2022-05-04 Meeting notes

The meeting recording is available for download in the OT Shared Google Folder, which you can access using this link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TIwAlTzX9EYEvMuCSxPfdQaqGeNDR87_?usp=sharing

Updates - from All-Chairs, Leadership Group, etc.

Provide updates from other SILS meetings

4 mins

Tom

• Big updates are what we will be discussing later today, which is:

  • Open Access Resource Management Project Team

  • CDL Shared Collections in the Network Zone Project Team

  • These should be the priority for us for today, as there are still a couple of things we need to decide

• Todd Grappone is joining us because he is taking on the role of what would be the LG Past Chair

  • Tom clarified with Aislinn that the purpose of having two folks serve on both OT and LG is so they can share the burden of updating both groups

    • Tom will take things from OT to LG

    • Todd will take things from LG to OT

  • Todd will be invited to the OT meetings going forward as an optional attendee, and Todd can attend as he sees fit depending on the OT agenda and/or information that may need to come for LG

  • Welcome Todd!

• LG is working on getting a Town Hall started, OT will hear more about this soon

  • Tom and Aislinn are working on a possible agenda

  • We will probably have some sort of communication from OT that we’ll be including in that Town Hall as well

  • More to come; as soon as the agenda gets fleshed out more, Tom will share the link to the agenda with OT

Q & A Session - Including Questions on Slack since last meeting

Any questions from the team?

Questions from Slack?

13 mins

Team

• Any questions from the team?

  • NERS voting group: @Caitlin Nelson @Jessica Kruppa @Paula Pascual @Greg Ferguson have been nominated and will get started designing the process

    • Group is getting rolling on this

    • Goal is to create a process by which we can all put our votes in for the June voting for the enhancement request system process

    • The group will be reporting to OT; will work backwards from the deadline and will bring a process back to OT

  • From Zach - UCSF is having an issue with their browsing publishing profile in Alma; Third Iron contacted them and said there are a lot of titles that are leaking and they don’t know where this is happening

    • The browsing publishing job seems to be running fine in Alma, but in Third Iron, they went from 300k titles to 130k titles

      • Zach wanted to see if anyone in this group is having this problem or had it in the past

      • Haven’t submitted a ticket to ExL

    • Jackie, Lakshmi, and Tom all have the publishing profile configured, and haven’t heard any reports of issues, but will check and let Zach know if they’re experiencing issues

    • UCSF went live in Oct/Nov and this happened once before already but Zach was unaware because their Resource Management guru took care of it with Third Iron; Third Iron re-ran the entire thing in Feb/March and it worked initially, but the titles started slowly leaking overtime

      • Zach was messing around in Alma yesterday to see if something was wrong with the job or the OAI connection, and couldn’t find anything

    • How did Zach know the UCSF numbers were down?

      • Third Iron let UCSF know because of what they were experiencing on their end

      • Third Iron rep said they haven’t seen this at other UCs

      • Zach checked the logical set, and the missing titles are in the logical set; the set is there and the job is running and not throwing any errors so it’s very much a mystery

    • Zach will let OT know if he finds out anything else

  • Bringing this up because it might be a multiple Operations Subteam Issue: at UCB, Resource Management Group wants to add a lot more local display fields - will be way over 50

    • Once we’re over 50, you can distribute those from the NZ, so it may behoove us to coordinate at that point

      • There are ones that multiple campuses have in display, so it may make sense to push those to the shared

    • Still being worked on at UCB, locally

    • Jackie gave Discovery a heads-up, but also wanted to bring this up to OT as well

      • UCB has 20-something currently, came up with the full bib display during test phase but not everyone from Resource Management was involved, so this is coming up again now

    • UCSC did something similar; during initial implementation, created around 25 local fields

      • Most of the MARC 500 fields don’t display out of the box for whatever reason

      • Sarah is working on having the 583 show, because it currently doesn’t show in Primo

      • Why not have them all show if they’re useful information?

  • UCLA tried to figure out how to publish local holding records out of Alma straight to OCLC and discovered suppressed records go along with - yikes, don’t want that; not sure if on the OCLC end, if they can filter them out

    • UCB is trying to figure out the same thing; UCB is trying to figure out if OCLC can omit suppressed locations from the mapping table

      • Seems like they could do it for holdings but not bibs; Jackie is a little fuzzy on where it is; but UCB is in the same boat

• Questions from Slack?

  • Question from Jeremy re: IP-restricting access to Alma

    • UCSB decided not to do this, but Jeremy was interested what other campuses are doing

    • Is this the campus configuration for allowed IP ranges?

      • No, this is specifically for restricting Alma access so only people on campus or using the VPN can login; makes it harder to get in if someone steals credentials

    • UCSB won’t do it, sounds like a bit much; it’s tied into SSO at UCSB so if someone’s account gets hacked, they can trigger the SSO account reset from campus, so it was decided not to do the IP-restricting

      • Jeremy does IP-restrict the APIs, and is happy with that

    • Tom tested this during the implementation phase, but since they’re using SSO, and two-factor authentication, you’d have to login with the VPN with two-factor authentication and then also login to Alma with two-factor authentication; so it ended up being too much

      • This is good to know because at UCSB, they don’t have MFA tied into SSO, but they’re hoping to do that

Topics or questions for the Ex Libris Support Meeting

Any topics or questions that should be addressed at the next monthly Ex Libris Support Meeting?

1 min

Team

• Any topics or questions that should be addressed at the next monthly Ex Libris Support Meeting?

• Haven’t had a meeting with ExL yet; next meeting will be discussing the QA process from the last release

  • Were supposed to talk about this at the last meeting, but that got delayed; Caitlin has been trying to push ExL to get this rescheduled

  • After discussing the QA process from the last release, will then talk to them about analytics as well

  • Alon hasn’t gotten back to Caitlin; trying to get a time scheduled with him and the team he wants present to discuss the QA process, and then follow-up right away on analytics

  • We’re doing what we can, just trying to get them to respond at this point

Open Access Resource Management Project Team handoff

Final discussion regarding the draft charge (Link to copy of the draft charge); determine approval / next steps

13 mins

Tom

• Tom sent to the OT in Slack, the updates that were added to the UC Dissertations in UC Library Search document from Elizabeth Miraglia

  • Does OT want to add this as part of the OARMPT charge, or submit this to the team after we’ve charged the team and they’ve started their work?

  • OT thinks it would be best to add this to the group after the group is formed and charged

    • There are a lot of questions that this group will need to address

      • This is part of what the OARMPT is designed to do, figure out these kinds of questions

• Will there be representation from the Resource Management area on the OARMPT?

  • We know we will be having them work in those areas

  • DOC asked campuses for nominations, and these are the people who were nominated

    • Not sure if there are gaps in the expertise

    • There is a spreadsheet that talks about the nomination process: DOC--OA Resource Management charge and membership

  • This team was generated from a team in Phase 4 and pushed up to DOC, DOC created the project team and found the people they wanted on the team

    • DOC has already communicated with them, and put most of it together

  • But should someone from the Resource Management Operations Subteam be on the group? Maybe not?

  • The All-Chairs group suggested that the OARMPT primarily liaise with Resource Management, Discovery, and E-Resources Operations Subteams

    • So even if they don’t have a member, we can recommend that they liaise with these Subteams

  • In the Roster and required expertise/membership section - it says one member from each of the following SILS Operations Subteams: E-Resources, Discovery, Resource Management

    • So are we missing somebody who should be on the team, from Resource Management?

      • Caitlin suspects that the previous group wrote the charge and wrote the recommendation about who should be on the team, but when DOC did the nominations, the membership didn’t quite turn out the way the previous group intended

        • There is representation from Discovery

        • There are two folks from E-Resources

        • There seems to be lacking representation from Resource Management

          • Should we ask someone from Resource Management to join the OARMPT?

• We should vote on whether to approve the charge and then follow-up with Liz afterwards about adding someone from Resource Management to this Project Team

  • We shouldn’t mandate that someone from Resource Management be added to the OARMPT, but we could encourage them to find someone and highly suggest, but if they can’t find someone then they can liaise as group

• Caitlin accepted and resolved the comments / questions on the draft charge

• Fist of Five vote - OT votes to approve the charge

• Next Steps:

  • SILS Ops Center will get the group set-up with their tools, Listserv, Confluence space, etc.

  • Caitlin will write to the OARMPT Listserv to say the group has been approved and will send the official welcome letters that members can put in their files with their supervisors, and will work with the group on how they want to kick-off, and lead them through the kick-off

    • We have all of the kick-off documents from the PM, so Caitlin will lead them though that and let them self-manage

  • Caitlin will get them kicked-off and set a time for the group to report back to OT, since this group reports to OT

    • After that, it seems like they will self-manage and report in as needed

  • Once OARMPT gets started, we will then give them the questions on the UC Dissertations in UC Library Search

SILS CDL Shared Collections in the Network Zone Project Team: Charge DRAFT

Review and discuss draft charge; determine approval / next steps

5 mins

Caitlin / Tom

• Any questions on this charge before we go through approving?

• For context: this draft has already circulated; OT-SC nominated these members and they’ve already been contacted and they’re on board and have talked to their supervisors, so this is the roster

  • This charge has been reviewed several times by the OT-SC, as well as the nominated members and the E-Resources and Acquisitions chairs

• At this point, the draft charge feels good; we’re looking for OT to review and confirm the scope is appropriate, that this is manageable, the OT feels comfortable delegating this to the E-Resources and Acquisitions teams, etc.

  • This team will report to the E-Resources and Acquisitions groups

    • These teams are also represented in the roster

• Charge was also shared with LG, so they’re familiar with it and are in support as well

• Fist of Five vote - OT votes to approve the charge

• Next Steps:

  • SILS Ops Center will get the group set-up with their tools, Listserv, Confluence, etc.

  • Caitlin will send the CDLNZ Listserv a welcome email, and work with the group on how they want to be kicked-off, and lead them through the kick-off

    • This team needs to get kicked-off quickly

      • Group will be meeting weekly, if not bi-weekly, so Caitlin will be paying a bit more attention to make sure they get the ball rolling

    • Once kicked-off, they will be expected to have a weekly task report

    • Because the Vice Chairs of the E-Resources and Acquisitions groups are on this team, the liaising with the E-Resources and Acquisitions groups should go well

Training/webinar on how to get some of the UCOP statistics pulled from Alma

Update from Working Group re: training/webinar on how to get some of the UCOP statistics pulled from Alma

1 min

Sarah / Team

• Update from Working Group re: training/webinar on how to get some of the UCOP statistics pulled from Alma

  • No update at this point, but will have an update soon

Discuss System/Component Down Communication Path

Review and discuss progress on updating format to decision tree

2 mins

Jackie/ Team

• Review and discuss progress on updating format to decision tree

  • No update at this point; haven’t had a chance to work on it

  • If anyone is interested in working with Jackie, let them know

    • Caitlin will help

  • Have a draft tree going, but it needs more work

How has it been going for folks in terms of reporting to campus teams?

Update from each campus rep on their experience with reporting to their local campus teams

7 mins

Tom / Team

• At UC Merced - still having bi-weekly meetings, and go through their list of issues at those meetings

  • Tom gives the group a report from OT, and takes the input they have on the things OT is working on and brings that input back to OT

  • But right now, only a couple of items on their list that aren’t already being taken care of by our consortial tickets

    • Doing fairly well, but will dig a bit deeper to make sure he’s getting all of their input, concerns, feedback, etc.

• At UCB - meets bi-weekly, group is called APRICOT (Alma Primo Coordination Team)

  • Things have been going pretty well; Jackie brings OT issues to them and they also discuss some of the bigger issues that folks are seeing on their Operations Subteams, because they have reps from all of the Operations Subteams as well as from local teams

  • Also have taskforces and project teams that have spun-off from this main group; so folks from these teams will also provide updates

    • Doing a lot of lateral and vertical communication at the same time and working on group dynamics

  • Generally going well, but have a lot of work that they’re trying to accomplish

    • Trying to balance the needs with the available resources; set expectations and continue to chip away, but in general going relatively well

• At UCLA - meets every 2-weeks

  • John puts on the agenda documents in Confluence, a summary of the highlights from the OT meetings

    • It’s just an FYI, unless someone wants to discuss a certain topic further, then it becomes a talk-about point

• At UCSC - meets weekly, already had an Alma/Primo Management Team

  • Group does local troubleshooting, and all of their SILS reps are also on that team so they have a reporting time during that meeting where people can talk about what’s going on in their SILS groups

  • Seems like it’s working well

  • Communication on behalf of OT from Sarah, and the other folks from the Subteams, has been working

• At UCR - meets as a team every other month

  • Group uses their internal Slack heavily between meetings to communicate about specific issues

• At UCD - meets bi-weekly

  • Group is mostly focused on collaboration between the Subteams; have a lot of people on this group who are in the wider groups, so use this meeting so that everyone can get on the same page

  • Lately, the group has been really focused on year-end reporting, so that’s been where most of their concerns have been currently and making sure they have the right reports

• At UCSF - meets every couple months, or as needed

  • A small campus, run a boutique Alma shop

  • This group also does a lot on Slack and asynchronous meeting via Slack; has been working

• At UCI - meets every other week, is a local coordinators group

  • This group discusses the local stuff, and the SILS Subteam reps are also part of the group so they bring up issues they’re seeing in their Subteams as well

  • No major issues; group keeps track on what they bring up and try to document and follow-up on any issues

  • Has been going well

• At UCSB - there are 3 groups: Alma/Primo Steering Committee, Alma Group, and Primo Group; each group meets once a month

  • Jeremy is in each group and gives a summary of what’s going on in OT at each group meeting, for informational purposes

  • Most of what these groups do is based on local stuff; things from OT haven’t spurred on any action in the local groups with maybe the slight exception of the data privacy form, which sparked some discussion about workflows, etc.

  • Mostly focused on local stuff

• Looks like everyone is on the same page about how we’re getting our information back to the campuses

  • Tom recalls that Greg at UCSD also has a similar process as well

  • A pretty good sign that the individual campuses aren’t seeing a lot of major issues

    • The major issues that we see are the ones we’re finding consortially from our Subteams, with the biggest one being analytics and the reporting

Anything else needed regarding the SILS Privacy Forms?

Provide an update of where we are with this currently

2 mins

Tom / Caitlin

• Anything else needed regarding the SILS Privacy Forms?

  • Caitlin thinks we’re done

  • We’ve heard from everyone at this point

• Decided at OT-SC that the next time we’ll check-in with campuses on the Privacy forms will be March 30, 2023

  • Each campus is in charge of their own tracking; anytime somebody gets a new Alma account, they have to acknowledge the Data Privacy & Security Responsibilities statement

  • Next year in March, the campus rep will have to confirm that everyone who currently has an Alma account has signed the acknowledgement; and we’ll do that forever

    • Campus reps will confirm this by sending an email to the OT-Listserv acknowledging that their campus is in compliance

• At this point, we feel confident that each of the campuses are compliant in this aspect

Executive Session

Private discussion as needed

Parking Lot

Capture important topics for future discussion

• Taking the Temperature Survey

  • Discuss Responses from Survey, particularly the What worries you? and What are you most excited about? sections

• Communication with Subteams, Cohort, and Campuses

• Need to create a page for System Down Reporting

48 mins