. 3. Expand credibility among opinion leaders and decision-makers (aka branding). 10

1. Diversify and expand funding 2. Develop staff capacity/administrative infrastructure 3. Build recognition of Educopia Institute 4. Promote DDP among cultural memory organizations 5. Identify new program areas 6. Ensure continued vitality of MetaArchive Cooperative 11

1. Increase membership by 12 additional institutions by Emphasis on attracting smaller institutions, perhaps as part of consortia 3. To that end, devise a new membership category: Collaborative Members 12

 Current tiered membership: $5K or $1K/yr  Server cost: $4,600/3 years (currently)  Space is at cost: $0.67/GB/year for six replications  Inspired by interest from coordinated groups of institutions—i.e. collaboratives—with central repositories  One possibility: $1,000/year for the collaborative, plus $100/year per institution, for three years 13

 Collaborative must have a lead organization, empowered to enter into legal agreements on the collaborative’s behalf  The collaborative must have a central repository  The collaborative must apply for membership in the MetaArchive Cooperative  Membership decisions will be made by the MetaArchive Steering Committee 14

 Collaborative Members would enjoy the full array of rights under the Cooperative Charter, including:  Retrieval of the Member’s content in case of a catastrophic loss at that Member’s organization;  Assistance with LOCKSS software and any other improvements and ancillary software developed by the Cooperative;  Technical support. 15

 Guarantee sufficient rights and permissions to enable full participation in a DDP network;  Run a centralized repository through which all content will be prepared, staged, and ingested into the MetaArchive network;  Host and maintain a MetaArchive server in the same location as the centralized repository;  Write plugins for collections that will be harvested into the MetaArchive network 16

 reducing our short- and long-term costs  Investing in a commonly-owned solution, not purchasing a service  Sharing technological development and organizational tasks  decentralizing our activities  Safety in this “brave new world” of digital preservation may well reside in shared knowledge and shared commitment  decreasing dependence on third-party solutions  There is room for various types of solutions  Increased capacity for acting as a community of cultural stewards 17

Dr. Katherine Skinner Matt Schultz