Attendees:  Eleanor Brown, Kathy Chiang, Anne Kenney, Zsuzsa Koltay, Xin Li, Oya Rieger, Pat Schafer, Kizer Walker, Scott Wicks

Key Points:

• Discussion of RedRover-Secure Pilot
• Recommendations on next steps regarding the Next Generation Gateway

1)      Discussion on RedRover-Secure pilot with guest Oliver Habicht

• Oliver distributed two handouts (“RedRover issues related to CU Library” and “RedRover Secure Wireless”)
• Potential technical implication:  WPA (Wi-Fi Protected Access) requires software to be installed.  CIT will provide this software, but it’s up to the patron to download the software to their laptop
• Security: wireless internet is similar to “speaking in a room where anyone can listen in.”  Having a secure connection will possibly slow down the internet connection, but it will be encrypted so people won’t be able to see other’s information

ACTION ITEMS:

• Oliver to look into:
• Will having secure wireless bump any patrons that want to use nonsecure connections?
• Is this program still a pilot version?
• Will the Reference desks see questions about using the secure connections, and if so, will they be able to answer these questions?
• The Documentation Committee should make information pamphlets for patrons (if this is installed)
• Kathy Chiang volunteered Mann Library as a “guinea pig” (beginning in the summer)

• ITEC (Information Technology Executive Committee) wrote the “RedRover Issues Related to CU Library” and the “RedRover Service Level Agreement”  
• ITEC will be meeting with the RedRover project manager at their next meeting

ACTION ITEMS:

• PSEC reviewed RedRover and Library report and offered suggestions
• Reporting RedRover problems by CUL staff: http://gould2.mannlib.cornell.edu:8080/confluence/x/jyw
• Other comments should be sent directly to Oliver (oh10@cornell.edu) or Michael Cook (mnc2@cornell.edu)

2)      Recommendation of next steps with the Next Generation Gateway (NGG) and the application of user centered design (with guests Kornelia Tancheva and Linda Bryan)

• Kornelia discussed next steps:
• More research is needed; for example, a comprehensive user study is needed
• Look into metasearch options, including Google Scholar (discuss with ReDS their search criteria, and what would have made the search easier)
• Pay attention to the catalog (provide reviews, allow people to tag our items)
• Verify what the Google search appliance does (does it search within our catalog?)
• Form a task force
• Questions posed by PSEC:
• Will the NGG be for a broad audience or a specific audience?
• Therefore, should we compartmentalize our users?
• What have other colleges done (Binghamton, Stanford)?
• A system is needed that will accommodate different levels (undergraduate, graduate), but not severely compartmentalize the users

Linda Bryan observed:

• People were energized by the debate and some came away anxious because we left with two very different views but no understanding of what would come next
• How do we keep people engaged and moving forward without getting scared and retreating?
• How do we funnel these diverse perspectives and the energy the debate engenerated in a positive direction?
• How do we help people adjust to change in a complex organization? 
• Should we set up a nimble task force (3 or 4 people)?
• As the level of anxiety goes up, our focus becomes more narrow
• How do we move forward and maintain our vision for the future and maintain good working relationships?
• It’s hard for segments of our staff to see where they are in the library’s future. Until they do, they want to hold back in public discussions.  Their conversations go underground.
• How do we build a consensus (buy-in) to move in a particular direction?
• Need to have a process by which people can more fully contribute their ideas.  This engagement will (I think) help to reduce the anxiety that some employees feel when we discuss the future as we did with this debate.  Perhaps a more open dialogue will produce a “productive tension” rather than free-floating anxiety about the future.