Page Comparison

...

Lloyd will type up notes from the previous meeting.  He was planning to do that before this meeting but has not had time.

Lucy says : the ICOLC task force will meet next Friday to decide what to do with the report.

...

Before we started these meetings with ICOLC the SIG was starting to develop a proposal to bring to ReShare, but we don't know what the process should be now.

Jill says : we should clearly define what we want from such a project, and bring that to a ReShare steering committee meeting.  The steering committee can take that to figure out how that can fit in to the ReShare project.

Lucy points out that : the SIG has started a vision document, and that could be filled out to go to the steering committee.

Scott says that : we need to think about how this could be resourced.

Jill says : the steering committee meets once a week on Mondays at Noon.  It would be easy to add this to the agenda once we are ready with the vision.  They are currently talking about how to build membership and revenue.

Lloyd says that : the SIG has not firmed up what the product would be, but that is good because ReShare can still help shape it.  We don't know enough about ReShare to say much about how it would work technically in that context.

Lloyd posts the vision document.

Lucy says : we don't need the conceptual diagram for the Steering committee.  They will want to do that because it will need to work in the ReShare context.  We need the user stories and some basics of the functional requirements.  Organizational governance can be figured out later.  The user stories are what we need to nail down first.

Jill says : what the steering committee would want to do is take representatives of the SIG and representatives from ReShare to work on building the rest of this out together. 

Lloyd says : the user stories would be fairly easy to flesh out.  The main point of uncertainty that we had was the basic structural question of whether people wanted a system where the user is maintaining their records in a central system, or the user is maintaining records in their own system which is interacting with a central system.

Jill says : that currently ReShare is build on the second option because it needs to work with many different systems.  It gives members of a consortium the flexibility to make their own local choices.  Then they can iron out what's needed in a shared inventory in ReShare.  She thinks that would be esier, since that is already what ReShare is doing.  It would be preferable to something like Alma Resource Sharing where everyone is working in a central system.  It is not compatible with other systems.

Lloyd says : that makes sense.  We have been thinking that since we are the FOLIO SIG we will all be on FOLIO, but that's not what ReShare is thinking.

Scott points out that : MCLS and Marmot are multi-type.  In that context record matching is really important.  If this system had really robust record matching, that would be really useful. 

...

Noah: I think I remember a while back when we had Sebastian on a call, he suggested that this could be a parallel project to ReShare, rather than trying to fit it into ReshareReShare's priority list.  There could be enough interest that it could warrent it's own track.  It could mirror the structure and organization, but have it's own pathway to follow. 

Lloyd: Does that mean it would be a separate OLF project?

Noah: maybe something like that.

Lucy: I agree with all of that, but I think the first thing we need before we have any of those conversations is a better understanding of the vision we are trying to accomplish here.  If the vision is for one one hand a way for folio or reshare libraries to have a plac eto go to look for records that reduces their dependence on OCLC that's fantasitic.  If the vision is to have something that's good enough that we don't need OCLC at all any more, that's a different vision.  And we're talking about a system where you will use OCLC as a last resort, then you still have to pay for OCLC.  So, my vision for this is to get to a point where, at some point you want to have a product that is robust enough that we don't need OCLC at all.  Either the record is in there, or someone within the collective will catalog it.

Jill: One of the things that reshare did early on which might be a model here was work with the Big Ten and the write paper they wrote about their vision for resource sharing.  They built around that shared vision that people could buy into and invest into.  Once that is solid enough that people coule invest in it, that's where you start to be able to build unique partnerships.  The model that we had with reshare early on was athat the people who invested time and money into it were going to turn around and buy services from the people developing them.  And there was a promise of some potential revune that they could recoup fr that investment.  That model worked because we all bought into a vision and we didn't actually need to see the thing before we paid into it.  But I've had so many peole tell me that there's a there there.  Well there's not going to be a there unless we co-invest in a vision that we can all beleave in.  I agree with Lucy that we have to built the vision in a way that is understandable and people can see the benefit.  Also, what is the alternative if we don't do this.  That story is really important for us to tell.

Lucy: Once we have that I am all in.  I'm not saying ICOLC shouldn't have any imput into it, they should ahv input in the the vision.  The point at which ICOLC has to make a decision about what are we going to say about this as an organization comes once the vision is developed.  After we know waht we are endorsing.

Rick: I agree, Lucy, I want to get to the point of having htat strategic discussion.  If we can go forward with some action items about what we want to do.  Part of the problem is that the OCLC task force report ahsn't been fully released to the rest of ICOLC to asses what they think about it.  ICOLC is an informal association, it's not a governing body anyway, buy the statements that ICOLC has mad in the past have had invludence.  Ift ehre's a way we can do that, that would be value that ICOLC can brin goto this.

Lucy: If this group fleshes out the initial user stories, a bit further.  Have an initial conversation with ReShare, so that at least we have a guiding high level vision.  I big goal we want to accomplish.   I think I am perfectly happy to wait on the release of any further communication with the ICOLC OCLC task force until we have that.  Then it seems like a pivot to presenting the new project that people can help shape and guide forward.  Maybe that 's the point where ICOLC endorses.  I don't think it's too much more work to get to the oint where we can have a conversation with ReShare.

Scott: To Rick's point, I would love to see ICOLC marshal actual resources toward this.  We have many consortia in many places that could bring resources.

Rick: That's what I was getting at.  It's just a

Lucy: I have a statement already in the document that says if we spent 1% of our annual bills with OCLC and spent it on this project we would more than be able to fund it.  But are we ready to say that now?  No.  We need to have the vision for what the project is.  We are losing that call to action if we say that too soon.

Charlotte: I think that some how the timing is good, because ReShare has

Discussion items

...