Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
  
 ITEMMENTIONSTIMEFRAMECOMMENTS
AConsolidate platforms / Samvera decision / exit bepress / migrate legacy collections / sunset systems1381, 31, 3When broken down into A1=consolidate platforms/sunset systems, A2=Samvera decision, A3=exit bepress, A4= migrate legacy collections, tally become A1=5, A2=6, A3=1, A4=3 (wak)
B Service management / role clarity / appropriate staffing level791, 3See also I, below
C Complete and public-facing policies (including collection), contact information571, 3Some suggest consistency across repositories. One specific mention of consistent collection policies. See also I, below
DEnsure preservation of repository content31, 3 Develop/define CUL-wide repository strategy; clear purpose for each repo; clarify place of repositories in CUL priorities51, 3Don't base on CU/CUL org structure
EEnsure preservation of repository content51, 3 
GParticipate in selected open sources communities23Presumes some consolidation of platformsImprove discovery (and interoperability to support it)41, 3Incl one comment that we should reduce multiple deposit
FParticipate in selected open sources communities23Presumes some consolidation of platforms
H Evaluate / explore existing and potential external partnerships and shared repos (e.g. BHL, Internet Archive, other)21, 3    
IAdopt / implement repository principles document across CUL21See also B, C above 

 

SINGLE MENTIONS

  • Should RepoExec should meet less frequently
  • Support for large (>3GB) datasets in eCommons (i.e. Globus)
  • Greater transparency on part of RepoExec, especially for liaisons
  • Complete documentation for all repositories
  • Define "metadata of record," in particular to support movement of content from one repo to another
  • Clarify repository landscape (support staff understanding of it)
  • Clarify whether collection and deposit of Cornell faculty papers is a priority (and if it is, staff appropriately)
  • Better communication among repository staff to share ideas, challenges, goals, etc.
  • PR / marketing support for repositories to improve visibility
  • Modernize Improve or modernize feature set in repositories; better support for customization
  • If supporting OJS, need to provision for service. Possible CUL-CUP partnership? Possible consolidation of existing pubs?
  • Update repository inventory

 

PRIORITIZING

  • Day to day work experience / pain points
  • Previous RepoExec discussions
  • Issues of technical debt, need to consolidate platforms
  • 1-year: things that can be done with current knowledge and resources
  • Funders' public access requirements (for data)
  • Lifecycle and longer-term thinking
  • Desire to break down siloes

OTHER COMMENTS

  • RepoExec underutilized / out of the loop on discussions, decision-making. Bypassed and pther repository-related groups formed, or decisions about repos are made elsewhere. Instead this group could fulfill that role.
  • Convening service managers to establish more uniform practices could be useful
  • Lack of authority means RepoExec can't do much; demoralizing
  • Suggestion that membership skews too much towards "top level," should include more functional experts
  • Need to hear CUL/UL commitment regarding repositories

HOW RESPONSES WERE TABULATED

  • Repetition of the same idea within a single survey response was only counted once.
  • Where multiple/similar ideas were combined into a single item in the table above, if the response included two or more different elements of the consolidated item, each element was counted.
  • Responses tabulated: 14.