...

Meetings

...

October 21, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan, Jenny Robb, & Gene Springs

Agenda

...

• Rubric review
• Table-top exercise planning
• Action Items:
  • Dan to schedule next meeting
  • Exercise Prep":
    • Put project detail sin "Rubric" folder in Teams/OneDrive
    • Dan to create individualized "rubric tools"
    • Everyone: Complete rubric

...

• discussion

September 23, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan , & Jenny Robb , &

Regrets: Gene Springs

Guest: Beth Snapp

Agenda

• Develop test/pilot rubric and Rubric table-top exercise
• Do we use just a numeric system?
• It could be like "candidate" ranking? Initial score with discussion
• May be composite scoring and not exactly granular – adding "human" factor
• Possibly an ongoing regular "meeting of the minds"
• Think about it in terms of projects, not daily work
• Regardless there must be a certain % of time that i set aside to do regular work
• Think about work in a 1/4ly fashion?
• How do we account for disruptions and re-prioritizing work?
• 60 project / 30 ongoing / 10 admin weekly splits (what do these represent???)
• Regular discussion schedules valuable; how does new work impact priority of stuff already in the pipeline? Especially from disparate groups
• Need to keep core group small and manageable; invite others ad hoc as needed
• Start w/possibly monthly meetings and other communication channels
• Representative sample of projects:
• Each group come up w/a couple projects
• What does a proposal look like?
• What level of "projects" would come to this "group"?
• How does "routine" work factor in?
• What is "routine" work?
• Is the digitization proposal form good enough?
• Do we tweak it?
• Do we have turn our factors into a checklist?
• Let's not make it arduous?
eg: CWRU https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KTGdAfYKWX6x6Hae_F4DonbEdqtF7o4Hkx56wBrA2K4/edit#gid=1266435649
• and discussion
  

  • Concerns:

    • Unable to answer rubric question based on info provided; although could maybe infer.

    • 
      

      What does work-plan completeness mean?

      • Is there evidence of a work-plan to execute the project?

      • But don't we want  to answer the "project worthiness" question before creating a full-fledged plan?

    • There are many unknowns in calibrating terminology (e.g. what is a large, medium and small project?); but could happen over time.

    • Is copyright misplaced? Maybe a showstopper? The current three exceptions are:

      • public domain;

      • not public domain, but we've been granted permission

      • we own rights

    • Is this right tool?

    • Should it just be self scored and/or collectively discussed and scored together

    • The tool might be best deployed after project is submitted, which has more detailed info.

    • If the object are already digitized or to be digitized for another reason, how doe we account for that; do we need another question?

      • This likely comes in the OPPORTUNITY section under "Does this work lead to future efficiencies?" or "Critical mass"

    • What is "Requestor's Need"?

      • Why are patrons a factor? If the request raises it self to a project as opposed to a one-off or would have to actively engage Preservation and Digitization and/or Metadata Initiatives.

      • Does this section need to be just a rating with more nuanced understanding of who requestor is?

        • There has already been a discussed hierarchy for prioritization that we are trying to reflect. If it is more nuanced and say it is a donor request, but not critical, then maybe score it lower and explain in the Notes.

    • Do we actually need the "Core Service" question? It was expressed previously as a prioritization factor, but if there is collective agreement that it is not an actual issue to be scored, it could be removed.

    • 
      

      Is there a way to combine the Rubric with the project proposal for for more seamless workflow; possibly with a conversation with the proposer?

    • What are we trying to do address with Readiness? What is the basis of the scoring point-of-view?

      • We may need to provide more explanation here.
• Next steps: We'll need at least another meeting and continue discussions virtually until then.

August 24, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan, Jenny Robb, & Gene Springs

Agenda

• MS Teams/OneDrive Migration
• Rubric review
• Table-top exercise planning
• Action Items:
  • Dan to schedule next meeting
  • Exercise Prep":
    • Put project detail sin "Rubric" folder in Teams/OneDrive
    • Dan to create individualized "rubric tools"
    • Everyone: Complete rubric

July 8, 2021

Attendance: Sue Beck, Morag Boyd, Miriam Centeno, Tamar Chute, Nena Couch, Dan Noonan, Jenny Robb, & Gene Springs

Agenda

• Develop test/pilot rubric and table-top exercise
  • Each group come up w/a couple projects
  • What does a proposal look like?
  • What level of "projects" would come to this "group"?
  • How does "routine" work factor in?
  • What is "routine" work?
  • Is the digitization proposal form good enough?
  • Do we tweak it?
  • Do we have turn our factors into a checklist?
  • Let's not make it arduous?
  • eg: CWRU https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KTGdAfYKWX6x6Hae_F4DonbEdqtF7o4Hkx56wBrA2K4/edit#gid=1266435649
• Do we use just a numeric system?
• It could be like "candidate" ranking? Initial score with discussion
• May be composite scoring and not exactly granular – adding "human" factor
• Possibly an ongoing regular "meeting of the minds"
• Think about it in terms of projects, not daily work
• Regardless there must be a certain % of time that i set aside to do regular work
• Think about work in a 1/4ly fashion?
• How do we account for disruptions and re-prioritizing work?
• 60 project / 30 ongoing / 10 admin weekly splits (what do these represent???)
• Regular discussion schedules valuable; how does new work impact priority of stuff already in the pipeline? Especially from disparate groups
• Need to keep core group small and manageable; invite others ad hoc as needed
• Start w/possibly monthly meetings and other communication channels
• Representative sample of projects:
• Action Items
• Draft Rubric - Dan & Sue
• Sample Projects -- Heads

...