This conversation is part of Educopia’s ongoing effort to surface and share learnings from communities navigating periods of significant transition. Over the past year, Educopia worked closely with the BitCurator Consortium (BCC) as they explored and enacted a shift to a new fiscal host. Drawing on our experience supporting mission-aligned communities through structural and strategic change, we helped facilitate BCC’s transition across multiple touchpoints—from identifying the right fit for BCC’s mission and vision to supporting infrastructure, governance, finance and HR, and community engagement.
This transition was made possible through the leadership and dedication of BCC’s Transition Team (comprising members of the Executive Council and volunteers from the community), whose guidance and vision helped steward the community through each stage of the process.
In this interview, we’ll walk through a series of questions that offer space for BCC leaders to reflect on the transition period (from April 2024 through March 2025) and share insights and lessons that may help other communities navigating similar shifts.
What were some of the key factors that led to BCC’s decision to transition to a new fiscal sponsor?
BCC Leadership: One of the biggest factors we considered was BCC’s financials, especially the proposed changes to the fiscal sponsorship model. We had to take a hard look at our projections for the next few years and be realistic about how many new members we were gaining versus how many were ending their memberships. We didn’t think any of the financial scenarios would work, especially since they required significantly increasing membership fees, restructuring the fee model, and implementing those changes quickly.
Given that many of our members are university and academic institutions, we wanted to ensure they had enough time to plan for any changes to membership fees. With the timelines and financial realities we were facing, we realized that continuing under the existing model would be challenging. Together with Educopia, we determined that transitioning to a new fiscal sponsor would better support BCC’s financial sustainability. Educopia worked closely with us to make sure the transition was responsible and smooth, and we’re grateful for their partnership throughout the process.
Throughout the process, especially during the community calls, we did a great job of being transparent and open about what was happening. That transparency helped when it came time to decide on the new fiscal sponsor. Once OLF was chosen, there weren’t many questions or concerns. No one asked, “Why OLF?” or “Why not another sponsor?” People seemed satisfied with the decision, which we believe reflects how transparent and communicative we were throughout the process.
Finance-related questions that groups navigating similar transitions might ask themselves:
- How does your new sponsor’s fee structure affect your budgetary flexibility?
- How will funds flow under the new sponsor (e.g., grant disbursements, invoice processing, budget authority)?
- Are there new accounting systems or reporting practices we’ll need to adopt?
- What financial risks or benefits are introduced (e.g., greater autonomy, fewer services, different fee structures)?
- How will we forecast and plan for long-term sustainability under the new arrangement?
- What new fundraising or grant opportunities are now accessible (e.g., tax-deductible donations)?
- How are you aligning financial choices with your community’s stated values?
For readers who may not be familiar with BCC or who didn’t review the related publications or attend the events, can you briefly describe the sustainability town halls—what they were, why they were convened, and how they preceded the decision to transition?
BCC Leadership: In fall 2023, the Executive Council organized a series of town halls to assess the sustainability of the BitCurator Consortium—not just as a community, but also in terms of the BitCurator environment itself. The software is open source and freely available, and we wanted to understand both why people were joining BCC and why they weren’t. We had some ideas about our unique value proposition, but we needed to hear directly from members and users.
We hosted two types of town halls: one open to anyone who had used or considered using the environment, and one closed session with current members. We asked structured questions and used tools like virtual whiteboards to gather and rank feedback. We wanted to know what people valued, what they wanted more of, what was missing, and what barriers prevented them from joining.
The Executive Council reviewed this feedback as Educopia was conducting its own internal review. We realized that to sustain the environment, we needed more consistent support for software maintenance. Up to that point, the environment had relied almost entirely on volunteers. We wanted to find a way to fund ongoing maintenance as a show of support for the software and its contributors.
We also planned to adjust internal roles and responsibilities. For example, we considered shifting some facilitation work from our community facilitator to committees and the Executive Council. This would free up our facilitator to focus on preparing for hiring a software maintenance partner.
At the time, we were thinking about a very different kind of transition—focused on software sustainability, membership models, and increasing dues. We hadn’t raised fees in over a decade, and we knew change was needed. But when Educopia introduced new staffing requirements, we realized we couldn’t meet them without depleting our reserves. We appreciated the services Educopia provided, but continuing under those terms wasn’t financially viable. To stay, we would have needed to bring in 10 or more new member organizations within a year while also accounting for possible attrition—something we weren’t confident we could do.
That’s when we started conversations with Educopia about what was next. Together, we came to the mutual decision that BCC needed to find a new fiscal sponsor aligned with our financial situation and future goals.
We also heard clearly from our members: BCC’s greatest value is the software. So going forward, we’ve budgeted for software maintenance. Members also told us they deeply value the annual virtual forum and monthly community calls—the opportunities to connect, learn, and share with peers. In other words, BCC is a community of practice. As we move forward, we’ll continue to support that community while investing in the sustainability of the software.
At the very outset of the transition, what were some of the unknowns that felt most challenging for the transition team? What uncertainties were you all holding as the process was just beginning?
BCC Leadership: One of the first challenges was understanding what fiscal sponsorship actually entails: what roles fiscal sponsors play and what services they provide. From there, we had to identify which fiscal sponsors were out there and who might be a good fit for BCC. That alone felt daunting. There were many moving parts and unknowns, especially early on, and it wasn’t clear where to begin.
As we moved through the transition, finding the right fit became increasingly important, and increasingly challenging. At times, we thought we had potential matches, only to have them fall through, either because they weren’t a fit or because we had to back out. It raised real questions: What if we don’t find a new sponsor in time? What happens to BCC if we don’t?
The biggest challenge overall was navigating the landscape of fiscal sponsorship: understanding the concept, identifying viable options, and determining whether we had choices at all. Initially, it felt overwhelming. What helped was breaking the process into manageable tasks.
Another challenge was evaluating what would be covered under a new sponsor—what costs and services were essential, and which were nice to have. For example, how would administrative support or staffing costs be handled? Each potential sponsor offered different things, and as we learned more, some of our initial “needs” shifted into “wants.” We had to continually reassess our priorities.
With our current sponsor, OLF, there are still unknowns. We’re learning how they’re structured, what they support, and how that aligns with BCC’s operations. Moving forward, we’ll continue to evaluate what’s essential for BCC and what we can adjust.
Looking back, we weren’t sure we’d find a new fiscal sponsor by our deadline—Educopia’s new fiscal year. We worried we’d end up without a sponsor, unsure where to hold our reserve funds. We also worried about member retention—whether institutions would leave due to uncertainty, or whether we’d need to issue refunds. But those fears eased once we created a timeline, broke down the work, and got clearer on the legal and financial aspects of fiscal sponsorship. Even though we had a healthy reserve, we weren’t sure we could afford a new sponsor until we better understood how different sponsors priced and structured their services.
Governance-related questions that groups navigating similar transitions might ask themselves:
- What decision-making authority does the project/community retain, and what is transferred to the new sponsor?
- How does the fiscal sponsor’s governance model interface with the group’s existing leadership or council?
- What processes or charters need revision to reflect new roles, responsibilities, or oversight structures?
- Will we need to formalize new agreements, like MOUs or bylaws, to clarify governance?
- How will responsibilities shift if you no longer have an embedded facilitator or central support staff?
- How are you identifying and developing new leaders, especially those from underrepresented or early-career groups?
- What scaffolding (e.g., agendas, onboarding guides, facilitation tools) do you need to support distributed leadership and reduce burnout?
- What training or mentorship programs can help community members feel confident stepping into facilitation or governance roles?
Building on some of that pre-transition work and context, how did the efforts leading up to the decision to transition help the BCC transition team navigate the early unknowns? For example, in what ways did that groundwork inform materials like the organizational dossier that were shared with potential fiscal sponsors?
BCC Leadership: One of the biggest unknowns, even before we decided to seek a new fiscal sponsor, was how to talk about it. How do we bring it up with Educopia? How do we broach the conversation with the membership? There were real fears that it might not go well. As the Executive Council (EC), we spent time preparing ourselves to have that conversation (both internally and with Educopia while also keeping things running as normally as possible until we were ready to share the news more broadly.
We didn’t know how members would react once we made the announcement, or how the broader community would respond once it became public. Those were uncertainties we just couldn’t fully anticipate. We prepared for the worst, but thankfully the reaction was overwhelmingly positive.
What helped us move through that uncertainty was increasing the frequency of EC meetings. We usually met monthly, but during that period we held a lot of ad hoc meetings—some just for the EC to debrief, ask questions, and align on our understanding, and others with Educopia to check in and ensure we were all on the same page. That regular communication helped us process things together and move forward.
Once we collectively decided that finding a new fiscal sponsor was the right move, another challenge emerged: leadership capacity. Many EC members were preparing to rotate off, and we had to ask ourselves hard questions. Who would lead the transition? Should we recruit new EC members and throw them into a major shift they hadn’t been part of preparing for? Could we shrink the EC and still be in compliance with our charter and bylaws?
We ultimately made the decision to transition from a full EC to a smaller transition team, and that required a direct ask to the membership. We’re incredibly grateful to the outgoing EC members who helped us work through those decisions and lay the groundwork. Their input helped shape a structure that allowed us to move forward.
We also didn’t know at the beginning whether Educopia would be able or willing to support us through the process. But once it became clear that we’d form a joint transition team, with Educopia alongside BCC members, it made a huge difference. None of us were experts in fiscal sponsorship transitions. Knowing we weren’t alone, that we were doing this together, provided clarity, confidence, and structure in the face of so much unknown.
This work felt less like digital preservation and more like community preservation. We were holding not just systems and infrastructure, but the relationships and values that make this community what it is.
At the start, we had a rough idea of what we wanted the transition team to look like and a very ambitious goal: to complete the fiscal sponsorship transition by the end of March 2025. That deadline felt both distant and impossibly close. Still, it gave us bearings—a direction to move in. We worked together to assess what was realistic and what wasn’t.
Initially, we thought we could tackle both the fiscal sponsor transition and find a software maintenance partner simultaneously. But through our check-ins, we realized that was too much. One transition was already a full load. So we prioritized the fiscal sponsorship and put the software piece on hold. That kind of prioritization, asking “what matters most right now?”, became a regular rhythm.
Building those dossiers was invaluable. It forced us to step back and take stock of the full scope of our work—who we are, what we do, what our committees are working on, and what kind of community we’ve become over the last decade. That kind of reflection had been hard to make time for in the day-to-day, but it was essential not only for choosing the right fiscal sponsor, but also for presenting ourselves clearly to potential partners, because they were evaluating us just as much as we were evaluating them.
We received suggestions from community members about potential fiscal sponsors, and that support made the process feel collective. Even though the transition team carried most of the day-to-day workload, it still felt like the broader community was involved.
As we met with different potential sponsors, we imagined different versions of our future: what would we need to build at Sponsor X versus Sponsor Y? How would that change our community structure? What kind of budget would be required? Each conversation helped us refine what was essential, what was negotiable, and how the community might evolve under different models.
The whole process was daunting, but having a clear timeline, milestones, and structure made it manageable. Weekly meetings felt like a big commitment at first, but they turned out to be absolutely necessary. They kept us grounded and allowed us to move steadily forward. And we’ve also had to accept: the unknowns won’t end with the transition. There will continue to be uncertainty, and we’ll keep navigating it together.
Engagement-related questions that groups navigating similar transitions might ask themselves:
- How do we announce and explain the transition to members, funders, and partners?
- What documentation and messaging are needed to clarify the “why,” “how,” and “what’s next”?
- How do we ensure continuity of key partnerships, funding relationships, and collaborative projects?
- What role do transparency and community involvement play in building support for the decision?
- What feedback channels or listening mechanisms should be in place during the transition?
- What mechanisms are you using to reflect on what is working and what isn’t during the transition? How are you creating space to share lessons learned with others in the field?
- How do you realign community expectations to match your new operational and facilitation capacities? What structures will help new members understand how to get involved and contribute meaningfully?
- How can you intentionally collaborate with other communities of practice, including those under the same fiscal sponsor? Are there opportunities to co-host workshops, co-develop training, or create shared toolkits?
- What structures or networks would help align your group’s efforts with broader field-wide strategies?
- How are you communicating the value and vulnerabilities of your work to your broader ecosystem?
- What role do you want your community to play in the evolving landscape of digital preservation or stewardship?
You’ve already started to reflect on some of the factors that made this transition successful, things like sustained time, consistent check-ins, and intentional communication across all involved. Are there other lessons or key conditions you’d want to abstract or compost from the BCC experience that might help other communities of practice navigate a similar transition?
BCC Leadership: Communication was key, especially with the membership. We aimed to be as open, honest, and transparent as possible. Some parts of the process stayed within the transition team, not because we were withholding information, but because not everything needed to be shared. It was important to identify what was most valuable to communicate with the community, and to offer multiple ways for people to give feedback.
We were also aware that we were communicating with multiple communities and stakeholders, and had to balance what stayed internal with what we shared externally. Being clear as a team about what we would communicate, and presenting a united front, was essential, even when we didn’t all agree. At the end of the day, once we made a decision, we stood by it together.
It was also important to be open and honest with each other about the process—our feelings, what worked, what didn’t, and how to navigate challenges. Flexibility was critical. We did most of the work over the summer, during vacations and conference season, so sometimes we worked together in meetings and other times asynchronously. We supported each other: if someone was unavailable, others stepped in.
That kind of communication and trust within the team was vital. If we had held back from one another, we don’t think we would have moved forward as well as we did. Those were some of the core ingredients to our success.
If another community of practice in the GLAM landscape is about to undergo a similar transition, what key advice or best practices would you recommend they incorporate?
BCC Leadership: Two things to highlight are, first, the importance of being transparent, honest, and open within the transition team. We had discussions where we needed to be frank, and our meetings gave us space to do that. Even when we saw things differently, we were still able to come to equitable and inclusive decisions. That dynamic worked well in part because Educopia genuinely supported us. We didn’t feel like we had to walk on eggshells—everyone was committed to making this succeed. That’s a crucial mindset for any transition.
Another key factor was the size and makeup of the transition team. Keeping it small helped, and everyone involved was open-minded. When there were differences in perspective, they were never taken personally or disrespectfully. That created a healthy environment where we never felt judged or worried about speaking up. It’s something that’s not discussed enough, but it’s vital. People need to be able to express themselves honestly, and do so respectfully. That openness helped reduce a lot of potential barriers and challenges. We were lucky to have a group like this, but it’s a reminder that when forming a team like this, you need people who will be respectful—otherwise, it can fall apart quickly.
For other GLAMs going through a similar transition, we’d add that being open-minded is essential during change. We looked beyond the cultural heritage domain when researching fiscal sponsors. We started with a list of sponsors supporting GLAM-aligned software and communities, but we also explored those working toward broader social good or supporting future 501(c)(3)s. We even talked with a sponsor focused specifically on tech projects. Ultimately, we went with the Open Library Foundation, which aligns with both software and library work.
The BCC’s transition isn’t complete just because the fiscal sponsorship moved from Educopia to OLF. Now that you’re part of OLF, you’ll be forming and norming in new ways and at different scales. How does your experience of this transition shape your future vision for the BCC?
BCC Leadership: We have to learn how OLF operates. They have a very different model and relationship with their project communities—how they relate to and interact with one another is very collaborative, in ways we may not be used to. BCC has generally been in a bit of a bubble, and now we have to branch out. What does that look like, and who’s doing that work? Rebuilding the Executive Council is part of it. We froze memberships during this process, so how do we reach back out to the folks who initially wanted to join but were told we were pausing? We’d love to bring them in now that the transition is complete. Maybe that means a membership campaign or some outreach to get folks back on board.
We also need to realign our members’ expectations. OLF’s leadership is much more hands-off, and not having an embedded community facilitator means we’ll have to take on more as an organization. That might involve asking for more help with planning community calls. Maybe we don’t do them monthly anymore. What should our committees look like—do we add new ones or remove some? This is a chance to rethink our structure, especially with OLF’s events like WOLFcon. What do our events look like in relation to theirs, which they encourage all projects to participate in?
The software maintenance partnership is still on the table, and OLF’s focus on software gives us access to different kinds of expertise. We can ask how other projects are operating, what we can learn from them, and what we want to carry forward for BCC. We had a great decade of growth. Now we’re looking ahead to a new phase: continuing BCC, growing it further, and also revisiting ideas from our past, like the town halls. There’s valuable insight there. The question now is how we do that work in this new future, and what we want that future to be.
It’s not just about leadership, it’s about the whole community taking stock and looking at the broader landscape. The digital preservation field is shifting. Are there new partnerships we can pursue? Other groups we can collaborate with? We still have some scaffolding to build, but we’re really looking forward to what takes shape.
Vision-related questions that groups navigating similar transitions might ask themselves:
- How do the sponsor’s mission, policies, and cultural norms align with our community’s?
- How does the sponsor support (or constrain) our strategic vision?
- Will the new model better enable our project to grow, adapt, or sunset responsibly?
- How does this fiscal sponsorship transition shape your future vision for the community or project?
- How does the sponsor’s broader mission, culture, and governance model align with your community’s long-term direction?
- What assumptions about your group’s role in the ecosystem need to be revisited in this new context?
As you reflect on both the broader and more detailed shifts involved in the transition, how is this moment shaping your approach to BCC’s internal structures, resource choices, and longer-term sustainability?
BCC Leadership: Even before the transition began, BCC was already exploring internal transformations. This moment gives us a chance to reflect on where we want to go, how we’ll get there, and what tools are now available. We now have a better understanding of what resources OLF offers and how they align with our goals. The new administrative coordinator position is a strong step in the right direction.
This is also a good time for internal housekeeping—revisiting how our committees are structured, how we communicate with our communities. One thing that didn’t occur to me until we started talking to different fiscal sponsors was the platforms we use: where we store our documentation, the formats we use, and whether they’re proprietary or open source. These choices matter and get down to the nitty-gritty. It’s a little overwhelming to move between the macro and micro perspectives, but these shifts can help promote and expand BCC through initiatives like WOLFcon and collaboration with other OLF community members.
This moment also gives us a chance to reconsider how we use our resources—and to align our investments with our values. What platforms are we using? What software? If we ever go through another transition, what lessons from this one can help us maintain our systems, documents, and operations more smoothly? This is a chance to reflect and potentially make future transitions easier. Or, we may find we’re already in a good place. Either way, this is an important time to look closely at the details.
We’ll be operating more independently with OLF than we did with Educopia. We’ll be paying a lower annual fee for OLF’s services, so we may have more room in our budget to support new projects or community needs. As an SMLLC, we can now accept tax-deductible donations and grants in our own name, which is exciting. In the future, it would be great for BCC to be supported not just by member institutions, but also by others invested in digital preservation. Working with our committees and members, BCC now has the freedom to revisit and reimagine its direction.
Infrastructure-related questions that groups navigating similar transitions might ask themselves:
- What operational or administrative workflows will change (e.g., hiring, contracting, grant management)?
- What platforms or systems (e.g., for financial reporting, HR, project management) will the new sponsor require?
- What onboarding or training will staff, leadership, or members need?
- What support does the sponsor provide for capacity building, compliance, or technical setup?
- What systems need to be adapted to ensure continuity, institutional memory, and future portability?
- What peer projects or consortia might offer models, insights, or complementary strengths?
Building on your perspective of the Digital Stewardship space and reflecting on the skills you’ve gained during the transition, what skills would you hope to see developed—not only within the BCC community but across the broader field—that could help realize your vision for a thriving BCC and a flourishing ecosystem of complementary communities of practice? [This question is inspired by adrienne maree brown and Autumn Brown, who posed a similar question to guests on the Witch Season series of the How to Survive the End of the World podcast.]
BCC Leadership: One of the things we’d really like to see more of is open, honest dialogue about where our organizations stand. It’s easy to assume that long-standing groups are stable and fully supported, but the truth is that even the most established organizations need structure and care to keep going. If we want them to remain active contributors to the BitCurator community (and to the broader digital preservation ecosystem) we need to recognize that and support them accordingly.
BitCurator is a pillar in many individuals’ and institutions’ digital preservation workflows. Losing it would be a huge blow to the field. So the question becomes: how do we, as a community, communicate the value of this work and build mutual support so we can all thrive? BitCurator is one piece of a larger puzzle—we’re one tool in the toolkit. We’d love to see more intentional collaboration among the leadership of different groups: how can we uplift each other, especially when we’re often reaching out to the same institutions for participation or support?
Could we co-host workshops? Co-develop skill-building programs? There’s strong demand in our communities for more training opportunities—things have changed, and we have new people entering the field, including institutions exploring digital preservation for the first time. No single group can meet that demand alone. We need to pool our resources and work together.
For organizations going through transitions (like changing fiscal sponsors) we also hope we can create space to share what we’ve learned. We shouldn’t be afraid to ask each other: “How did you do this?” or “What worked for you?” Transparency makes us stronger. None of us wants to end up writing a letter of dissolution. So how do we help each other avoid that? How do we build resilience into our infrastructures?
We want to see more collaboration between leadership teams, smaller working groups, and committees doing joint programming. That’s how we’ll survive and grow in this moment: by sharing resources, building capacity together, and strengthening the ecosystem as a whole.
It’s already been helpful to connect with leaders from other organizations. There’s so much overlap—many of us serve in multiple communities or have worked together in different capacities. Strengthening those relationships is key. We have started conversations with several other orgs in the digital preservation and archives space. It really feels like the beginning of something promising.
Given the importance of collaboration, adaptability, and ongoing learning you described, what specific skills do you believe are essential for digital stewardship practitioners to develop to foster a truly connected and resilient ecosystem?
BCC Leadership: The idea of collaboration and sharing, of truly working together, is so important in this context. It’s a foundational value in our profession. As archivists, digital preservationists, and stewards, we’ve always emphasized collaboration, community, and mutual support. That’s especially true across the GLAM fields, where many of us have grown used to tight-knit networks of sharing, outreach, and professional generosity
Reflecting on an earlier comment about new people entering the field and the growing need for more consistent and accessible workshops—there’s a whole new generation of archivists, curators, and digital stewards entering the space. They’re coming in with fresh perspectives and skill sets. Some may have heard of BCC but don’t yet know what we offer or how our tools work. Others may have been in the field for a while but haven’t had to work directly with digital objects or digital preservation until recently.
That’s why offering regular, accessible workshops is so essential. Not just one-offs, but a consistent cadence of training and orientation. It helps us meet people where they are and onboard new users into our community. It also creates space for us to learn from them: how they’re using our tools, what’s still working, and what might need to evolve. This feedback loop is vital for keeping our tools relevant and responsive.
It also opens the door to collaboration with other organizations. For example, BCC might focus on one set of tools, while another org is developing something complementary. Rather than operating in silos, we could build shared toolkits—flexible sets of resources that institutions can tailor to their needs, based on their capacity, technical infrastructure, and staff skill sets. That’s where we think we need to go: not just operating in isolation, but contributing to a broader ecosystem of tools and practices.
We need to see ourselves not as a standalone solution, but as one piece of a larger toolbox. And that means keeping our tools sharp, current, and adaptive, not letting them grow rusty or irrelevant.
Going through this fiscal transition has taught us a lot. One of the biggest lessons is about adaptability: being able to shift and respond not just to our own internal needs or those of our immediate community, but to the needs of the broader field. That kind of flexibility is a soft skill we all need to develop: being able to listen, learn, and pivot with intention. If we can keep doing that, we’ll stay relevant and resilient, no matter what changes come our way.
Communities of practice within Digital Stewardship often complement each other by focusing on their strengths, and workshops and training play a key role in supporting practitioners. Since digital preservation is an intergenerational effort, how can we ensure that those with less exposure to these communities can understand the landscape, see what’s happening, and identify where they can contribute? Considering that many practitioners bring skills relevant to their institutional roles but may lack training in broader community leadership, what leadership or systems skills need to be intentionally developed to foster successful collaboration across the field?
BCC Leadership: One of the things we’ve learned through this whole process, and through being involved more deeply in this community, is that leading can be scary. Facilitating a meeting, stepping into a leadership role, even just proposing an idea for a community call—it can feel overwhelming, especially if you haven’t done it before.
That’s why we’d love to see our organizations invest more in building leadership capacity and facilitation skills. We need to create spaces where people feel supported and encouraged to step up—where they know they’ll have the structure, tools, and guidance they need. If someone has an idea for a topic or a call, they should feel confident that they can bring it to life, not just because they’re passionate, but because the community has built scaffolding to help them succeed.
And this really matters, not just to lessen the burden on the same folks who are always stepping up to lead, but to create a more sustainable model of participation. We talk a lot about financial sustainability in this work, but there’s another kind of sustainability to consider: member sustainability. That’s about making sure people feel empowered to step in, contribute, and eventually step back, knowing others are ready and able to take their place.
To do that, we need to invest in very practical skills: how to write an agenda, how to run a meeting, how to take notes, how to hold space for others, and how to enforce a code of conduct. These may seem basic, but they aren’t always part of people’s day-to-day roles, especially in more technical or solitary positions. We also need to offer more general workshops, not just on digital preservation, but on organizational goal-setting, group facilitation, and the softer side of leadership.
Because collaboration isn’t just a value, it’s a skill, and it’s not always intuitive. Sometimes we forget that collaboration means reaching out, sharing the load, bouncing ideas around, and recognizing where your strengths complement someone else’s. We may talk about it often, but how often do we actually teach it? Or practice it intentionally?
Networking, too, is a skill that’s often assumed rather than taught. Who do you reach out to when you want to collaborate? How do you even find them? How do you cold-email someone you’ve never met with an idea? What makes one message resonate when 29 others go unanswered? These are real barriers, especially for newer folks or people who don’t feel like they “belong” yet.
So if we want to build a truly thriving, sustainable ecosystem, we need to take these questions seriously. We can’t just hope people will figure it out, we have to teach, model, and support it.
And there’s another piece: the pathways people take into this field. Many of us come to digital preservation from different backgrounds—some of us from archives, others from IT, others from completely different careers. Some of those folks already have incredible skills in leadership or community-building that don’t always get recognized or leveraged in digital preservation circles. Can we make more room for them? Can we invite them in, lower the barriers, and show them that their skills are valuable here too?
BCC has done a great job welcoming new practitioners, and we hope we can keep pushing further, expanding how we build and share knowledge, and broadening who sees themselves reflected in this work. Because at the end of the day, if we want to keep this community healthy and growing, we need to support both the technical and the human sides of the work.