Who can exhibitions be proposed by (contributing institutions only, e.g.)? And who can be involved in creating them?

Table this for a year and base decision on workload burden on proposal reviews and exhibition template reviews. If there are too many exhibits – then limit to contributing institutions. If we want more exhibits – then perhaps consider opening up beyond. If opening up, consider creating a "permission" form or "heads up" notice for curators from non-contributing institutions to request use of materials in Calisphere exhibits. Is this moving into "permission to publish" territory? I don't feel good about that practice and wouldn't want to put the burden of "document management" on anyone. Perhaps cover our butts with a simple statement that says "it is the responsibility of the curator to obtain permission from the source institution to publish materials within Calisphere exhibits." – CK

Regarding who can propose exhibitions: on second thought, does this need to be an actual policy if we're not actually advertising a way for non-contributors to propose them? Perhaps if someone reaches out to me about this I simply punt it to the review group? In 8 years I've never had a non-contributor ask me this, FWIW. – SB

I *do* think it would be worth explicitly saying who can curate the exhibition, and/or some guidance as to the different processes involved in creating the exhibition (research, writing / storytelling, item selection, copyediting, etc.) and some suggestions as to who could be involved (undergrad, staff member, etc.). And I think a single point of contact at the institution – both for the exhibition creation process and for the long-term – is required. – SB

Regarding permissions: my opinion is that permission should not be required. I have a few reasons for this that I could say on the phone. But I could see how notification would be required, as both a courtesy AND as a headsup that once an item is in an exhibition, the contributor should be aware of it because if they remove the item it will break the exhibit. I would be willing to fold the "heads up" into my project management responsibilities. Be advised that if we ask for an affirmative response, that will add time to the exhibition timeline. – SB

I think (for ease) it should be contributors only right now. Maybe long term allow more open processes, but there seems like a lot of ways for things to go south. Larger questions, what if a contributor wanted to curate an exhibit and use material from other contributors? -KE

Does the review group review the proposal, or just the exhibition? What is Sherri's specific role in the proposal stage?

Sherri's role: Provide an orientation and gentle guidance to the curator? Provide a timeline that keeps the project on track, like the one made for Thuy! I see Sherri being more of a project manager. – CK

I really like the idea of defining my role as a "project manager," though in that role I think I could provide some editorial guidance vis-a-vis what the committee is likely to accept / reject / want refined. Also in that project management role, I could see myself as the "convener" of the review group. So I could be doing some light PM on the exhibition prep level and at the group level. – SB

Who reviews the proposal? I think it makes sense to give the proposal to the review group to offset the burden on Sherri. – CK

I don't mind the extra work but I like the added input from others; and I like the idea of CDL not being the decider of what the exhibitions are. Maybe we could start with the proposal going to the group, and as things evolve we may decide that's not necessary. – SB

Does seem like the proposal should be ok'ed by committee - otherwise you run the risk of ok'ing something then having (at the next step) the committee having major issues that really should have been addressed earlier.-KE 

What's in that MOU or "expectations" part of the proposal? What, specifically, are our expectations?

What is the timetable for these activities? Does the review of exhibitions happen on a schedule or is it rolling?

Advantage of scheduled reviews: Could put out a peroidic call for proposals? Advantage of rolling: Can accommodate ideas that are created on a whim, or on a tight deadline. – CK

I like the idea of having it rolling for now then reassess -KE

Who's on the review group? And are the members public / known to exhibition curators?

IDEA: What if the review group is composed of selected curators from Calisphere exhibits past? Perhaps once we have some curators under the belt, we (Sherri?) could send out an email to a group of former curators to ask for 3-5 volunteers who are willing to nurture an exhibit to life? Two options are spawned: Could have unique review groups for each exhibit; or could have set review groups for multiple exhibits. If concerned about volunteers, maybe ask curators once they publish an exhibit to serve on this group for 6 months to one year? – CK

Just in response to "curators of exhibitions past" - unfortunately they were all short-term paid contractors and/or K-12 people who have mostly scattered. – SB

I do like the idea of having people (just maybe contributors if past curators aren't available) who serve for a term on the review committee. Folks can then put it on their CV's as system-wide service, etc. -KE

How does the review group send feedback? How much of it is funneled through Sherri?

Should there be a feedback template/form for the review group to complete? This would reduce any oversight necessary in maintaining a uniform standard during this part of communication. – CK

I'm always a fan of templates - gives people limits and helps them not have to reinvent the wheel everytime.-KE

Who signs off on the proposal / MOU aspect of the proposal? Is this up to the campus? made explicit? UC vs. non-UC?

Who can do what with whose stuff? If any contributor can use any object, is there the expectation of notification?

I think every institution would appreciate the notification. Maybe include a statement: "it is the responsibility of the curator to notify and/or obtain permission from the source institution to publish materials within Calisphere exhibits. – CK

As I said above: I'd go with notification over permission. And, personally, I think CDL could do the notifying since I'd probably be figuring out who the curator should contact anyway. We could operationalize this with a form letter. – SB

Who all needs to check off before we click "publish"? Defining that final review process.

Curator, review group, Sherri ... ? – CK

Curator, review group, Sherri (project manager) - I like that. What about the "head honcho" person from the contributing institution?-KE

I think this should remain open, just because it's technically possible. I did notice that during Brenna's exhibit, we leaned towards keeping within the UCI-owned items, just because we wanted to highlight UCI stuff. However, do we want to prevent an exhibit from using the best possible primary source just because of a technicality in our policies? The only reason I would want to limit is just to avoid further complication in developing our process, but I think we could come up with a creative workaround. – CK

I agree and I think that all of Calisphere should be fair game, with the notification process worked out. – SB

What's our policy for adding items to an exhibition? What about editing an exhibition later? Is this different for legacy exhibitions (themed collections without curators)?

Adding items: I think this should remain open as new collections and materials are added to Calisphere. I don't imagine a ton of people actually wanting to continue the work, unless for some reason are absolutely inspired. – CK

Editing exhibits: How about an arbitrary rule? Something like, you have up to 1 year from publication to edit/remove content, simply to provide some sense of deadline. – CK

Link rot is a concern that will affect the integrity of the exhibits on Calisphere... perhaps limit links to materials on Calisphere/OAC?? We should be able to offer a suggestion on how to cite sources... – CK

Good point about citing sources - feel free to suggest a format for that. Maybe some anti-link-rot measures could include: "please try to select sites that are likely to be stable and initiate redirects, e.g. Library of Congress over a personal blog" and "rather than including multiple redundant links throughout the exhibition, create a citations list as a note" or something. – SB