| | ITEM | MENTIONS | TIMEFRAME | COMMENTS |
|---|
| A | Consolidate platforms / Samvera decision / exit bepress / migrate legacy collections / sunset systems | 13 | 1, 3 | When 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 level | 9 | 1, 3 | See also I, below |
| C | Complete and public-facing policies, contact information | 7 | 1, 3 | Some suggest consistency across repositories. One specific mention of consistent collection policies. See also I, below |
| D | Develop/define CUL-wide repository strategy; clear purpose for each repo; clarify place of repositories in CUL priorities | 5 | 1, 3 | Don't base on CU/CUL org structure |
| E | Ensure preservation of repository content | 5 | 1, 3 | |
| G | Improve discovery (and interoperability to support it) | 4 | 1, 3 | Incl one comment that we should reduce multiple deposit |
| F | Participate in selected open sources communities | 2 | 3 | Presumes some consolidation of platforms |
| H | Evaluate / explore existing and potential external partnerships and shared repos (e.g. BHL, Internet Archive, other) | 2 | 1, 3 | |
| I | Adopt / implement repository principles document across CUL | 2 | 1 | See also B, C above |
SINGLE MENTIONS
- 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
- 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.