| | | | | | | |
|---|
| 1 | Check-in | Report any major changes in availability / circumstances | 5 | Team | Folks still putting out fires on campus, and jumping back and forth is not easy. Some stuff is more calm now than previously → better in terms of getting WFH folks settled. Proration of admin leave to student workers is taking a lot of time. Library leadership isn’t thinking about SILS right now - hard to kick up decisions and get response.
| | |
| 2 | Logistics | Get on same page about some logistical stuff | 10 | Team | Anyone NOT using Slack? Any difficulties finding anything on the Google Drive? Other issues we can sort out? Answer: none reported. Shall we record the call each week? Who’s the audience? Not want to record and make it public → just for us. Might re-watch the recording but only if the minutes weren’t clear.
Scheduling an ExL call every other week - 5 “new” campuses, plus others optionally.
| Record each call and keep it to ourselves - check back in in a couple months and stop if needed. Yes, schedule a biweekly call with ExL with 5 new campuses, and optionally everyone. (Can invite others as needed.) | |
| 3 | Vanguard Discussion | IC Group will make a recommendation on the Vanguard institutions | 20 | | Vanguard volunteer sheet Vanguard decision page Risk assessment: UCLA in particular needs leadership input: do we postpone the decision? What needs to happen here differently if anything? UCLA: 85% confident that this could go through. “can we have a provisional yes?” Not delayed a month, but need a little more time - a week or so. UCSD: I’m trying to pull teeth to get responses. Cat/met yes, but public services reluctant; acq no response yet. Leadership will go whichever way the depts want to go. Need another week. Feedback from the PDs: expected staff time, and what exactly does a clean record look like? I’m hoping to learn exactly what we can live with and can’t from the act of doing the vanguard. There was a lot of work we couldn’t do UNTIL we got into Alma. Cleanup work that goes before is done in concert with cleanup work that comes after. We sent “some” of each kind of our records in as a test load to see what would happen. Being part of the vanguard might be reassuring.
“Political capital” - WG will back ICs up absolutely, you shouldn’t have to burn your own cred to get this done. Alison Regan: UCI has decided they do not want to in the Vanguard.
| Push back to April 17th WG meeting; recommendation due 14th. Include communication to WG that other events downstream might need adjustment. | |
| 4 | Review questions about Ex Libris presentation | | 20 | | ExL materials Any questions? Greg: there is still a need to clarify what the time slice needs are? Another consideration is to give the experts experience filling out the forms. Is it possible to do a subset of records? There might be some risks to doing that: accidental leave-outs, performance testing, hardware provisioning, etc. Sarah: there’s a need to send all types or bibliographic items to touch on as many scenarios as we can. If we send stuff that has all the data points ExLib is looking for, then we are missing the data points that are missing. A local example of why you can’t send it completely, we were indicated in Millennium whether something was a rebound. There was no way to map that field into the fields. Data cleanup was required first before migration. The first round of data cleanup is so you can map in the first place. Some of the ad hoc conventions for custom use of text fields has occurred over 20 years. This has to be unwound first so mapping can be done. Lynne: UCB prefers to send all and not select as there is a question on what do we send? Do we send a lot of really good stuff? Or, do we include the stuff we are not sure about? Carlo: part of his pitch locally to the steering team was that we’re eventually going to hav to do this work. And being part of the vanguard will give a chance to spread out some of this work. Caitlin: There’s some utility in identifying the MVP record for ExL (“mapping”) and doing nothing else to “cleanup”
| | |
| 5 | Discuss implementation form | Understand which fields to fill out as campus vs. system | 30 | Team | Forms and samples Drive folder Editable / commentable version of the implementation Lynne: a little unclear on some of the fields in the form. Which are unique to a campus? Which are blanket questions addressed to the consortia? Some of the questions are irrelevant given we’ve already made the ExLib vendor choice. Caitlin: suggests skipping any questions that do not apply. Gillian: has already gone through the transition to Alma Primo VE. UCSC is sort of a “Pre Vanguard Vanguard” and can answer quite a few questions for other campuses on other systems. Lynne: a Q&A session with the campuses that have already done this would be incredibly useful. Caitlin: only the five new campuses actually need to fill this out. Sarah: please do not copy implementation forms, as there may be mistakes that are in the queue to be corrected that you may be unaware of.
| | |
| 6 | Other / Homework | | 5 | | In next weeks IC call, we can start reviewing the comments and answering the questions. Also, identifying which questions need to be escalated to ExLib. Lynne: next week there is a meeting conflict between next week’s IC meeting and the SILS Phase 4 Cohort kick-off meeting?
| There is no need for IC’s who already attended the earlier IC kick-off to also attend next week's SILS Phase 4 Cohort kick-off. | |
| 7 | | TOTAL | 90 / 90 | | | | |