| 1 | Welcome and announcements | Opportunity for co-chairs and members to share brief announcements and notices. | 00:05 | Ginny, Aislinn | | | |
| 2 | Initial poll findings | Walk through an overview of the findings and initial recommendations and discuss next steps. | 01:15 | Salwa, Aislinn, Danielle | SGTF affirmed: the poll’s response rate across all three demographic areas is excellent (60% of the SILS cohort!), as is the very low/few negative responses to the likert questions. The SILS WG is already addressing topics raised in the poll comments that are specific to phase 4 work (e.g. UC is already engaging ElsevierEx Libris, re: quality of service). A task force member noted that the data from the likert scale questions should inform how we interpret the poll comments. There is a risk in over-emphasizing the comments; it is important to acknowledge minority opinions (the concerns they represent and new ideas), but if 70% of respondents responded positively in the likert scale, that’s critical context. Members reflected that sometimes rumors “stick” more than what’s actually happening; thus far in the SILS project, a number of misunderstandings have generated untrue rumors that were easily debunked. Some poll comments highlight the need to keep communicating. While not governance-related, SGTF can share with the Comms OL and PM OL - that the poll findings indicate more communication is needed, particularly around decisions-made. Agreement across task force members: more active communications, using different communication methods/mediums, is important. And inter-group communication is aligned with governance; charges include communication responsibilities. When charges include information-sharing and information-gathering responsibilities, how can the structure help ensure these responsibilities are carried out? The phase 4 structure is big and complex - inter-group communications and info-sharing has been difficult; potentially changes/adaptations might improve workflows and sharing before the close of phase 4. How might we consider this for ongoing governance? In terms of further analysis, are there any “canary in the coal mine” comments that might hold value for ongoing governance? Task force member noted that a fair amount of the poll comments are outside of scope for SGTF. Agreement that these should be shared with the SILS WG.
| | Action: Poll subgroup will draft a high-level, one/two page summary of suggestions* for SILS WG and topics that warrant further SGTF discussion. *These should be suggested areas for further investigation (not recommendations). |