| 1 | Welcome and announcements | Opportunity for brief announcements and notices. | 00:05 | Ginny, Aislinn, ALL | [Distributed on the listserv as well] DOC is preparing to charge a project team to address the system’s collaborative work space and communication needs. While this is a UCLAS-wide initiative, DOC and others recognize that SILS is in need of an ongoing infrastructure. Accordingly, the charged group will investigate and then implement an infrastructure that can be broadly used, but an initial deliverable is to establish the new UC Library Search cohort on the selected tool(s). This work will involve tool selection (drawing from current tool and project experience), development of the space within the tool(s) and development of guidelines/best practices. The aim is for the space to be ready prior to the start of the new/ongoing SILS governance and operations structure.
| | |
| 2 | Feedback from DOC, re: roles and responsibilities table | High-level overview of DOC feedback. | 00:10 | Alan, Donald, Felicia, Sarah T., Salwa | DOC members have submitted feedback directly in the roles/responsibilities table. DOC notes that the table is now very complex. Right now it’s an internal document/mechanism, to support charge creation. But a table format could be used, for a high-level overview of the division of responsibilities (with much less detail). DOC members inserted recommendations for clarifying decision-making responsibilities. DOC discussed its role as well, in relation to the SILS Structure. SILS also isn’t the only “new” leadership group to join UCLAS; there is an opportunity to normalize the “leadership group” level and/or detailing how DOC’s relationship between leadership groups might differ, depending on the team.
| Decision: SGTF will move forward with writing the charges, incorporating DOC’s feedback. The charges themselves will then be re-shared with DOC for their endorsement. | |
| 3 | Feedback from SILS Chairs and WG, re: the discussion document and proposed ongoing structure | High-level overview and discussion of response from the SILS WG, including: Does WG endorse SGTF’s proposal to conclude phase 4 on Dec. 22, 2021? Does WG endorse SGTF’s proposal to charge a Transition Team? (If yes - who will scope and draft the charge?).
High-level overview and discussion of response from the SILS Chairs, including: Proposal to add an additional team to the ongoing structure in support of communications and internal training; recommendation to clarify that whether a dedicated systemwide team or an Operations Subteam – that provision of training (and identification of campus-specific training needs) is a local responsibility Proposal to have separate Acquisitions and eResources Operations Subteams
| 00:25 | Aislinn, Ginny, (+all who attended those meetings) | Overview from WG: WG endorsed the SGTF proposal to conclude phase 4 on Dec. 22, 2021; the ongoing structure will then (officially) commence when the University re-opens in January. The WG has an action to submit the proposed phase 4 end date to CoUL, for finalization. This will be done at the CoUL April 23 meeting. WG endorsed the SGTF proposal to have a Transition Team. A WG/SGTF subgroup has been tasked to draft the charge - for WG and SGTF to review/endorse. Subgroup members are: Chris S., Aislinn, Donald and a PM (Lena or Christine). They’ll have a draft ready in May. The scope of work for the Transition Team (broadly): Planning and implementing onboarding for new teams (emphasizing the principles, best practices, responsibilities, expectations and PM/comms/consultation activities that have been critical to phase 4), a kick-off and other related activities. WG supports the phase 4 wrap-up and ongoing kick-start outlined in strawpersons A and B (no concerns/edits).
Feedback from SILS Chairs: For Acq/eR, members are mostly experts in one or the other. In the phase 4 structure, the applicable FG is primarily acquisitions; this has required a great deal of consultation and translation. Could take a similar approach to Fulfillment and Intercampus Sharing (“up to 2 members…). SGTF discussed that with the proliferation of groups, is this a reason to move to an expertise-based model? If so many systemwide, representative groups - at a certain point, it will detract from bandwidth available for campus-based work. Pursuing more representative groups, it may be time-limited. For the first year; then reassess Ops Subteam membership size and number of subteams. Why is this level of engagement important in the short and medium term? This is about moving towards more shared services and work. It will take time (2+ years?) and active participation to get there.
| Decision: SGTF supports applying the “mega” team approach being used for Fulfilmment and Intercampus sharing, to Acquisitions and eResources (i.e. up to 2 members). Decision: SGTF and others need to articulate why a continued investment is worthwhile. If we want to enjoy the benefits of a shared system soon, it takes the initial investment. | |
| 4 | Plan for drafting charges for the ongoing, UCLAS-integrated SILS structure | SGTF to weigh in on the following proposal: The Ongoing Governance Subgroup will be asked to draft charges, based on the roles/responsibilities table and feedback recently received. The full task force will then be responsible for reviewing and refining the charges. 1-2 additional SGTF members are asked to join the subgroup (currently Felicia, Salwa, Sarah T. and Danielle) Timeline --> April 19-May 05: subgroup drafts charges based on roles/responsibilities table and recent feedback May 07 SGTF meeting: review draft charges & determine further changes May 24: distribute draft charges to WG for feedback and review at May 28 WG (AM) meeting May 28 SGTF meeting: review WG feedback, plan for implementing changes June 7: distribute revised charges to WG, for endorsement at June 14 WG meeting June 14: distribute to CoUL & DOC for endorsement
| 00:10 | Danielle | | | Action: The Subgroup will move forward with drafting the charges! |