Thanks Laura. I got similar feedback from Andrea today and she liked the idea of SIG forums. Also she thought about having a SIG convener, SIG liaisons, POs listserv that she could place questions about development that may impact other areas. For example review of additional fields in user record such as department (not currently in the record) and deceased flag, do other teams use more fields for reporting from the user records?

So Andrea did see a need for more sharing and awareness that a SIG review would offer and she is concerned about development that is important to other modules. She brought up the last forum on the RA discussion of item status and the use of a status for process: needed for and how will this status impact inventory and Resource management.

That is my feedback from Andrea.

Thanks, Sharon

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Laura E Wright <Laura.Wright@colorado.edu> wrote:

A number of members of Metadata Management were enthusiastic about the idea of not just one but regular (quarterly?) “SIG Reviews.” There was general agreement that it’s better to ask conveners or other SIG members rather than POs, who are already very busy. Someone mentioned the plenary session brief demos from WolfCon as a possible model.

So even if we decide this isn’t really appropriate to organize as a Forum, it sounds like people would like something analogous to the sprint reviews for SIGs. [I like the term “SIG Review,” which I’m pretty sure Patty Wanninger suggested, but I did also think of suggesting “Jog Reviews” for something that’s like, but not quite, a sprint.]

Best,

Laura

***********************************

Laura Wright (pronouns: she/her/hers)

Serials and E-resources Cataloging Manager

University Libraries

University of Colorado Boulder

Boulder, Colorado 80309

T 303-492-4847

W http://colorado.edu/libraries

Wearing the sensible shoes proudly since 1995

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=XzYE3ICqIZ2iJhafS4ddj4qMVEjkWrgj