| | | | | | | |
|---|
| 1 | Team Charter | Build a shared understanding of policies and practices for productively working together | 25 | Tom & Carlo leading, TEAM | How will we work together to make this a safe and productive space? Shared Gov work practices (fist of five, etc.) How to make a decision when it’s not unanimous Always assume best intentions!
Asynchronous communications will be essential (official communication processes for SILS forthcoming) Caitlin: reviewed the Fist of Five approach to making decisions. We would do this by simply holding up 1 to 5 fingers. This is documented in the Caitlin: clarified she will not vote on IC decisions. Gillian: clarified that UCSC has two IC’s (Gillian and Sarah), they will only make one vote. Tom: mentioned that if we ever get stuck, i.e. one or two IC’s throw up a 1 meaning it’s a no/go for that campus for some reason, that we understand how to escalate
|
| |
| 2 | Review the charge in depth | Team understands global expectations, has an early opportunity to ask questions, find weak spots
| 25 | TB/CM | Tom: mentioned that the Policy & Practice functional groups have stepped representation. Greg: asked what the IC direct responsibility is when forming local groups? Caitlin: the IC’s should feel empowered to make decisions, ask questions, and coordinate. If the DOC person wants to take charge of forming local groups in support of the IC, this is OK as long as the DOC person is working closely with the IC. Tom: will the IC may not necessarily be the creator of the local groups, the IC can make recommendations. Lynne: each campus may do this differently. Often the person you want involved may be overloaded. So the initial step may include adjusting workload to free up a resource. Tom: something that may happen is an existing group may be repurposed to be a SILS local group. Caitlin: today at 12:00 is the the deadline for nominations to be made. Decisions will be made next week. Carlo: be mindful if any nominees have plans to retire over the course of the SILS project and to make plans for the role to be transitioned. Caitlin: reiterated the charge is our working copy. We are OK for people to highlight and add comments and questions directly to the document Tom: the IC on campuses that already have Alma will have less work to do. Caitlin: everybody is moving to the latest version of Alma and Primo VE. Ex Libris is making it seem like this is a simple copy and paste upgrade. But, people on Ex Libris discontinued services, like Voyager, they will need to export data. Then there are campuses on Millennium or WMS and other non-Ex Libris products. These campuses will have more involved migrations.
|
| |
| 3 | Review the Ex Libris draft timeline | Team understands the umbrella timeline and phases | 10 | Caitlin? | Questions for EL presentation next week: How to handle SFX data (system-wide + campus data) & merge into NZ with analogous shared cataloging records? / Can/Should the system-wide SFX/SCP data for electronic resources be leveraged, or do as though there were 10 campus (IZ) instances? Alison: created a Questions for Ex Libris (Mar 17) document to capture all questions we have ahead of the Ex Libris visit on Tuesday, March 17th
| | |
| 4 | Review the Vanguard info sheet, and prepare to make recommendations | Dedicated time for in-person discussion of the vanguard issues. | 30 | Team | Caitlin: reviewed the criteria for choosing four Vanguard campuses. Greg: will the Vanguard campuses be given any preferential treatment? Caitlin: the only preferential treatment might come from subsequent decisions that benefit all IC’s and also the Vanguard. Greg: will all IC’s have access to the sandbox? Or only the vanguard institutions? Caitlin: we could set this up so all IC’s have visibility. Tom: think we should request this. Jeremy: at CSUs there were generic logins to sandbox environments. Like on login for acquisitions roles, one for bib roles, etc. for each vanguard campus
at CSUs they were Lynne: one criteria for choosing the vanguards is to pick campuses that represent all the challenges the group will face Caitlin: for instance one vanguard from each RLF Robin: does a vanguard campus have to migrate everything, or can a campus selectively decide what gets migrated? Caitlin: not sure Lynne: sees value in UCB being a vanguard as representative and also being on the NRLF Carlo: sees UCLA as a vanguard since we’re on the SRLF. A UCB+UCLA+both RLFs and an existing Alma or 2 would cover a lot of bases.
| | |
| 5 | Homework | Review the Implementation forms, make sure everyone knows which sections to fill out? Review the 3rd party integration forms? Review the video trainings -->
| | | | | |
| 6 | Upcoming | Mark down anything that can and should go on future agendas or emails | | | | | |
| 7 | | TOTAL | 90 / 90 | | | | |