2023-02-22 RS OST meeting notes

Attendees

@Patrick SHANNON (Unlicensed) , UC Berkeley
@Jason Newborn , UC Davis (vice chair)
@Amador, Alicia , UC Los Angeles
@Sabrina Simmons , UC Riverside
@Scott Hathaway , UC Santa Barbara
@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)
@Linda Michelle Weinberger , UC Irvine
regrets: , @Demitra Borrero (Demitra Borrero), UC Merced;

	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	Addition to RS OST team charter	add framing for “guest spots” to RS OST to charter: “When any items/interests that are complex and/or high value to campus/CDL stakeholders who are not RS OST members, the RS OST member may/should invite the stakeholder to an RS OST meeting(s) to directly & synchronously communicate needs/issues/stuff with the RS OST. “	5	Alison & Jason		Team says yes, will add sentence to charter.
3	Discuss feedback on Tipasa project plan outline 2023/2024	Discuss feedback from stakeholders, local staff note/make any changes needed to the decision page decide next steps for page (make edits outside of meeting & vote, vote now, or ???)	40	all	San Diego: fine either way, presented with the caveats that things are going as planned. Berkeley: onboard with plan as written. Encouraging group to push date if needed. If OCLC development isn’t moving forward consider Illiad. Request that the RLFs be actively involved in training and info sessions. Santa Cruz: onboard as written. Aware of contingency plan and ready to go either way. Riverside: concern with ExL and their level of interest in development to move this process along since ExL is a fairly large dependency in fixing Tipasa stuff. Irvine: Thought timeline was too ambitious. Nobody wants a winter implementation. Rather delay and wait until all bugs are worked out than rush and get it done this year. Davis: Jason is the main person who has opinions and his thoughts are that we have folks in DOC and ULs that want us to move so we need a compelling case to not move. Probably want to go forward with this even if it’s too ambitious because if we don’t present it as ambitious to all stakeholders it will be put on the back burner. Noticing some ricketiness in VDX. Santa Barbara: Trusting in Scott’s judgment re: timeline. Leaning toward pushing the ambitious timeline and see what happens. VDX is a reasonable fall back. San Francisco: interested in going with the wisdom of the group with the understanding that the product is not ready to go. No pressure to move quickly. Los Angeles: relies on the ILL unit advice to decide. want bugs fixed but also wants to maintain pressure on OCLC to fix things. CDL: Shape of plan is fine. Dates are not feasible to do well. DOC seems to have chilled out on pushing a jump from VDX. Timeline is really tight. Allison is not convinced it’s actually feasible to test the things we want to test even if OCLC delivers functionality early. Tight turn around between phases. Need to plan implementation plan before we even know we are implementing which creates some risk . Adding RLFs to testing extends testing period. Implementation also straddles membership rollover which is a risk. Question of: what happens if we say we can’t do this timeline? What will OCLC do? Are there other factors we are waiting for before we decide whether or not we move forward? The short testing phase is not realistic based on how the testing has gone thus far. Even the basic NCIP connection between systems isn’t working. Can’t do a whole lot more testing until that’s fixed. Alison feels like removing dates from the plan and entering a test phase without hard dates but with some guiding “tent poles”, would be a better way to go. Removing dates allows us to more thoroughly address and develop use cases and have more people resources available to test. Is there a prospect of getting another product instead of an OCLC product as a way of putting pressure on OCLC to actually develop their product and also providing another contingency plan? Not particularly. An RFP might take 2 years and then implementation time would add more time.	approve basic shape of plan but without dates attached	@Alison Ray (CDL) will work on updating the project plan outline and the group will discuss via listserv and vote at the following OST meeting.
4
5	Wrap up	Review actions and decisions	5
6	Bike Rack	Capture important topics for future discussion			‘pick up anywhere exceptions’: review shared messages, what would be next steps metrics on how often ‘pick up 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) NRLF/SRLF rejected stuck at B/LA follow up: SH’s ‘guide’; test with what B/LA see; more escalation with ExL (scott, Mallory, Jason, patrick) ExL’s solicitation to “contribute to the Resource Sharing Directory”. Kind of a huge thing that we should think about? (Mallory) → maybe after P2P investigation…
7		Total	x/x