Summary Report COMET Governance Listening Sessions | January 23, 2025
By Adam Buttrrick, John Chodacki, Juan Pablo Alperin, Maria Praetzellis and Clare Dean
Governance Outline by COMET convener, Adam Buttrick
Comments aggregated from COMET participant read-ahead feedback and listening sessions on January 23, 2025
Governance Outline
The following was provided as a read-ahead to the listening sessions conducted on January 23, 2025. Comments on the document are combined with those from the listening session and summarized in the participant comments section.
Introduction
Initial taskforce discussions have established that successful implementation of the proposed COMET model requires a robust governance framework to ensure accountability, sustainability, and equitable participation from diverse stakeholders worldwide. We now need to further scope and identify what would constitute a viable governance structure and organizational form. What follows is a discussion framework that presents potential organizational forms and related questions to help guide the development of this governance model.
We are inviting wide participation in these governance discussions. Even if your expertise is not in organizational governance, your perspectives and experiences of different organizational structures will help shape our approach to community inclusion as the governance model evolves. Any and all feedback is welcome!
Overview
The following organizational forms present different pathways for establishing COMET's organizational structure, each with distinct implications for community engagement, operational efficiency, and long-term sustainability. Each presents discrete opportunities and risks and should be assessed relative to both their overall viability and needs exposed in discussions to date. They are not intended to be limiting or exhaustive, but instead meant as a starting point for gathering feedback.
Potential Organizational Forms
1. New Organization
Structure Overview
The proposed COMET model is established as a fully independent nonprofit organization with its own governance structure and staff. This organization is solely responsible for providing its ongoing resource and development needs and is accountable to stakeholders through a board structure, membership model, or similar configuration.
Opportunities
Maximizes autonomy in decision-making
Direct grant eligibility through nonprofit structure
Independent organizational and brand identity
Challenges
Much higher startup costs, both in financial and operational terms
Long and uncertain path to sustainability
Competes for resources and attention with organizations operating in the same space
Has to newly establish its reputation and ability to deliver on goals
2. Joint Project
Structure Overview
The proposed COMET model is operated as a joint project by two or more organizations. It uses a structure like an independent advisory body to establish project autonomy and attend to community needs, composed of both project partners and outside representatives. Host organizations provide most, if not all, staff and operational resources, but may pursue independent funding as is needed or allowed.
Opportunities
Lower initial overhead costs
Faster operational startup
Leverages credibility of parent organizations
Reduces initial risk
Establish feasibility
Challenges
Requires navigation of complex stakeholder relationships with parent organizations
Reconcile competing priorities, both internally at host organizations
More fragile resourcing model. Requires parent organizations continuously honor commitments as well as pursue ongoing assessment and renewal in the face of changing circumstances or market trends.
3. Existing Organization
Structure Overview
The COMET model is established as a service offering at an existing organization aligned with its goals. The organization dedicates or leverages existing resources to support its development and is responsible to its community and stakeholders through existing or newly developed accountability mechanisms.
Opportunities
Immediate operational capability.
Can leverage existing parent organizations reputation and relationships to establish its imprimatur
Low startup costs
Challenges
More limited autonomy. Service development competes with other internal priorities and resource constraints.
Resource competition with other services and initiatives at the parent organization
Overall Governance Goals
Enables broad community participation and lasting trust
Ensures operational efficiency and long-term sustainability
Fosters global representation and equity
Open Questions - Questions posed both by COMET Conveners and Participants
Organizational Structure
Who has ultimate authority over the proposed model's policies, procedures, and their evolution?
How are different stakeholder perspectives (technical, domain expertise, geographic) incorporated into governance decisions?
What is the chain of responsibility for addressing issues or disputes that arise?
How much formal governance structure is there, and what form does it take?
Can we identify a structure that allows COMET to be nimble/able to pivot in its early stages but can then grow as more stakeholders become involved?
Should we start out with one structure and (at a predetermined milestone) transition to a structure more appropriate for a larger organization/movement?
Who is invited/selected to participate in the governance of the organization and how are those decisions made?
How difficult / costly would it be to switch from one option to another (eg. start with an existing org and reach autonomy through a new organization after that) ?
Community and Equity
How do we ensure enrichment policies and standards reflect diverse global needs and contexts?
What structures enable broad community input into governance decisions?
How can we prevent dominance by any one party in decision-making?
How do we balance efficiency of decision-making with inclusive participation?
What support is needed to enable meaningful participation from underrepresented groups?
Operations and Sustainability
How are operational priorities determined and resources allocated?
Who is responsible for maintaining the technical infrastructure and operations of the proposed model?
What is needed for effective oversight of day-to-day operations?
How will the model be funded sustainably? How does COMET define financial sustainability?
How are operational risks assessed and managed?
What level of staffing/resourcing is necessary to accomplish COMET’s initial goals within the scope of an MVP framework?
Is the level of resourcing necessary for the MVPpilot something that can be cobbled together from existing sources (i.e. committed percentage of staff time or volunteer time), or is start-up funding necessary, i.e. concerted fundraising or a grant?
Quality and Trust
What processes ensure consistent application of policies and procedures?
What forms of oversight will ensure the model is deemed trustworthy?
How is compliance with established standards monitored and enforced?
What transparency requirements should exist around enrichment decisions?
Participant Questions and Comments
Note that in this section, participants often term the future community curation model as ‘COMET’, although this naming is unlikely to continue moving forward as ‘COMET’ refers to the Taskforce itself rather than the proposed solution/service. References to ‘COMET’ as the future entity are maintained here for simplicity.
Structure Overview - New Organization
The proposed COMET model is established as a fully independent nonprofit organization with its own governance structure and staff. This organization is solely responsible for providing its ongoing resource and development needs and is accountable to stakeholders through a board structure, membership model, or similar configuration.
COMET participants noted that establishing a new organization might be more time-consuming than described, which could make it less agile than some might hope.
It was suggested that raising funds might be easier through a formal organizational structure, because many funders require this to be a recipient of their support. However, it was also identified that it may be possible to start with a more flexible, informal approach. While it was acknowledged that operating without a formal organization could make securing large grants more difficult, it could be possible to receive smaller contributions at the outset.
A participant expressed that with this structure, it would be helpful for an existing organization to provide guidance and support, as well as financial backing, in its initial phase.
It was emphasized that for this organizational form, consistent community engagement would be requested, as it is difficult for a new organization to build trust and encourage participation in the absence of community support and partnerships.
It was noted that while creating a new organization could be more difficult than the other options proposed, it might be the only option available if the proposed model is unable to find an existing organization or group of organizations aligned with its mission.
A concern was raised that should the proposed COMET model be pursued in any other form than as a new organization, there would be risk of scope creep from partnering with existing organizations, whose interests might expand or shift the project’s focus.
Participants noted that forming a new organization would require creating a distinct legal entity and determining its location, governance structure, and jurisdiction. They noted that these decisions could have social and political implications, especially in terms of making available or limiting funding opportunities. For example, in certain European countries, it was mentioned that funding is only available to entities already established as a specific service or infrastructure. As a result, the proposed COMET model would need to be at a sufficiently advanced state to qualify.
A participant noted that the Make Data Count initiative is hosted by the nonprofit DataCite, but operates as an independent and collaboratively-run project. They suggested that this model could potentially be a good initial approach for the proposed COMET model, before establishing itself as a separate entity.
It was raised that, relative to the number of member organizations in the scholarly communications ecosystem, there can be a sense of membership fatigue among the community. As a result, launching a new organization may be met with resistance. To avoid this, various alternative structures were discussed, such as forming an independent entity that partners with a university or similar group, either for stability or to give it freedom to pursue new or more innovative funding and governance models.
There was agreement among participants that regardless of the organizational form, COMET should stay small and nimble, as well as be sharply focused; and that a new organization would therefore need to be built with these aspects in mind.
Structure Overview - Joint Project
The proposed COMET model is operated as a joint project by two or more organizations. It uses a structure like an independent advisory body to establish project autonomy and attend to community needs, composed of both project partners and outside representatives. Host organizations provide most, if not all, staff and operational resources, but it may pursue independent funding as is needed or allowed.
Participants considered how organizational culture could influence a joint project. They discussed ways to foster unity within such a structure and considered how the cultures of any parent organizations might shape the project’s work.
Participants discussed how resources would be contributed if this structure was used, noting that initial project setup could require significant investment due to the shifting resource availability and the need for agreements potentially involved. They also suggested that while early overhead costs might be lower with this organizational form, securing stable and durable resources could still be challenging, making the structure potentially less stable than others. In this context, ROR was also discussed as a successful example, where it was explained that the project reached a tipping point of stable resourcing through multiple, iterative cycles.
Participants engaged in discussion about the proposed COMET model's relationship to potential host organizations in the joint project structure and whether the COMET would complement the hosts' work or potentially compete with it. It was noted that ROR serves as an example of complementary projects for its host organizations (Crossref, DataCite, and the California Digital Library). By contrast, COMET might end up doing work that its host organizations also want to undertake themselves, creating potential room for conflict.
Following from the preceding point, the group members discussed the ROR model as an example of the ROR model in greater detail. Those involved offered that the joint project structure had been successful overall, but that there were a lot of questions about how it should work from an operational perspective, both historically and in the present. It was explained that ROR's initial approach was iterative, using a cautious approach to resourcing, with ongoing review of data and benchmarks to identify the true resource needs. It was also noted that within this context, ROR spent considerable time and effort exploring alternative scenarios sustainability. While it eventually arrived at the joint project model, there was also exploration of whether it should become its own organization, be absorbed into another organization, and how its service offerings would factor into its sustainability (e.g. whether offering a premium data service would be necessary). Participants also learned that commitments to its primary resources were enforced through a memorandum of understanding, with additional and more informal types of support acting as a supplement to these. It was further noted in the case of ROR, success as a joint project meant making sure that there was equal commitment from all project partners, to avoid the risk of interests becoming unbalanced or favoring one organization over another.
Participants also used ROR as an example to explore the types of resources needed for joint projects. These included technical infrastructure, the financial costs of running a project, administrative support, and the processes involved in applying for grant funding.
Participants discussed whether a joint project allows for a broader scope, and also if a potential benefit of the joint project model is that each organization acts as a set of checks and balances on the project’s overall operation, and, by doing so, better reflects the composition and needs of the community it serves.
Participants were also interested in identifying the best organizational structure to facilitate external contributions, noting that there are contributions of many different types in addition to funding, such as metadata and various forms of related reviews.
A participant noted that the joint project structure may be more time-bound than the other forms, and that there should be consideration of what framework would be used to decide if the project has been successful and how this should inform its evolution.
Structure Overview - Existing Organization
The COMET model is established as a service offering at an existing organization aligned with its goals. The organization dedicates or leverages existing resources to support its development and is responsible to its community and stakeholders through existing or newly developed accountability mechanisms.
Participants discussed the importance of working with the right organization, and also the nature of its partnership with the proposed COMET model. They commented that there are differences between an organization being a fiscal sponsor, a permanent home, or a temporary host, where the existing organization provides the infrastructure to launch the initiative, with the assumption that eventually it will take another form (e.g. become its own organization).
It was suggested that partnering with an established organization, that already benefits from the community’s trust, could increase the likelihood of the proposed COMET model’s success, reducing the need to rebuild networks and gain this credibility from scratch. However, it was also noted that there is a corresponding potential downside: if the organization has reputational issues, those could negatively affect the project’s standing.
It was noted that a risk in partnering with an existing organization is that it could shift leadership too heavily toward this organization, in turn, diminish any community-driven aspects of the project’s governance.
Participants mentioned that existing organizations may require that the proposed COMET model's goals be aligned with their own and that challenges could result from this. For example, while it was important from the participants’ perspective that the project remain freely available and open source, this approach could raise sustainability concerns relative to the organization’s financing model or how they otherwise approach similar work.
Participants raised questions about the length of relationship: whether working within an existing organization would be a short or long-term plan; what level of support the existing organization would need to provide; and if it would be limited to fiscal/administrative sponsorship, or if the organization would view the proposed COMET model as a program/project within their organization.
Participants explored the idea of fiscal/administrative support vs. program/project support in more detail, noting that being fiscal sponsors does not need to preclude also being active participants; but that also, depending on the organization, they could end up steering the work more than the community would otherwise intend. It was noted that an organization that sees itself too much in terms of being the sole stakeholder would risk resources/efforts being drawn exclusively to the improvement of their own data.
It was noted that from the user perspective, having a single host organization could make it easier for users to have one point of contact.
One participant noted that COMET’s goals might not align well with those of existing identifier providers, given that the proposed COMET model might approach data ownership in a different fashion. They suggested the consideration of additional hosts, highlighting the Internet Archive as a possible candidate, relative to some of their recent that is aligned with the proposed COMET model’s objectives.
Alternative Governance Structures Suggested
A fourth organizational structure was proposed by a participant, outlined as follows:
‘A transparent coordination process for decision making and action.
Is it possible to conceive of a mechanism for making decisions about implementation and moving forward that does not require a formal governance mechanism per se, or any organizational form, but allows for interested parties to engage in a process of agreeing how to move this forward?
This is included more as a provocation/thought experiment than a concrete proposal, but I would encourage at least some brainstorming on whether there is a way to avoid the need for a formal structure. Ideas on how this might work could also help to define which of 1-3 provide truly necessary functionality.’
Relative to the preceding suggestion, one participant asked the group to consider the example of a global consortium that collaborates under a host organization. In this model, member organizations pay a fee and have representation on a governance committee, while non-paying participants contribute through community and working groups. The participant suggested that a similar structure might be more suitable for the proposed COMET model than placing it at one or a small group of organizations.
Additional Comments
Some participants lacked strong feelings about the organizational structure that would work best, but rather felt that the structure employed would depend on the organizations interested in participating.
A participant noted that the way decisions are made (the governance process) matters more than the specific organizational structure.
A participant raised a question about how the sustainability model and the governance model relate to each other, and which should be decided on first.
It was suggested that the proposed COMET model may begin as a joint project or as part of an existing organization during the pilot phase, and then transition to a more independent structure—either under a fiscal sponsor or as a standalone nonprofit—if greater independence is needed.
One participant commented that the focus of the governance thinking should revolve around considerations of how complex stakeholder relationships would be navigated. They highlighted that there are multiple organizations whose collaboration would be required to enable the work. They also noted that working with an existing organization may work against building those relationships, while starting a new organization is hard to justify, as there are so many potential participants already working at other organizations. In this context, they found the added suggestion for ‘A transparent coordination process for decision making and action’ appealing, as they think there are many who already want to make this initiative work and who could thus reasonably initiate the work.
A participant stressed the importance of an independent governance model to clarify who holds ultimate authority over the model’s policies, procedures, as well as their evolution over time. They likewise emphasized the need for transparency in how metadata enrichment frameworks are developed, as well as who decides what can be done—and by which parties.