College of Information ScienceComputing Resources Working Group · Point people: Barney Maccabe and Greg Chism
Run a working session¶
Supplemental reference · Browse supplements · Current report
Use a short, repeatable review. This is a suggested meeting format, not a scheduled event or an assigned set of roles.
Before the session¶
Choose a deliverable and review its current draft. Bring a public or appropriately shareable resource correction or needs brief. Use the group’s agreed university channel for internal material; the resource tool’s separate submission step accepts only reviewed public/synthetic briefs into the private pilot queue.
Suggested 45-minute agenda¶
| Minutes | Activity | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 0–5 | Confirm the decision or question | Scope and intended outcome |
| 5–15 | Review resources and access | Verified facts, owners and unknowns |
| 15–25 | Discuss needs and barriers | Research/teaching differences and missing perspectives |
| 25–35 | Compare promising approaches | Evidence, prerequisites and a useful small test |
| 35–45 | Agree next steps | Action, owner role, dependencies and review point |
After the session¶
Update the draft’s date and status. Separate a decision from an open question or suggested action. Record who needs to confirm access, costs, support or permissions; do not list an unconfirmed resource as ready.
Questions for the group to settle first¶
- Who maintains each deliverable and confirms factual corrections?
- Which approved university channel will receive needs briefs and internal notes?
- How will faculty, students and technical staff contribute, and how will missing perspectives be recorded?
- Who will review the preliminary drafts before early Spring 2027 circulation?