Resilience, Storytelling, and the Future of Open Communities with Rachel Frick
A candid conversation on what it takes to adapt, endure, and thrive in challenging times.
Introduction
Over the years, Rachel Frick and I have built a strong professional relationship rooted in our shared commitment to open and sustainable communities. Our collaboration has not only deepened our respect for each other’s expertise but also reinforced the importance of trust, transparency, and shared goals when working with diverse groups of people.
If you haven’t met Rachel, you’re in for a real treat. She has spent over two decades transforming libraries into powerful community anchors, blending high-level strategy with on-the-ground impact. Growing up in West Virginia, she saw firsthand how libraries serve as lifelines for education, digital equity, and opportunity. These principles have guided her leadership across institutions like the Digital Library Federation, the Digital Public Library of America, OCLC, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Known for turning vision into action, she has secured millions in grant funding, launched national leadership programs, expanded access to underserved communities, and reimagined how libraries can actively dismantle systemic barriers.
We first had the opportunity to collaborate on a consulting project at the American University in Paris, and through that experience, we discovered how well our perspectives complement each other. While our backgrounds may seem quite different—Rachel with her deep experience in library operations and scholarly communications, and I with my focus on technology—we are united by a belief that thriving, open communities are essential to the future of knowledge sharing and cultural preservation.
In this conversation, we reflect on the lessons we’ve learned together and explore how communities can adapt, endure, and grow in a rapidly changing world, not only by adjusting to shifting circumstances but also by drawing strength from shared values, collective action, and the deep relationships that sustain them.
Why Open Communities Matter Now
Rosalyn Metz (RM): Rachel, glad we’re doing this. We’ve both seen open communities succeed and stumble. For me, it always comes down to people, purpose, and the pursuit of change. Why does this moment feel so urgent to you?
Rachel Frick (RF): At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, we’re at a crossroads. Leadership is experiencing a generational turnover. Resources are shrinking. And a lot of our open infrastructure is hitting maturity at the exact same time. We don’t have the luxury of funding something just because it feels good. That era is gone. Before the pandemic, our community had been exercising that collaboration muscle—we were working across silos, building scaffolding, and seeing real payoff. Then COVID hit, and everyone went back to their corners. That muscle didn’t just weaken. It collapsed. Local priorities took over, and collaboration slipped backwards. Add to that the current pressures in higher education, including funding cuts and shifting business models, and it becomes even harder to sustain collaboration.
RM: I felt that collapse too, our own staff were exhausted.
RF: That’s why the IOI annual State of Open Infrastructure Report from May hit me so hard. It’s not just a research report. It’s a roadmap. The visuals clearly illustrate the position of community-supported technologies within the ecosystem. They force us to ask tough questions about technical debt, community impact, and sustainability. My takeaway? We have to be strategic. We have to be disciplined. Communities have to be responsive to real adopter needs, not just our ideals, if we want to survive. Period. I also think a lot about pieces like Katherine Skinner’s Red Queen’s Race and OCLC’s work on sustaining digital infrastructure, which frame the broader challenges we’re facing.
RM: And if we don’t act strategically?
RF: Simple. We waste scarce resources. We erode trust. And if adopters don’t see value, they’ll walk. And once they’re gone, it takes so much more to get them back, if ever.
RM: You talk a lot about history and storytelling. Why does that matter so much here?
RF: Too often, new folks come in and we don’t provide them with the history of why projects like Fedora or LOCKSS were built. Those origin stories matter. They explain the motivations, the constraints, the choices that got us here. If we don’t tell those stories, we repeat mistakes or miss lessons that could save us. That’s why I think we need to re-engage the “story keepers.” Storytelling isn’t fluff. It’s necessary work. It’s what anchors us in our purpose and keeps the memory of why this work matters alive.
The Power of Collective Voices
Rachel’s focus on strategy and storytelling underscored just how fragile our collaboration muscles have become. That naturally led us into a conversation about how communities can find their collective voice again and how organizations can step up to help rebuild it.
RM: I’ve always felt communities are strongest when people shape the work directly. How do you see them driving long-term health?
RF: Collaboration is a muscle, and it’s weak right now. Before 2020, we were getting stronger at working across silos. Then the pandemic pulled us apart, and local pressures filled the gap. The real question now is: how do we rebuild? Groups like DLF and CNI used to be marketplaces of collaboration. They could be again. Same with Educause. But it’ll take courage from their leaders to lean into convening big conversations, the way we used to, not just running events. Without that, communities drift. No marketplace, no momentum.
RM: Yeah, that resonates. What would it take for those groups to step back into that convening role?
RF: Courage and clarity. Leaders need to choose convening over the easier path of being a host, if that makes sense. We need to architect conversations that move our communities forward. It’s a posture change, and it’s not easy—but it’s necessary.
RM: Community needs don’t stay still. How do you ensure that voices are heard as things change?
RF: Storytelling and advocacy. Communities can’t assume people get their value. You have to say it out loud, over and over. Document the history. Share the impact. Make the case. That’s not extra work—it’s core work. No story, no support. But you also have to intentionally and mindfully keep the conversational frame open to critical advocacy, new perspectives, and make sure you are constantly welcoming in new contributions.
RM: Exactly. I think that part is often overlooked.
Resilience in a Shifting World
Rachel’s emphasis on courage and advocacy made me realize that sustaining communities is about process as much as it is about vision. That set us up for the next part of our conversation: how communities actually adapt to change and why managing it well makes all the difference.
RM: Let’s talk about the harder stuff. How are geo-political disruptions—think shrinking budgets, political instability, distrust in science—shaping open communities?
RF: Communities are being asked to continue thriving and innovating with less. And they’re facing threats our software wasn’t built to handle. Privacy concerns, constant security risks, and bad actors. It’s exhausting. Resilience here means focus and courage. You can’t spread yourself too thin. You pick two or three things you do best and double down on it. Everything else? Cut it loose.
RM: That’s a hard truth, but I agree it’s very necessary.
RF: I also see attention depletion. I see resources drying up. Local priorities are drowning out the common good, cross-community investment. It’s harsh, but that’s reality. The only projects that will survive are the ones delivering clear, sustainable value. And survival will take guts. Leaders have to be willing to make hard calls about what stays and what goes. Realism has to come first: name the risks, be clear about trade-offs, and show what’s at stake if we stand still.
And communities need to remember that sometimes resilience is about deciding what not to do anymore. That’s hard and requires real strength. Frameworks like the two-loop model have helped me think about how communities let go of old systems while nurturing new ones. Rebecca Bryant, Annette Dortmund, and Brian Lavoie research on social interoperability is also a useful reminder that trust and relationships are just as important as technology when discussing resilience.
RM: And how do you keep people motivated in these situations?
RF: Pair honesty with vision. People can handle tough truths if you give them a reason to hope. Be transparent about the limits, but also paint a picture of what success looks like. Change management plays a role here, too. It feels slow, sometimes painfully so, but it’s necessary. Taking time to build shared vocabulary and trust is what gives people the confidence to move forward together. No shortcuts.
RM: Right, so truth plus a way forward.
The Future of Open Communities
Hearing Rachel talk about realism and courage made me want to pivot to the other side of the story. After laying out all the hard realities, I wanted to know: where does she still find hope? What should communities focus on as they look ahead?
RM: If you had to sum it up, what’s the biggest challenge and opportunity right now?
RF: The challenge is survival. Scarcity is forcing hard choices. But that’s also the opportunity. Communities need to figure out what we’re truly best at and pour energy there.
RM: And what about curiosity, you’ve said we’ve lost that space. Can you explain?
RF: We’ve lost curiosity. Before, conferences left room for exploration. There was time to wander, try things, even fail. Now everything’s about productivity and proof of value. That pressure kills innovation. Without experimentation, innovation stalls. It's that simple. If we want to thrive, we have to rebuild those curiosity spaces. We used to do that with unconferences, fellowships, and hallway conversations, and the patience for deep, rigorous research work. That’s where new ideas come from. Productivity has its place, but curiosity is where growth happens. To be honest, productivity culture crowds out curiosity. If we continue to chase deliverables at the expense of exploration, we’ll suffocate innovation.
RM: That hits home. I feel like we’ve all felt that pressure. What’s one practical way we can start bringing that back?
RF: Even small steps count. Set aside unconference sessions at events. Fund fellowships that reward exploration, not just deliverables. Anything that signals curiosity should be valued.
RM: After everything we’ve talked about, what still gives you optimism?
RF: The people. Always the people. Despite the pressures, they keep showing up. They’re creative, they’re committed, and they still care. If we can create space for them to be curious again, that’s where the next wave of solutions will come from. I know our conversation today could come across as a bit doom and gloom.
RM: Well, I think my questions might have led us down that path.
RF: Maybe, but despite the rough seas we are in right now, I am hopeful, optimistic, and looking for ways to contribute to the success and sustainability of communities.
RM: I couldn’t agree more.
Closing Reflection
Listening to Rachel, I was struck by how her words mirror so many of the challenges and hopes I see in my own work. Scarcity, leadership change, and global pressures are real, but so is the creativity and commitment of the people who form these communities. If there’s a throughline here, it’s that sustainability depends on honesty, storytelling, and courage.
The work of open communities is hard, but it’s also deeply hopeful. My takeaway is that if we can create intentional spaces for collaboration, curiosity, and advocacy, we won’t just survive this moment; we’ll build stronger, more resilient communities for the future.
Want to hear more from Rachel? You can follow her on LinkedIn to keep up with her work and insights.