...
- Rubric table-top exercise and discussion
Concerns:
Unable to answer rubric question based on info provided; although could maybe infer.
Need to have the response to the rubric questions built into an interview or intake form so the group has the information when scoring
Having the proposer available to answer questions but not participate might be important (answer the group's questions and then exit).
- If project proposers try to participate it may hinder the group's ability to complete the scoring in a timely fashion
What does work-plan completeness mean?
Is there evidence of a work-plan to execute the project?
But don't we want 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
- Copyright should not be an impediment to Preservation! May be an obstacle to Access, but not Preservation.
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 do 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 itself 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.
- It appears that we should switch to "Nature of Requester's Need" instead of who the requester is!
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.
- Since collective agreement was provided, this factor will be removed.
Is there a way to combine the Rubric with the project proposal for for a 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 . (Readiness focuses on existing details not what is desired or what the outcome should be)
- Next steps: We'll need at least another meeting and continue discussions virtually until then.
...