| 1 | Welcome and announcements | Opportunity for co-chairs and members to share brief announcements and notices. | 00:05 | Ginny, Aislinn | The SILS co-project managers shared the results from an exit survey of the End User Name Subgroup (who recently completed their charge). Lena and Christine have bolded content that they think will be of interest to SGTF. This will be a topic at an upcoming SGTF meeting; it is being shared now, as it may inform our thinking.
| | |
| 2 | Ongoing governance: roles and responsibilities table | The subgroup incorporated the task force’s excellent edits. The following questions will be addressed at the meeting (to finalize the proposed roles and responsibilities table for WG review): “Standardization” or “Harmonization”? We’ve received feedback about both terms (that UCL employees prefer one over the other); what is SGTFs preference? New - to respond to SGTF feedback that more structural support should be considered to enable sharing and collaboration between/across the Ops Team and Ops Subteams, we’ve added an “Operations All Chairs Team.” (This was positively received during the last review - but we just wanted to call it out as it is the only significant change since the last SGTF meeting). The SILS Operations Subteam (Fulfillment & Intercampus Resource Sharing) is posed as one “super” team (the two branches will meet together and separately). Does this work, or should this start as two separate Ops Subteams? Should any additional Ops Subteams be considered, at least at first (e.g. for the first year in the ongoing, UCLAS-integrated SILS structure)?
| 00:25 | Sarah, Salwa, Danielle | A member noted that “harmonization” is perhaps best suited to a period of transition; “standardization” is more for ongoing work. It was also noted that “standardization” can come across as more bureaucratic/harsh. SGTF members questioned whether we should pick a new label entirely (e.g. “alignment”). A member noted that there is continuity with “harmonization.” Affirmation: the Operations All Chairs Team looks great (no edits recommended). Affirmation: having a single Fulfillment & Intercampus Resource Sharing Ops Subteam is a good approach to take. No edits. SGTF members affirmed that a single campus rep could fulfill the dual role; it was also noted that this approach will reinforce sharing and communications between these two work areas. In phase 4, a small informal group is being proposed to talk about potential development opportunities; this will bring together the SILS-dedicated CDL programmers and campus programmers. In future, this could bring about another subteam. There’s an RLF configuration task force; their report is due by the end of December (their aim is sometime in the fall). Based on the recommendations of this task force, another ops team could be formed. (As an aside: if we transition to the ongoing structure before this task force completes its charge, we’ll need to confirm who they submit their report and recommendations to - the SILS LG?). Right now analytics/reporting is embedded into the Ops Subteams and Ops Teams (i.e. it’s not a standalone subteam responsibility). The SILS MPI also includes an analyst; while this position hasn’t yet been filled, CDL D2D may have some existing capacity to support this in the interim. SGTF agreement: keep analytics as an embedded responsibility within the existing SILS teams. Confirmation: The SILS Leadership Group will be responsible for assessing the SILS structure (in consultation with the Ops Team and in partnership with DOC, who is responsible for assessing all of UCLAS).
| Decision: For continuity - SGTF will use “harmonization” in the roles/responsibilities table (and other documents). | Action: The roles/responsibilities table will be shared with the SILS WG for their review and feedback. (DW to transmit.) |
| 3 | SILS Phase 4 Chairs meeting from Feb. 10 | SGTF will discuss the All Chairs meeting recording. Potential discussion questions to start: How long might we “stay” in phase 4 governance post-go-live? How might this period of time be shaped by “clean-up” needs post-go-live? How might this be shaped by the structure that we’re moving to? (All Chairs framed it as “lightweight” - but in terms of people, teams and ongoing SILS members, is it lightweight?) To support the transition to ongoing governance: Might we overlap some teams (P4 and ongoing) during the transition? Should a standalone transition team be charged, or might this be the work of the ongoing LG and Ops Team, with maybe some phase 4 reps?
Other questions? Please add them. | 00:20 | Ginny, Aislinn | In part, this is about communications (letting folks know about what is coming). From the All-Chairs meeting, there seems to be broad agreement that a transition to ongoing governance can take place 3-6 months post-go-live; it could be staggered by team (rolling but happening within a set window of time). The All Chairs discussion didn’t fully reflect the structure that we’re moving towards - it is not as “lightweight” as they may be expecting. What about an SGTF presentation of the ongoing structure to SILS All Chairs? Should FGs work backwards from a set date, for hand-off? Get FG advice on the length of the transition period (e.g. 3, 4 or 6 months), and then work back from there (still allowing for some variance). To support ongoing governance, a transition team is needed. What training/information-sharing might support ongoing governance and the transition? More fluid transition will present some challenges; kick-off should be used to reiterate principles and goals, for community-building. That should be prioritized. Transition, orientation, kick-off, celebration → all responsible components. Right now, nobody is assigned responsibility for planning this. This should be discussed further (who should be responsible for planning and carrying this out?).
| Decision: SGTF will continue to discuss this at the next meeting. | Action: Danielle will see about scheduling SGTF to present the org. structure to All Chairs. Ideally, it should be scheduled after SGTF has had another meeting to discuss. |