Wendy Kozlowski, Deborah Cooper, Steve Folsom, Michelle Paolillo, Simeon Warner, Tre Berney, Jean Pajerek, Peter Hook, Dean Krafft, Gail Steinhart (notes), Sandy Payette, Jenn Colt, Jason Kovari, Erin Faulder

Background - RepoExec members survey fall 2018

  • Purpose: identify high level priorities with respect to CUL's repositories
  • Survey intended to prompt thinking in advance and seed discussion, and not the final word
  • Focus on the ideas and not the details of implementation

Discussion:

  • Some items require major investment of resources, others don't- do we treat them the same way? Do we entertain a notion of ROI for addressing this? Especially with respect to A, B, D (related: A is the problems at hand, B and D are some possible approaches).
  • Sandy and Anne's analysis is also looking at most urgent issues, some overlap. Note multiple views: IT, access function, RepoExec.
  • Several issues further down the list follow from A. 
  • Is there anything people would like to add?
    • Research data responsibilities at Cornell.
    • Infrastructure agnostic metadata management that doesn't rely on consolidating platforms. Example: ORCID. Also serves item G.
    • Digital humanities absent.
    • Lack of definition of the CUL service that we mean to provide with repositories.
  • Question re: A and consolidation - is that about reducing number of platforms or reducing number of services? We suspect both.
  • B,C, D may be candidates for RepoExec work.
  • Work in A has to be planned and executed strategically.
  • If we start with D, determine a CUL repo strategy and policy, who is it for? Who has agency in making decisions?
  • Consider where we are now, issues with, where we should be going.
  • Consider perspective - individual/collection of repositories ("repository first approach"), or the services that they individually and collectively provide.
  • Can we agree on priorities, take those and suggest some possible ways forward?
  • Note that B, C, E, I are all related (could be as big a bucket as A)
  • Perhaps D is uber issue, with three sub-groups (A, C/E/I, B)
  • RepoExec role in the short term is summarizing and providing this feedback
  • Next steps:
    • Rewrite / reorganize ideas - volunteers: Wendy, ...
    • Plan to meet in November
  • Tre: 
    • Trying to provision for some RMC assets - prompted larger examination of question of roles with respect to ArtStor, Kaltura, and Samvera digital collections
    • Dianne did a series of interviews, surfaced some policy needs for ArtStor
    • Tre will move forward on Kaltura
    • Then can start to fill specific roles (currently no ownership in those areas)
  • No labels