november 5, 2009 IC Meeting

• CN recap for discussion in Bruge re IAMSLIC: negotiating free and open access across country lines is an issue that will become increasingly apparent as BHL and other such projects go global
• Structure to support global collaboration, see worksheet for PROPOSED BHL structure:
  • replicating content across country lines requires addressing legal, hardware and funding issues
  • BHL hubs = repositories of BHL content hosted within a given global node, i.e. IA is one of them; other libraries may want to host portions of BHL data - how? - these libraries could be considered "partners" vs. broader level of involvement = "hubs"
  • BHL-E vs. BHL-China vs. BHL-Australia vs. BHL-US/UK ==> BHL global steering/coordinating committee to address
    • projects regionally/locally run, independent projects with independt funding and management
    • how to speak with a common voice, how to collaborate re: info architecture, additional questions?
    • suggestion to use "regional node" vs. "partner" - need for neutrality of terminology to eliminate hierarchical questions/concerns that may arise
    • management of centrally coord. tech teams? Atlas of Living Aust. (ALA) tech team for ex. much broader than BHL
    • Moore grant = salary for Chris + project assistance should thus become the Tech directorship from which centrally coord. tech teams report
    • policy & coordination vs. technology - need to more clearly delineate roles in int'l structure to avoid questions of roles brought up yesterday
    • Consideration of EOL in different role than "partner/regional node"; need to acknowledge their special role; EOL as consumer of content & funder
    • ALA vs. BHL-Aust.? interested in coordinating with mass digitization projects for Universities to bring content into BHL
    • separating exec director from tech
    • tech director gets all tech committees
    • EOL gets dotted line box all to itself
    • content coord. committee = 1 rep from all hubs & nodes; rather than "content" = collections
    • tech committee = 1 rep from all hubs & nodes?
    • need for such a structure for BHL US/UK, BHL Classic - what about NHM & Kew is their content going into BHL-E or BHL US/UK? Kew not part of BHL-E project but part of BHL US/UK
    • structure not intended for force position of individual libraries
    • need for Digitization box
    • TG to consult with GH and send out revision in December, then move to formalize

• cite successes - in its own section
• need to modify language from internationalizing to something else in light of recent changes
• current document is a combination of strategic plan + charter
• TG distributed "semi-glossy" version of strat plan to e-biosphere - communicated what we are as well as where we're going
• Who we are and where we're going is changing so much that there needs to be a variety of documents to communicate this to a variety of audiences: internal, global, funders, etc.
• plan needs to state current status of project as well as incorporate forward thinking
• mission statement to be incorporated with changes from digitization staff
• no need for "About" language - redo whole introduction
• Program goals under the mission but heart of BHL strategic plan is Appendix D - other information can be broken out into different documents like public facing wiki and glossy materials for dissemination
  • staff meeting examined program goals and distinguished b/w mission goals and strategic goals
• Appendix D discussion
  • 1.1 increase by % w/ actual stats vs. projected accomplishments, rather track actual accomplishments against goals
  • take dynamic approach to document to show starting point, progress over time and projected goals
  • convert to spreadsheet for simplified visualization
  • TG to re-evaluate and add goals such as ingested content from global hubs
  • removal of "accurate" from program goal 2 - BHL provides contents, does not simply provide access to accurate biodiversity literature; statement originally about accurate metadata
  • JSTOR/Mellon discussion: Mellon dislike of BHL model; issues of Sloan vs. Mellon; offer of help from Sloan deputy director to work with TG and others to strategize fund raising opportunities ==> Strategic plan: Approach additional funding sources!
  • Readiness of Strategic plan for March
  • modify numbering system for goals and measures
  • measures of impact of BHL - how can we collect this data? USER ANALYSIS!!!
  • point 4 is preservation element, not simply preservation of printed record - rework of "textual"
  • 6.1 is imperative, need for improvement of internal communications becomes a task not so much as a communications plan document - originally referring to outward communications plan, maintain as part of strategic plan; internal communications not exactly strategic in nature more about management
    • Need for glossy communications documents, brochures, schwag, etc.; "elevator speech" for funder audiences
    • other audiences in relation to communications: librarians, researchers & scientists, faculty, eduction via M. Struder of EOL - thematic communications also needed; individual libraries should be able to add their own content to the brochures
    • Action Item: need to evaluate praise collected so far as fodder for communications documents
    • Action Item: BHL image bank needed to support communications documents and outreach projects esp. to support M. Struder of EOL
  • present pt. 7 in column format
  • NG to work with TG on strategic plan

• Library Directors should be able to suggest bringing staff into IC meetings
• discussion of liaisoning b/w groups to channel lines of communication