InC-Lib-Vendor

[David Kennedy <>]

Thanks, Andy.  Looks good

Dave

-----
David Kennedy
Application Developer
Perkins Library, Duke University
(919) 613-6831




From:
Andy Ingham <>
To:
David Kennedy <>
Cc:

Date:
11/09/2009 04:24 PM
Subject:
Re: [InC-Lib-Vendor] notes from today's call



Dave, and others --

I've taken a quick stab at MY [AI] from below.

The proposed letter, again, is at:

https://spaces.internet2.edu/display/inclibrary/Contact+Email


and remains password-protected.

Andy



David Kennedy wrote:
> Thank you for another productive call today.  I have put notes up on the 

> wiki from our conversation, they are also included below
> 
> Dave
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> Notes: Conference call 11-06-09
> Vendor subgroup minutes
> Attendees:
> Fred Zhang, MSU
> Dean Woodbeck, Internet2
> Andy Ingham, UNC-CH
> Foster Zhang, JHU
> David Kennedy, Duke
> notes - kennedy
> 
> AGENDA
> Updates
> 2nd tier vendors
>   - list on wiki
>   - draft letter on wiki
>   - process for institutions to "sign up"
> expectations on participating institutions
> 
> Action Items
> [AI] All - continue recruitment conversations at our respective campuses
> [AI] Woodbeck - draft a SurveyMonkey survey for gathering participants
> [AI] Kennedy - contact some individuals to participate in this process
> [AI] Ingham - refine the wording of the letter to properly set 
> expectations
> [AI] Woodbeck - send each of us the name of our campus' designated 
> executive
> 
> Discussion
> Updates:
> Kennedy - Worked with Laura Wrubel and Mark Williams to identify 2nd 
tier 
> vendors
>   - Initial draft of invitation on wiki
>   - Continued conversation at Duke for inviting vendors to join InCommon
> Ingham - Created a case study document on the wiki for UNC's ezproxy. 
> Intends for this to be referenced from cookbook. The Gliffy diagramming 
> plug in to the InCommon wiki was very useful to creating the diagram in 
> the wiki. Might be good for a few more use cases to go along with those 
> that already exist.
>   - Email to ezproxy listserv a few weeks back
>   - Continuing the conversation at UNC for inviting vendors to join 
> InCommon.
> Fred Zhang - MSU is definitely ready to participate more in the vendor 
> group efforts. Fred is in IT group. They are well coordinated with 
library 
> and Shibboleth, and run both library systems and ezproxy for the 
library. 
> Well suited organizationally.
> Discussion of 2nd tier of vendors:
> Feel the need in our current conversations at our universities that we 
> need some concreteness in a couple of areas - a draft letter, a sense 
for 
> what vendors are being targeted, a sense for who else might participate, 

> and a sense for what the expectations of involvement will be.
> Agreement among this group that the draft letter needs some work, but is 

> concise enough that we can use for conversations at our respective 
> campuses. Letter needs some better language to lower the expectations 
that 
> every campus on the letter has the same immediate capabilities to 
> participate, and that in some cases this is laying the groundwork.
> Agree that to have sufficient weight to the invitation, we should have a 

> minimum number of universities on a letter of about 10 or 12. Probably 
our 
> best bet at this point is to recruit from institutions and individuals 
who 
> have actively participated in the InCommon Library Services group over 
the 
> past few years.
> Discussed what expectation would be of institutions that sign the 
letter. 
> Agree that there should be three ways to participate. The first is that 
> there would be a lead institution for each vendor; the lead institution 
> would coordinate communication, coordinate testing by various campuses, 
> and act as sponsor for InCommon membership (or potentially coordinate 
the 
> sponsorship). The second way to particpate would be to act as one of the 

> tester institutions. The third would be to support the effort but not 
> necessarily be willing or able to test right away.
> For these different levels of participation, we weren't sure how high up 

> within our organizations we would need to go for a signature. In other 
> words, who at an institution would need to authorize that they would be 
a 
> tester on one of these letters. Not clear, but may be a barrier for 
> participation if we require more than the lead institutions to go all 
the 
> way up the chain to get a UL or CIO backing.
> We also discussed the risk that we could get 12 institutions to sign a 
> letter, and if they don't have sufficient backing at their own 
> institutions, a vendor could join InCommon and 6 months later, none of 
the 
> 12 institutions would be using the technology. Recognition that there is 
a 
> lot of latency at our institutions for making change, but there is the 
> same latency on the vendor side, so we might as well start the process 
now 
> on both ends.
> Sponsorship may be a barrier at our institutions. Once you get to the 
> right person at your campus and convince them to take action, the steps 
to 
> sponsor are simple. But there is often a disconnect from the library 
staff 
> who are motivated and the person sufficiently high up in IT that needs 
to 
> sign the letter. Dean will supply each of us with the name of our own 
> campus' designated InCommon executive.
> All 4 institutions on the call will be continuing appropriate 
> conversations at our respective campuses for participation in this 
> process.
> Dean will work on Survey Monkey approach that we will send out.
> When it is ready, we will want to spatter this survey as well as we can. 

> InC-libsrvcs, incommon-participants and ezproxy list. We will also do 
some 
> individual recruitment immediately.
> 
> 
> -----
> David Kennedy
> Application Developer
> Perkins Library, Duke University
> (919) 613-6831
> 
>