Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Future Steering Meeting Agenda Items

Proposed Meeting Agenda - August 27, 2010

Agenda – August 27, 2010

  • Intro’s and orientation for new participants (steering committee function, membership, scope, key issues etc. (All)
  • IT Bank Funding
  • CollectionSpace and campus deployment status (Chris Hoffman, Michael Black)
  • Programmatic Sustainability (All)
    • ITBank – funding, feedback, response
    • CollectionSpace foundation, non-profit, deployment communities
    • Campus/System-wide consortium for longer term operational support of collections
    • Open issue: Plans – approach, who, what and when
    • Open issue: Collaboration plan around Arctos
    • NSF Advancing Digitization of Biological Collections ( Brent )
  • Other Quick updates
    • NSF Data Management plan project
    • Project list review/resource plan (handout)
    • Darwin server outage

Proposed Meeting Agenda - February 16, 2010

Update from the Collection Managers / Technical meeting

  • Brief update from CIO/OE
  • Collections Management and Transition Strategy
  • Funding / Sustainability Actions
    • IT Bank, Shel Waggener / Graham Fleming meeting (Patrick)
    • Canada-California Strategic Innovation Partnership – CCSIP (Brent)
    • USDA (Brent)
    • Arctos (Craig)

Proposed Meeting Agenda -  October 30, 2009

Key Ongoing Priorities

  • Collections Management
  • Portfolio Management
  • Communications, and alignment with directors and museum staff
  • Fundraising

Specific Meeting Issues

  • Discussion of Collections Management Strategy Recommendations. 
    • Findings, Steering recommendations and decision making.
  • Tabled Issues:
    • Hiring
      • Strategy for Hiring.  DAG tabled recommendation for discussion that we use IT Bank funding for additional technical resource, and apply as carry forward to next year's funding for an existing team member.
      • Competing issues:  Programming backlog; hardware platform migration to IST supported platforms;  collectionspace arampup and analysis.
    • Review of governance models.  Patrick to propose lightweight process to involve Chris and team with grant propsal analysis if IST support is needed for development, implementation and/or suppo
    • Loans Update (Chris)
    • Fundraising Plan
    • Who, what and when?

Outstanding Steering Committee Action Items (as of October 29, 2009)

Approval of time allocation of Lam Voong to support Arctos - refer email 10/27/2009

From Craig...

I'm responding to an earlier proposal from Chris (9/22) to reduce Lam Voong's time on ARCTOS to 4hrs/week after the data migration work is complete. I've sought advice from Carla and the ARCTOS team, including Dusty.  I'll also be discussing this with the ARCTOS Steering Committee (representatives from Harvard MCZ, UAM & MSB) this morning.

The bottom line is that the minimum time we need to keep the wheels on is 10 hrs/wk - ie. 25% time. Anything less will seriously compromise operability of MVZs database, deliverables on a number of current NSF grants, and undermine our collaboration and joint funding arrangements with these institutions

I know this is not the answer you wanted, but there it is. We are all stretched too thin, but this is an investment that I simply must protect.

Decision:   Lam's time allocation is approved at 25%.  when we have reached an agreed direction on CMS platform, this decision will be reevaluated as implementation plans and resource loading are assessed.

Confirmation of Processes and principles used to Approve new IT work under the partnership - refer note from Brent 10/20/2009

We should talk about the general process at our upcoming meeting for sure. I agree there should be a routine process for informing IST about grant proposals that would involve changes/additions to web services. For example, we are madly working on another proposal for IMLS this week, meant to support library improvements that are linked to the active archive grant. Would you like to look at that proposal this week? By a week from Friday it will be too late.

To clarify the Function A, Function B distinction as I see it, Function A is meant to cover routine web services, e.g., the task of serving already-built databases on the web professionally, security, etc. Pretty much the tasks you mention in your bullet points. Function B includes development of IT advances (new and improved functions in databases and web services), where IST is being asked to partner and provide staff research and development time. E.g., building new software platforms. The distinction is mainly for funding purposes, Function A tasks are those to be funded by overhead or other core institutional funding; Function B tasks are those to be funded by direct costs in proposal budgets.

Needs more discussion.

Approval of Archon Project Implementation and Support - refer to Brent's proposal

This is one of those grant needs that must be taken care of now, even though the data presumably might be served by CollectionSpace eventually (I assume there are plans for an archive module?). We have an active grant, so the clock is ticking, and we need to serve the
archive data on the web very soon. Archon was free and open-source, and is the most widely used program in the field for archives. I understand it is already installed on Darwin, so the only issue is activating the web service, which I understand would take much less
than a day, and the maintenance/security issues should be minimal since there is a large and active community using it.

So, the bottom line is that I would support this as a priority at present. The other museums have archives, although I don't know if any are serving data on the web yet. This program should soon fill a need for more than just the Herbaria, at least until CollectionSpace
is functioning in this area.

I am copying this to the rest of the steering committee for discussion and hopefully agreement.

Decision:   Approved.   Implementation for Herbaria archive will proceed and will be supported by IST Informatics team.

Feedback of Collection Management System Evaluation Criteria. Refer request 9/15/09

Please find attached two documents for your review.
The first is the preamble to the criteria we discussed in our last steering committee.  Please review this and provide your comments, or list additional items you'd like to see there.
The second is a spreadsheet with the criteria themselves. Please review, identify major omissions,and provide a suggested weighting for the items listed in YELLOW.  Sub criteria are presented to provide additional context to the heading.   
For the business and technical sections, I have included my own personal weightings but have not gathered other's specific input yet.
Please try to return your feedback by the end of Monday 21st if possible, and we will continue with the evaluation.

Focus of next meeting.

Review Projects List and provide top 3 priorities for assignment to technical staff. Refer meeting 9/9/09

3) Steering: have steering committee review the long project list (50-60 items) and rank requests 1-3 so we can make sure this is where we'd spend our discretionary time.

Put this on the back burner.

Update on analysis of Loans alternatives. Refer meeting 9/9/09

Based on the absence of critical support for Loans functionality, Chris will present his analysis to-date and will need to get guidance on the approach we should be taking.

Chris has performed additional analysis and will discuss with UCMP and steering.

Feedback on Process of Project Review.   Refer request 8/27/09

Following on from the steering committee notes, I'd like to inject a related issue to how we staff the Type A and B functions. This is a critical part of the project decision making / funding process we need to further develop.

The assumption is that any new project (type-B) will need to be supported after the project has completed. This support would either be performed by the staff associated with the program (IST) or managed by the museum who benefited from the project. In either case, there would be an implicit acceptance of the type-A ongoing workload as a result of moving forward with the project. That incremental workload also needs to be considered as well to ensure we have the ability to manage a growing legacy code-base.

In the event that IST was expected to maintain the systems after they were developed (type A operations, bug fixes, small enhancements, etc.), we would want them to be developed in such a way that they met the technical/supportability goals and standards, as well as functionally scoped so that (where possible) the projects could be leveraged by more than one museum or integrate with other parts of our platform.

For that reason, for any of the work that would be ultimately supported within the BNHM-IST partnership, I'd like to make the following recommendations:

  1. The IST team contribute to the design and estimates of new projects (and related support effort) to be performed within the context of the partnership (including if IST will be expected to support the system).  This should ideally happen before the grant is submitted and during other important planning and design stages, and obviously requires some good communication and coordination. 
  2. We have strong technical oversight from Patrick Schmitz and team to set a technical roadmap and standards.
  3. We have functional oversight from Chris Hoffman and the BNHM-IST advisory committee and technical representatives on what gets built and how we can coordinate development to impact as many groups as possible.
  4. Chris and Patrick's teams monitor the development of the projects and are involved in handoff processes as appropriate. The BNHM-IST Advisory Committee and technical representatives should also have better visibility into project status.
  5. Chris will be keeping his team capacity/forecast up to date and posted on the web, as well as the list of project requests. We should therefore be able to monitor the impact of successive new workload of type-A functions.
  6. Ideally, because the IST will be heavily involved in supporting the systems, it makes strong sense to also have them involved in development activities which sounds like a creative blending of funding sources for the team.

I'd like to get your reactions to this so we can agree to an approach and then send a communication out. Please send me comments via email and we can touch base on it again at the next steering committee meeting.

Decision: Need to discussion further, for communication to researchers.

Feedback on publication of steering committee notes. Refer request 8/27/09

I Would be interested in posting these kinds of updates for wider communication/transparency. Any objections to this?

Decision:  Post summaries as taken.

  • No labels