Versions Compared

Old Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Jackie Gosselar

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Anna Arrieta

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Jackie Gosselar, Chair

  • Sarah Lindsey, Vice Chair

  • Caitlin Nelson

  • Anna Arrieta, Support Member Thomas Bustos, periodic Support Member

  • Marcia Barrett (joined at 9:30am)

  • Catherine Busselen (joined at 9:30am)

Item

Desired Outcome

Time

Who

Notes

Decisions

Actions

1

Ex Libris support

5 min0 minutes

Team

2

All Chairs meeting update

5 mins0 minutes

Jackie

  • table for next meeting

3

Quarterly Reports

  • discuss responses to the quarterly reports: OARM and EIMP

  • discuss follow up and next steps

15 mins

11 minutes

additional 27 minutes with Marcia and Catherine

Jackie/Team

4

    • Feedback:

      • hard to carve out time to review/discuss these types of reports

      • recommendation for another group at the end of the report - should this take place? should this work continue with this same group? or new shared stakeholders group?

        • related concern: CDL shared collections does not have as strong a stakeholder relationship as would be ideal

      • better suited for a CKJ instead of SILS?

      • Doc is looking at this type of thing as well - empower people to use venues other than SILS for issues like this

  • Catherine and Marcia entered the meeting at 9:33 and provided updates on OARM and EIMP

    • Questions:

      • Do they need to create a charge for Phase 2?

      • Charges and deliverables?

      • Timeline for this information?

      • create a new group (not project team) and find an appropriate location for that group

      • Concerns: Discovery resource types, use metadata to create accessibility facets, unaddressed issues (changes in reference to indigenous cultures, equity, inclusion, etc.), Strategic and tactical changes that need empowerment

    • Caitlin’s feedback

      • historically left up to the current group for the charge for Phase 2 and creating a timeline for that new charge

      • weight urgency of the new charge to determine a timeline

      • possible questions from LG and OT

        • still a priority?

        • are people getting burned out?

        • does the work of this group have leadership support?

        • how long will support be available?

      • possible solution: request an extension to continue this work

        • seconded by Jackie

        • could be an opportunity to look for someone who is familiar with Discovery metadata

        • liaisons are a possibility without formal group membership

    • Town Hall

      • appearance/presentation by OARM and EIMP and projected timeline briefly discussed

4

SILS Renegotiation PT

  • We’d like to hear from each campus, “if the named users were free, what are the REAL numbers that your campus would need”?

  • RPT would like this to be discussed with OT SC and with OT

17 minutes

Jackie/Team

  • REAL numbers proposal

    • provide target numbers for each campus with the expectation that each campus meet those targets

    • Tom would work on this with campuses as well

  • Alternative proposals also discussed

    • Renewal Negotiation Chairs will speak with appropriate stakeholders

5

Trials/Pilots in SILS

  • Discuss guidelines on how we should handle these

10 mins0 minutes

Jackie

  • table for next meeting

  • Topics for discussion:

    • include appropriate stakeholders when we have resources that are an exception to a systemwide practice.

      • ex: Kanopy Kbase

        • brief summation of this example: one group made a determination that it would be handled in the IZ and not the NZ; didn't seem like there was a process to share with other subteams to include their input

        • current consequences: Kanopy Kbase is not discoverable

        • current efforts at resolution: Resource Mgmt-Cataloging Metadata Operations team has begun discussions

        • current issues: This was a surprise to them that they would need to catalog it and campuses don't seem to have the right information to move forward. Handling in the IZ creates duplication of effort. If not all campuses load them, then a user from a non-loaded campus will find the title, and it will show up as an ILL request. The inability of individual campuses to mark IZ items as "non-ILL" in the system is another issue that has yet to be explored.

56

Executive Session

  • Private Discussion

5 0 mins

Team

67

Build agenda for next OT meeting

  • Build and finalize the agenda for next week’s OT meeting

5 0 mins

Team

  • See proposed agenda here

78

Parking Lot

Capture important topics for future discussion

5 0 mins

Team

89

Total

55 minsminutes