Views
DSpace was launched in November 2000 with the announcement of a collaboration between MIT Libraries and HP Labs to create a software system with the capability of preserving, indexing and redistributing scholarly research materials, particularly those in electronic form. The purpose of the initiative was to provide stable URLs? and indexing of electronic documents according to community-developed standards, allowing researchers access to an institutional repository of materials that might otherwise be lost. It was originally imagined that DSpace would have particular appeal for the higher education and library communities, but interest has since been expressed by hospitals and other cultural institutions. Applications for DSpace may be more expansive than originally thought, extending to industries that depend on sound record management systems.
Though it was expected that the software would eventually be distributed in an open source fashion, the project development, itself, was to be private. During its first two years, DSpace was developed solely within HP and MIT. At that time, there was no formal governance structure, with project developers reporting to the funding institutions rather than to an official Board for the project. Indeed, though there were periodic press announcements making the case for the creation of a digital preservation repository, there was no direct community engagement.
After the release of DSpace 1.0 in 2002, HP Labs and MIT Libraries sought ways of involving the community in the project. Forums for users and subsets of those users were launched. In addition to soliciting community feedback on the software, a study examining implementations on eight different campuses was executed. This ultimately resulted in the creation of the DSpace Federation User Group, a set of institutions (including Cambridge University, Columbia University, Cornell University, MIT, Ohio State University, University of Rochester, University of Toronto and University of Washington) using DSpace and contributing to its future development. A project to study usage of DSpace among the Federation institutions was funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. DSpace then began trying to determine what governance model would be suitable in the long term, balancing an interest in community involvement, sustainability and mission. Having gone through two phases, DSpace is now on the verge of entering a third.
DSpace version 1.2, released in Spring 2004, reflected the broader involvement, including code and testing contributed by other institutions. Still without a formal governance structure, DSpace had in some respects swung its pendulum in the other direction. It was now a community-moderated community, with few requirements for participation. The first DSpace User Group meeting in 2004 refined the federation model and a “committer” group primarily composed of representatives of institutional users was established. Over time, selection for this committer group became merit-based, with choices made from a large pool of contributors by other committers. Subject-based listservs and Special Interest Groups were also valued parts of the organization. It now has 50-60 volunteers, while a core group of 7-8 people control the code.
In 2005 DSpace entered a third phase which is concluding now. It sought to set some parameters for community involvement, allowing for the creation of a more focused, streamlined and quality-oriented product. A Governance Advisory Board was created to determine which governance model would best serve DSpace, and decided in March that DSpace should pursue the creation of an independent non-profit organization. Meanwhile, a more formal system of contributors and committers was established that considered merit as a qualification for advancement. Commercial service providers were more seriously courted and DSpace began to consider other applications for its software outside of higher education. In this way, DSpace began to concern itself much more with sustainability, trying to reach a medium between the extremes of complete institutional or community control.
MIT and HP have supplied the vast majority of funding for DSpace, both through monetary contributions and through contributions of personnel. (HP and MIT developers no longer dominate the project, but they are represented in both the Committers and Code Contributors pools of DSpace.) In addition, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation supported the research study aimed at determining the most effective ways of involving the community in creating a federation of institutional users. Users typically receive funding from their own universities or grants to cover for installation and maintenance of DSpace. Commercial affiliates of DSpace are presumed to provide some revenue, but the amount is unknown. As DSpace considers alternate governance models, obtaining financial support for the project will be a critical factor in any decision that is made.
Though it was expected that the software would eventually be distributed in an open source fashion, the project development, itself, was to be private. During its first two years, DSpace was developed solely within HP and MIT. At that time, there was no formal governance structure, with project developers reporting to the funding institutions rather than to an official Board for the project. Indeed, though there were periodic press announcements making the case for the creation of a digital preservation repository, there was no direct community engagement.
After the release of DSpace 1.0 in 2002, HP Labs and MIT Libraries sought ways of involving the community in the project. Forums for users and subsets of those users were launched. In addition to soliciting community feedback on the software, a study examining implementations on eight different campuses was executed. This ultimately resulted in the creation of the DSpace Federation User Group, a set of institutions (including Cambridge University, Columbia University, Cornell University, MIT, Ohio State University, University of Rochester, University of Toronto and University of Washington) using DSpace and contributing to its future development. A project to study usage of DSpace among the Federation institutions was funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. DSpace then began trying to determine what governance model would be suitable in the long term, balancing an interest in community involvement, sustainability and mission. Having gone through two phases, DSpace is now on the verge of entering a third.
DSpace version 1.2, released in Spring 2004, reflected the broader involvement, including code and testing contributed by other institutions. Still without a formal governance structure, DSpace had in some respects swung its pendulum in the other direction. It was now a community-moderated community, with few requirements for participation. The first DSpace User Group meeting in 2004 refined the federation model and a “committer” group primarily composed of representatives of institutional users was established. Over time, selection for this committer group became merit-based, with choices made from a large pool of contributors by other committers. Subject-based listservs and Special Interest Groups were also valued parts of the organization. It now has 50-60 volunteers, while a core group of 7-8 people control the code.
In 2005 DSpace entered a third phase which is concluding now. It sought to set some parameters for community involvement, allowing for the creation of a more focused, streamlined and quality-oriented product. A Governance Advisory Board was created to determine which governance model would best serve DSpace, and decided in March that DSpace should pursue the creation of an independent non-profit organization. Meanwhile, a more formal system of contributors and committers was established that considered merit as a qualification for advancement. Commercial service providers were more seriously courted and DSpace began to consider other applications for its software outside of higher education. In this way, DSpace began to concern itself much more with sustainability, trying to reach a medium between the extremes of complete institutional or community control.
MIT and HP have supplied the vast majority of funding for DSpace, both through monetary contributions and through contributions of personnel. (HP and MIT developers no longer dominate the project, but they are represented in both the Committers and Code Contributors pools of DSpace.) In addition, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation supported the research study aimed at determining the most effective ways of involving the community in creating a federation of institutional users. Users typically receive funding from their own universities or grants to cover for installation and maintenance of DSpace. Commercial affiliates of DSpace are presumed to provide some revenue, but the amount is unknown. As DSpace considers alternate governance models, obtaining financial support for the project will be a critical factor in any decision that is made.
| subtopics: |