2017-10-24 Meeting notes

Feedback from Christine di Bella and Christine Kim

• a tremendous amount of work! really encouraging to see all this work.

• interested to hear this discussion on how ready/done this is for distribution

• initial reaction is – it's a lot! certainly don't want to send it out to people to see how big it is and make that prevent folks from going further.

• is there a way to guide people through this experience?

• perhaps more in terms of visual component – side by side comparison? or high level summaries – abstract? rearrange table of contents in a more linear format – follow the user manual?

• purpose of sharing recommendations to the membership? maintain a level of communication and transparency since so many people are working in the system. folks may come up with potentially better solutions possibly. some parts of the documentation haven't addressed some issues, such as digital objects and dealing with multiple repositories, probably because folks within this group haven't had much experience with that – so input would be appreciated

• how much description should we provide? table of contents be the most distilled access point and incrementally find a level of description that delivers the information but doesn't drown us in it. most digestable as possible is great. if something is too wordy, please feel free to cut it down and clarify.

• comments in the final document. first vetting within siewg across different groups before it gets distributed to a wider group of people. how much cross-group feedback has there been so far? perhaps each group assigned to look at two different groups? perhaps another 2 week round of review? perhaps with all sections compiled into a "final" document. and assign each group with two different sections to review.

• Find your group on this team roster, and review the two groups that follow: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19VKSu2rWIBlfyXcpP4YejTaE4G87ZfDSv2s1p7dlOec/edit?usp=sharing Example – Group A reviews content from Groups B&C; Group B reviews content from Groups C&D; etc. Comment within documents, 2 weeks to review.

• short overview document that puts it all in a succinct way, that comes before the table of contents so people know where to go. also does make sense to do more vetting if we need to. this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1fx2qMfW9m6E4NGanGQcv8udSr04u4MbvzhP2DzhoE/edit?usp=sharing

"The Plan"

•  3 phase project: 1st phase of developing specifications is completed.  2nd phase of sharing specifications and incorporating feedback.  3rd phase to submit final recommendations ideally by mid-December.

• Editors help create Table of Contents linking to our documents, organizing them intellectually.

• Plan to share the Specs folder with the ArchivesSpace member list hopefully next week.

• Teams address comments and feedback within their Topic docs.  

 JIRAS

https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/AR-1763https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/AR-1769