2020-12-18 SGTF agenda and notes

Welcome and announcements

Opportunity for co-chairs and members to share brief announcements and notices.

00:05

Ginny, Aislinn

•  Proposal: SGTF to reschedule the Jan. 15 SGTF meeting to Jan. 22. Danielle will circulate this proposal on the listserv.

Initial poll findings

• Assessment goals (shared as a reminder)

• Summary of poll findings

• Out of scope comments (more pertinent to current work as opposed to ongoing governance)

Walk through an overview of the findings and initial recommendations and discuss next steps.

01:15

Salwa, Aislinn, Danielle

• SGTF affirmed: the poll’s response rate across all three demographic areas is excellent (60% of the SILS cohort!), as is the very low/few negative responses to the likert questions.

• The SILS WG is already addressing topics raised in the poll comments that are specific to phase 4 work (e.g. UC is already engaging Ex Libris, re: quality of service).

• A task force member noted that the data from the likert scale questions should inform how we interpret the poll comments. There is a risk in over-emphasizing the comments; it is important to acknowledge minority opinions (the concerns they represent and new ideas), but if 70% of respondents responded positively in the likert scale, that’s critical context.

• Members reflected that sometimes rumors “stick” more than what’s actually happening; thus far in the SILS project, a number of misunderstandings have generated untrue rumors that were easily debunked.

• Some poll comments highlight the need to keep communicating. While not governance-related, SGTF can share with the Comms OL and PM OL - that the poll findings indicate more communication is needed, particularly around decisions-made.

• Agreement across task force members: more active communications, using different communication methods/mediums, is important. And inter-group communication is aligned with governance; charges include communication responsibilities.

• When charges include information-sharing and information-gathering responsibilities, how can the structure help ensure these responsibilities are carried out?

• The phase 4 structure is big and complex - inter-group communications and info-sharing has been difficult; potentially changes/adaptations might improve workflows and sharing before the close of phase 4. How might we consider this for ongoing governance?

• In terms of further analysis, are there any “canary in the coal mine” comments that might hold value for ongoing governance?

• Task force member noted that a fair amount of the poll comments are outside of scope for SGTF. Agreement that these should be shared with the SILS WG.

Action: Poll subgroup will draft a high-level, one/two page summary of suggestions* for SILS WG and topics that warrant further SGTF discussion.

*These should be suggested areas for further investigation (not recommendations).

Total

00:50