00:05:16 Robert Heaton: Lifespan depends largely on how they are transported... 00:05:26 Tara Barnett (Index Data): Reacted to "Lifespan depends lar..." with πŸ™ƒ 00:05:28 Susan Kimball: Reacted to "Lifespan depends lar..." with πŸ˜‚ 00:05:31 Kimberly Pamplin: Reacted to "Lifespan depends lar..." with πŸ˜‚ 00:05:51 Owen Stephens: On the subject of parrots https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581166 00:07:54 Thomas Trutt: Replying to "On the subject of pa..." That is cool. 00:08:06 Robert Heaton: Reacted to "On the subject of pa..." with 😯 00:29:04 Tara Barnett (Index Data): What analysis is this proposal based on? Like a survey or experience at Cornell or other systems? 00:29:36 Laura Daniels: Yes, that having to check things in that are new and have never actually circulated is really annoying. 00:29:46 Tara Barnett (Index Data): Reacted to "Yes, that having to ..." with βž• 00:29:58 Thomas Trutt: Reading through the old tickets, personal knowledge and some interviews here at CU.. as I mentioned its very high level idea to get people thinking of a different way this could be done. 00:30:11 Tara Barnett (Index Data): Reacted to "Reading through the ..." with ❀️ 00:30:58 Robert Heaton: Replying to "Yes, that having to ..." In-house use is tied into this as well. I wonder if a new design could handle that differently (both its workflows and reporting of those statuses). 00:33:17 Katie Rahman: Thanks 00:34:10 Robert Heaton: Process workflows would likely increase demand for/interest in staff notifications based on FOLIO business logic. AFAIK, there has been no real progress toward making that a reality. 00:34:21 Owen Stephens: I agree @Katie Rahman . I think the question of where this lives is worth consideration - I feel part of the reason that we have a bit of a gap between Acq and Inv and Circ processes for items right now is because the question of what β€˜owns’ the status 00:34:38 Martin Scholz: Reacted to "Process workflows wo..." with βž• 00:34:45 Kristin Martin: Reacted to "I agree @Katie Rahma..." with πŸ‘ 00:34:53 Katie Rahman: Reacted to "I agree @Katie Rahma..." with πŸ‘ 00:34:53 Maura Byrne: Reacted to "I agree @Katie Rahma..." with πŸ‘ 00:35:18 Susanne Gill (BVB): Reacted to "I agree @Katie Rahma..." with πŸ‘ 00:35:29 Laura Daniels: Reacted to "I agree @Katie Rahma..." with πŸ‘ 00:36:28 Laura Daniels: And many of our technical services staff don't routinely use check in/check out (or don't even have access to it) -- so having to check in new materials creates a lot of additional work 00:36:56 Laura Daniels: If the current way things are works, libraries should be able to keep it as as 00:38:34 Thomas Trutt: And part of it could be that the process checks the item in for the persons, that would allow for things like routing slips to be printed, pick up hold logic. 00:39:34 Robert Heaton: Permissions/roles are an important consideration. If it is important that libraries have more control over changing particular statuses, that might justify this new work. 00:39:48 Owen Stephens: Reacted to "Permissions/roles ar..." with πŸ‘ 00:39:50 Laura Daniels: Reacted to "Permissions/roles ar..." with πŸ‘ 00:40:48 Owen Stephens: Permissions are obviously important. I know one of the issues in the Workflow SIG (which is currently on-hold) is can people run workflows that make changes they wouldn’t usually have permission to do 00:40:54 Susan Kimball: Would making the In Process status editable solve some of the issues @Kristin Martin and @Laura Daniels were raising? 00:40:56 Laura Daniels: I hate when I can see patron information that I don't have a business reason to see. 00:41:15 Laura Daniels: Yes, loosening restrictions on in process would help 00:41:23 Maura Byrne: Reacted to "I hate when I can se..." with πŸ’― 00:41:35 Thomas Trutt: Reacted to "Permissions are obvi..." with πŸ‘πŸ» 00:42:03 Maura Byrne: Reacted to "Permissions are obvi..." with πŸ‘πŸ» 00:42:06 Maura Byrne: Reacted to "Permissions/roles ar..." with πŸ‘ 00:42:07 Owen Stephens: Replying to "Permissions are obvi..." So you could assign the permission to make a particular change (e.g. item status change) to the workflow, and then allow people to run the workflow or not. That way they don’t get expanded permissions just because they can run a particular workflow 00:43:13 Laura Daniels: Replying to "Yes, loosening restr..." I've also had issues with "on order" ; an order was cancelled but we couldn't delete the item it had created until I checked it in (for which I had to create a fake barcode) 00:43:53 Maura Byrne: Replying to "Yes, loosening restr..." :headdesk: 00:44:03 Kristin Martin: I have to run a little early. Thanks for the proposal and I look forward to learning more. 00:44:14 Tara Barnett (Index Data): Reacted to "I have to run a litt..." with ❀️ 00:45:23 Laura Daniels: I'm wondering if there is enough interest in revisiting Item State to form another working group (like we had for it some years ago)? 00:45:53 Laura Daniels: Replying to "I'm wondering if the..." and how do we measure interest across the community? 00:46:06 Robert Heaton: Reacted to "I've also had issues..." with 😬 00:48:32 Maura Byrne: And a lot of people will pine for the Item Status that they hate, because change is always fraught. 00:48:38 Tara Barnett (Index Data): Reacted to "And a lot of people ..." with ❀️ 00:53:54 Maura Byrne: Are we at the point where Folio development can include adding something good as well as mediating something bad? 00:54:01 Laura Daniels: I'm going to have to sign off a few minutes early. I am happy to take this to MM SIG to gauge interest. After we figure out what exactly we want to ask... I'm willing to work on defining the sales pitch with you, Tom 00:55:53 Owen Stephens: I think there’s a potential discussion with Workflow SIG - although as I said that’s on hiatus :S 00:56:18 Owen Stephens: Texas A&M has had to redirect resource to standing up Eureka 00:56:27 Tara Barnett (Index Data): Reacted to "Texas A&M has had to..." with ❀️