Meeting #2:

Preparation (MJ & Curt conversation): 

Do we have all the big questions on the table? For example, to what extent is Open a thing in itself, vs. an affordance or facilitation for bigger goals? And what are those bigger goals, that could motivate deeper engagement in Open?

We should consider value propositions by use case. Why produce Open? Why use (teach / learn) with Open? Why support the Open movement?

Deliverables

 


Meeting #1: Define key questions/considerations the Open 2020 Working Group should address. Who is missing? Work products?

Team: Chris B, Hunt, MJ, Curt

Also fold in here the Incentives content from the original Sustainability and Incentives team.

** **

Value Propositions definitely good; what value propositions work for each constituency, where do they conflict vs. align?

Team also wants to include incentives that support behaviors toward the value propositions. Need to resolve overlap with Sustainability + Incentives group.

Definitions of Open, not worth working on - use the Budapest Open Access definition? (ask Nicole, Peter S)

Who is missing? Keep it from being too elite

Metric: public ed wants access and outcomes 

Some value propositions for Open

Questions of scope:

Incentives

Via Willem van Valkenburg:
University: Reputation, quality, innovation
Students: Cost reduction, accessibility, quality, flexibility, modern learning methods
Teachers: Career perspective, possibility to innovate, recognition for education effort, impact

Work products: