2022-05-18 meeting notes

 

Attendees

  1. @David Eifler (Unlicensed)

  2. @Lynne E. Grigsby , co-chair (absent)

  3. @S.J. Koller (Unlicensed), co-chair

  4. @Anna Striker

  5. @Hermine Vermeij

  6. @Christine Barone (Unlicensed)

  7. @Jason Newborn

  8. @Judea D'Arnaud ,

Item

Desired Outcome

Time

Who to facilitate

Notes

Decisions

Actions

Item

Desired Outcome

Time

Who to facilitate

Notes

Decisions

Actions

1

Note taker: Vermeij

Welcome everyone

 

5

All

 





2

Talking to other consortia

Spreadsheet of ACAG consortia with Remote Storage to ask question

Spreadsheet of responses

 

20

Lynne

None of the other institutions that responded has a similar enough set-up to us to really be able to learn anything from their responses.

Discussion of pro/con list; can we summarize this?

  • Option 1 - Pros are processing ease, ease for UCLA and UCB; Cons are reporting clarity, paging from non-LA/B campuses

  • Option 2 - Pros are alignment with shared print recommendations, reporting clarity, and possibly ILL fulfillment; Cons are huge workflow changes, more work for RLFs

We discussed personal preferences. Many of us prefer option 2 or at least can see conceptually why option 2 could be better, but the concerns about the feasibility are significant.

Are there any ways to build the benefits of option 2 (clearer discovery and reporting) into option 1?

 

 

3

Setting up timeline : what, how, why and when

 

25

Sage

 

 

 

4

 

Total

50

 

 

 

 

Future agenda items

 

The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!
Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu