2022-09-07 RS OST meeting notes

Attendees

@Patrick SHANNON (Unlicensed) , UC Berkeley
@Jason Newborn , UC Davis (vice chair)
@Linda Michelle Weinberger , UC Irvine
@Sandra Farfan-Gracia , UC Los Angeles
, @Demitra Borrero (Demitra Borrero), UC Merced
@Sabrina Simmons , UC Riverside
@Mallory DeBartolo (Unlicensed) , UC Santa Cruz, note taker
@Peter Devine , UC San Diego
@Ryan White , UC San Francisco
@Alison Ray (CDL) , California Digital Library (chair)
guest: Dawson Kelly, UC Santa Cruz
regrets: @Scott Hathaway , UC Santa Barbara

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions
1	record meeting	make sure Alison records meeting	1	Alison
2	Anonymization flaw workaround page (delay anonymization to gather AFN digitization reports)		20	RS A PT	Issue related to data-loss related to anonymization (see brief notes from last week or more details in 8/12 meeting with ExL) options: anon immediately; recurring (daily?) anon job; anon completed after 3 months Harmonization is important because we can’t pull consistent systemwide stats if everyone doesn’t have the same statistics. But anonymization config happens at each institution. If you have more feedback on this decision page or can contribute to stakeholder impact section, make edits directly on the page.		@Alison Ray (CDL) make edits on Timing of anonymization rules in order to capture AFN digitization analytic reportsSep 9, 2022 put RS anon decision on RS OST agenda Sep 8, 2022 → more feedback? way forward?
3	discussion / follow ups for UC from OCLC guest spot	2 tipasa sbs, how/who to test, test cases, list of stuff to config in alma.	20	all	(test planning for when sandboxes are delivered?) So who will test if we only have 2 sandboxes? Can we share (alma) sandboxes? We can pretty easily share a Tipasa sandbox in that everyone has access to the Tipasa sandbox but whose Alma sandbox would it connect to? Could libraries who are connecting their Alma sandboxes to the Tipasa sandbox create Alma sandbox accounts for other UC testers? Is OCLC still interested in offering a production overlay after their very important APIs are released in December? maybe? They have not confirmed but they seemed loosely supportive and it also doesn’t seem that difficult to provide. Is it bad to test two things at the same time? (The trio looking at Peer-to-peer config might be testing at the same time as Tipasa testing) Could grab some of the Phase 4 test plan?	chew on connect 2 Alma sbs to tipasa sbs, then share those alma sbs with testers; instances: Davis, Irvine, Berkeley, Los Angeles; ppl in sb 1 per tester (at least 4 likely not more than 15) through Feb, possibly 2ish more months	skeleton tipasa test plan, cribbed from phase 4 test plan@Alison Ray (CDL)Sep 16, 2022 send OCLC the oclc symbols used in alma sbs Sep 9, 2022 follow up about tipasa / alma test instances on 9/14 meeting @Alison Ray (CDL)Sep 8, 2022
4
5	Wrap up	Review actions and decisions	5
6	Bike Rack	Capture important topics for future discussion			‘pu anywhere exceptions’: review shared messages, what would be next steps metrics on how often ‘pu anywhere’ requests have to be changed to home campus (Jason) → may lead to: editing pu loc for this requests → may lead to: harmonizing bookbands is the “randomized” part of the rota building actually randomizing things? Jason has a hunch that within the geographical groups it’s creating them alphabetically. (discovered in reviewing schedule c report) RLF requests sticking at B/LA when RLF can’t fill, identify what’s happening, what could be done to ease this problem Sep 7, 2022 Should we have some kind of organized review of release notes that apply to resource sharing? (Mallory)
7		Total	x/x