| | | | | | | |
|---|
| 1 | Check-in | Report any major changes in availability / circumstances | 5 | Chairs | | | |
| 2 | Logistics | Get on same page about some logistical stuff | 5 | Chairs | | | |
| 3 | IC to Communication Ops Leads | Determine best practice for funneling questions from each campus to the Communications Operation Leads | 10 | Robin | What kind of questions? (Who does what: PMs, ComLeads, etc.) Robin: spoke with Neil, the training PM, on how to consolidate and coordinate questions coming in from the campuses. Caitlin: questions about the project? Or technical questions about Alma? Robin: people are coming from different perspectives. Some were involved in Phase 3, some already have Alma. Caitlin: Peter from the WG raised a similar point. How to disseminate information about some of the breaking news on the project. For instance, how many sandboxes are there? Where are they being used? Robin: maybe the IC’s reach out to their campuses to see what questions are out there. Not to answer the questions, just get the communication flows going and as a way to jump start the work of the Comms Leads. Caitlin: concerned that this might add to the IC workload. Carlo: the solutions we arrive at will probably be campus independent. Most of the people that have expressed the most concerns have been asked to join the local groups. Lynne: most of the questions are from people already involved in the functional groups. For everyone else it’s still too far off. Tom: feels part of the IC role is to field questions. But, maybe not necessary solicit questions as this may create workload. Carlo: maybe the role to actively solicit questions falls to the Communication Liaisons on the local teams? Caitlin: is part of the IC role to bring together local teams? All: yes. Caitlin: maybe we contact with the Comm Leads: Ben Alkaly, UCLA and Adrian Petrisor, UC Irvine.
| | |
| 4 | SILS-RLF update | Update the team with info from RLF investigation team | 10 | Lynne | Lynne: the SILS RLF group was formed by the SILS Phase 3 WG on how the RLF’s should be represented on the SILS project going forward. The group is supposed to determine in an ideal world should the RLF’s have their own catalog? Reference: There was a RLF systems and workflow report back in 2016. There was a page for each campus. We would like these reviewed and updated as needed. Lynne volunteered since the Functional Groups were not active yet. Will send each IC their page for review and share. Greg: is the source of the information for each campus known? Lynne: not currently int he document. Caitlin: was the PM on this and has notes. Caitlin: do the IC’s need to be the person getting back? Lynne: doesn’t need to be the IC as long as someone from the campus responds.
| | |
| 5 | Discuss implementation form | Understand which fields to fill out as campus vs. system | 20 | Team | Forms and samples Drive folder Editable / commentable version of the implementation form Alison Ray: question 9D was particularly onerous. Question pertains to local target parsers. Not to be confused with local targets, which is different. It’s probably unlikely that campuses will have local target parsers. In order to have a local target parser it would have to have been requested from the CDL. No one has requested one since 2015. Lynne: so we can say no for now? Alison Ray: no is the right answer unless there is something specific you know from other parsers written a long time ago. Greg: no is OK and if ExL has any questions we can deal with that later? Alison Ray: yes Carlo: will give UCLA Cat Met another day to populate their part.
| | |
| 6 | Discuss Authentication | Authentication review | | Tom | Tom: was concerned what everyone is planning to use for authentication? Merced is using Shibboleth. Susan: currently using Shibboleth but is moving to a CAS. Jeremy: ucsb is shib. Alison Regan: UCI is on shib
. Not doing any transactions now!
Except ILL. The other campuses are using either Shibboleth or CAS. Both approaches work. Many campuses are also using Duo Multi Factor Authentication (MFA). Greg: what about Community Borrowers? Gillian: UCSC using login links and another option. Also have back door accounts. Bill: is this a risk for SILS that we are using different approaches to authentication? Lynne: there are other consortia doing this differently. Not an issue. Caitlin: this is a complexity but not a risk. Alma & Primo can handle it. Sarah: this means authentication issues are handled locally.
| | |
| 7 | ExL Update | Update the ICs on anything ExL related | 5 | Caitlin | ExL agenda 4/20 Caitlin: started meetings every Monday that are staggered between coordinating between ExL and the larger team, and checking up on ExL action items. Network Zone - how do we learn more about this?
| | |
| 8 | IC Liaisons | Do we want to have IC liaisons to each FG? | | Team | Would it be worth having an IC liaison at each FG? We do think there’s worth there. We don’t want to overwrite the autonomy of any given FG. How can we make sure the IC liaison is doing appropriate work? What would the liaison do?
| | |
| 9 | Other / Homework | | 10 | | Sarah: is on steering committee for CAL-RUG to pull together an ExL Users Group online conference this summer. This will probably be tracks on different days to spread our the experience. Will include UC, CSU, USC, other smaller libraries across the state. Jeremy: is also on that group
. Caitlin: CAL-RUG has a slack channel, and other resources. They are our compadres and we should join!
| | |
| 10 | | TOTAL | 60 / 90 | | | | |