Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
Version 1
Next »
Attendees
| Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions |
|---|
| 1 | Meeting notes & times | Previous meeting notes are reviewed | 5m | Ellen | Notes are public & imperfect Speakers confirm content of notes Thursdays at 12 noon was the only available time for December.
|
|
|
| 2 | Work plan draft review - discuss and share suggestions https://docs.google.com/document/d/19fx4_tp3iEPEPNWsqmvzixQPylAD48rbOxRpI_9NRhc/edit | Any agreed-upon Work plan elements are recorded. Priorities for next meeting’s discussion & further work are developed. Let’s establish clarity. Potential goals for final plan: Meet tight deadline. Distribute to subgroups so that work can happen in parallel? Clarity on campus & CDL needs from deliverables Alignment from committee members on realistic approaches to fulfilling charges
| 15m | Ellen, All | Agreement: We will spend December establishing shared agreement on how we’re fulfilling this charge, what our final deliverables are. Impact of material type issues: Can we all put our material types on the table (looking at the data we have) and consider how we might harmonize (including issues with doing so, potential actions/needs that might stem from it)? Agreement: For those data points that are not viable or meaningful, this group could make a recommendation to stop counting/reporting (similar to how schedule B was dropped for 21/22 - it was a recommendation put forward to CoUL; we can do that again). But we are not charged to revamp what data we collect. Do we want to compile how we currently all report fulfill the UCL/OP data requirements for statistics, to see our differences/similarities? Or do we establish a central report now, and then seek to validate/change? Agreement: First we want to look at what we are all doing (how we’ve designed our reports - what data points, from which tables, we’re using); where do we have commonalities on how we define/report? what are our differences? How can we flag the gymnastics and workarounds? How can we assess whether we should stop doing the gymnastics? One outcome is doing things more simply.
How might we format and compare our compiled data? If we have a shared form/template where we cleanly compile out data (tidy data - save us from parsing SQL), how do we organize that? Regarding material type, could use historical reporting to identify migration issues and seek changes. We will also need to consult with SSCP, potentially local cataloguing teams, regarding current practices. Hand counting - how can we move away from that? (We are empowered to make this recommendation - our first principle, assigned by CoUL and DOC is: We seek to reduce unnecessary manual and duplicative work.
How can we define what is good enough? This is about order of magnitude. Shared reporting for Statistics is a goal; we haven’t yet talked about how this might be a shared service and what that shared service might look like (done centrally, and then connected to systemwide group)?
| | |
| 3 | Wrap up | Review actions and decisions | 5 | | | | |
| 4 | Parking Lot | Capture important topics for future discussion | | | | | |