Search UW System

UW System Home > Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries > Coordinating Committees > Digital Initiatives > Documents

Final Report on the Future Directions of MINDS@UW

Prepared by the Digital Repository Working Group of the Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee
Submitted to CUWL, November 6, 2008

Executive Summary
Full Report

Executive Summary

The concept of an institutional repository (IR) cannot be abandoned. For decades, computer technologies have allowed UW System’s world class faculty to create and store knowledge digitally in new and complex ways. However, to date there is no world class solution to help them preserve it long term and every year important research, analysis and creative works are lost due to this lack of stewardship. Universities and colleges nationwide have looked to librarians and their special set of skills to help solve this important problem. These professionals helped develop and implement institutional repositories to provide a trusted combination of expertise and technical infrastructure to make safe digital scholarship and research. Yet there is much work to be done. Today, institutional repositories in research libraries across the country are at a crossroads, pondering future directions. Significant strengths in content variety and staff expertise need to be augmented by improved policy and goal clarity, intellectual-property management, technology usability, and System, as well as campus-level, support. The repository staff look toward the successful programs at Ohio State University and the University of Oregon for inspiration as the UW System IR moves beyond the cross roads and into a viable future. 

The Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee IR working group recommends migrating MINDS@UW content to the new platform that is selected for the UW Digital Collections (UWDC), decommissioning the MINDS@UW brand in favor of offering new services and solutions under the more-successful UWDC brand, and exploring several funding models for the resulting services.

MINDS@UW snapshot
MINDS@UW currently contains over 7000 items in roughly eighty collections, up from roughly 2000 items when Dorothea Salo accepted the Digital Repository Librarian position in March 2007. For all but a very few MINDS@UW items, upload has been librarian-mediated in some fashion, which accords with established best practices at successful repositories.

Funding
The UW System’s budget for MINDS@UW for the 2008-2009 biennium is sufficient for one FTE. In the previous biennium, additional funds had been made available for MINDS@UW software development and systems administration by UW-Madison DoIT’s Library, Instruction, and Research Applications Group; these moneys were cut from the 2008-2009 budget.

Robust funding of MINDS@UW is vital to meet the research and scholarly communication needs of researchers across the UW System, and to provide Wisconsin citizens with free access to research by UW faculty and students.  Several sources of funding may be necessary:

• Current support from the General Library System at UW Madison is required to maintain the program.
• The reduction of $40,000 from the UW Libraries shared automation should be restored in 09-10 and maintained thereafter.
• If the Library Research DIN for 09-11 is successful, new funding should be allocated to improve the platform and expand the services of MINDS@UW.
• Major improvements of the platform and technical integration with the University of Wisconsin Digital Collections will need an investment by System from the Common Systems Fund. General support from System Administration and individual Campus Administrations are crucial to obtain this type of funding.
• Supplementation of MINDS@UW funding could come from individual UW Libraries based on the “standard formula” used by CUWL to divide expenses.
  

Integration with UWDCC
The working group recommends planning for the complete technological integration of MINDS@UW content with UWDCC. At that time, the MINDS@UW brand should be discontinued, and the services provided under that brand (see “Service Suite” section below) should come under the UWDCC umbrella. The working group believes that this integration will strengthen both services, making them more flexible, efficient, and effective, while eventually reducing overhead involved in maintaining two separate software systems.

Service suite
The working group recommends that CUWL de-emphasize the notion of “repository” in favor of developing a “service suite” vision for MINDS@UW that situates it firmly within the mission and goals of CUWL DICC and the UWDCC. While selected services should of course be feasible given existing staff, they should absolutely not be limited to services tied to the current MINDS@UW technology platform. Deciding upon a service and then choosing appropriate technology to implement it is far preferable to adopting a technology and casting about for uses to put it to.

Feasible services include (but are not limited to):

• unmediated self-archiving by faculty of their own materials, as the current service permits
• electronic theses and dissertations
• assessment, preparation and upload of born-digital materials (much as materials are assessed for digitization by UWDCC), including website-capture projects
• rights-management advice and copyright training for librarians and faculty, aimed at managing creators’ rights in common research and scholarship outputs
• hosting and basic design services for electronic journals and conference proceedings
• assessment and accessioning of digital materials belonging to retiring faculty
• mediated upload services, primarily for large quantities of material such as journal backfiles
• digitization training and consultation for faculty and students working on digitization projects
  

With guidance of the full CUWL body, the DICC will choose priorities from among these possibilities, with the understanding that different campuses have different needs. The Digital Repository Librarian will help assess resource requirements.

Rights management
Rights management for MINDS@UW materials should be addressed by CUWL as a matter of risk assessment and policy. This problem goes beyond advising individual faculty about their self-archiving and publication options, necessary though that is, into campus- and UW-System-wide policy questions.

Issues CUWL should examine, in collaboration with the Digital Repository Librarian, include:

• How librarians uploading material on behalf of third parties such as faculty members or students should arrange for licensing of that material
• Policies and procedures for checking the copyright status and ownership of published material in MINDS@UW
• Best-practice policies surrounding ETDs: mandatory vs. voluntary submission, licensing, embargo periods for patentable or publishable material, etc.
• Procedures in the event of a copyright challenge to open-access material in MINDS@UW
• When MINDS@UW will accept material that cannot immediately be open-access

Full Report

Introduction

The Council of UW Libraries Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee chartered the Digital Repository Working Group to deliver “a multi-part strategy for enhancement of the MINDS@UW program.” The working group’s charge included the following goals:

1. Better define MINDS@UW’s role
2. Develop a plan or additional services or options to attract more use
3. Develop/recommend a funding model that restores or increases overall funding

The working group included Michael Doylen (UW-Milwaukee), Carol Hagness (UW-Stout), Mark Rozmarynowski (UW-Baraboo), Dorothea Salo (UW System, working-group chair), Heidi Southworth (UW-River Falls), and Pat Wilkinson (UW-Oshkosh).

MINDS@UW snapshot
MINDS@UW currently contains over 7000 items in roughly eighty collections, up from roughly 2000 items when Dorothea Salo accepted the Digital Repository Librarian position in March 2007. For all but a very few MINDS@UW items, upload has been librarian-mediated in some fashion. Some UW System campuses, such as Oshkosh and River Falls, encourage library-mediated upload in preference to faculty upload. Library-mediated upload accords with established best practices at successful repositories. This does not mean that faculty who wish to upload their own work should be forbidden from doing so, if their host campus library is amenable. It does clearly indicate, however, that acquiring scholarly content produced by an institution’s faculty requires significant library staff investment.

Significant upcoming and ongoing projects for MINDS@UW include:

• the Land Tenure Center collections of working papers, research articles, and other documents
• several campuses’ electronic thesis and dissertation collections
• several campuses’ undergraduate research journals and projects
• additional BibApp imports (see BibApp discussion in “Opportunities” section below) from the UW-Madison School of Engineering (over 1000 articles) and School of Medicine and Public Health (number not yet known)
• a partnership with the UW-Madison School of Music to use MINDS@UW as a preservation vehicle for digital-audio recordings of master’s and doctoral recitals
• potential partnerships with two UW-Madison Technology-Enhanced Learning grant projects involving the creation and archival of digital learning objects
• a collection of scanned photos and postcards and transcribed interviews created by students in a UW-Green Bay history seminar (see “Opportunities” section below)
  

Recommendations

Funding
The UW System’s budget for MINDS@UW for the 2008-2009 biennium suffices for one FTE, currently allocated to the Digital Repository Librarian position. In the previous biennium, additional funds had been made available for MINDS@UW software development and systems administration by UW-Madison DoIT’s Library, Instruction, and Research Applications Group; these moneys were cut from the 2008-2009 budget. Jim Muehlenberg has reallocated LIRA funds, foregoing MINDS@UW funding from UW System for the current biennium, in order to avoid a serious shortfall.

Robust funding of MINDS@UW is vital to meet the research and scholarly communication needs of researchers across the UW System, and to provide Wisconsin citizens with free access to research by UW faculty and students.  Several sources of funding may be necessary to make this happen:

• Current support of the General Library System at UW Madison needs to continue so the program can be maintained at current level.
• The reduction of $40,000 from the UW Libraries shared automation should be restored in 09-10 and maintained thereafter to provide for the healthy expansion of this program to all UW faculty and staff.
• If the Library Research DIN for 09-11 is successful, some monies from the new funding should be allocated to improve the platform and modestly expand the services of MINDS@UW.
• Major improvements of the platform and technical integration with the University of Wisconsin Digital Collections will need an investment by System from the Common Systems Fund. General support from System Administration and individual Campus Administrations are crucial to obtain this type of funding.
• Supplementation of MINDS@UW funding could come from individual UW Libraries based on the “standard formula” used by CUWL to divide expenses.
  

A variety of non-UW-affiliated organizations in Wisconsin actively do research and publish their findings online, but are not easily able to handle long-term digital preservation issues. These include local, state, national, and international non-profit organizations staffed, supported by, or even supporting UW faculty. Such external groups could potentially provide the MINDS@UW project with financial assistance in exchange for the upload and long-term preservation of their published digital materials, an arrangement fully consonant with the Wisconsin Idea. Funding options could include a one-time donation, ongoing support for the duration of the project, or some combination of the two, and would need to be (at a minimum) sufficient to cover all costs involved in adding the external organization’s collections.

Integration with UWDCC
Given the current confusion between UWDCC and MINDS@UW’s service offerings, and the low awareness across UW System of the MINDS@UW brand, the working group recommends planning for the complete integration of MINDS@UW content with UWDCC. At that time, the MINDS@UW brand should be discontinued, and the services provided under that brand (see “Service Suite” section below) should come under the UWDCC umbrella. The working group believes that this integration will strengthen both services, making them more flexible, efficient, and effective.

UWDCC is considering a major technology-platform shift for its digitized collections, as the current platform is inflexible and becoming obsolete. Many materials in MINDS@UW would benefit substantially from integration with UWDCC’s new platform choice. A platform merely replicating UWDCC’s existing functionality (and a new platform will likely be an improvement) will do a much better job presenting, browsing, and searching diverse types of materials than the current MINDS@UW platform can. In return, MINDS@UW content can enrich and broaden the scope of UWDCC’s successful offerings.

Service suite
The working group recommends that CUWL de-emphasize the notion of “repository” in favor of developing a “service suite” vision for MINDS@UW that situates it firmly within the strategic directions of CUWL and the mission the UWDCC. While selected services should of course be feasible given existing staff, they should absolutely not be limited to services tied to the current MINDS@UW technology platform. Deciding upon a service and then choosing appropriate technology to implement it is far preferable to adopting a technology and casting about for uses to put it to.

Feasible services include (but are not limited to):

• unmediated self-archiving by faculty of their own materials, as the current service permits
• assessment, preparation and upload of born-digital materials (much as materials are assessed for digitization by UWDCC), including website-capture projects
• mediated upload services, primarily for large quantities of material such as journal backfiles
• electronic theses and dissertations
• one or more BibApp-based faculty-pages services, aimed in part at capturing archivable faculty research output
• hosting (and possibly basic design services) for electronic journals and conference proceedings
• rights-management advice and copyright training for librarians and faculty
• digitization training (materials and workshops) for faculty and students working on digitization projects
• collection theming (to harmonize with outside web presences)
• assessment and accessioning of digital materials belonging to retiring faculty
• small-scale pilot data curation services

CUWL will need to choose priorities from among these possibilities, with the understanding that different campuses have different needs. The Digital Repository Librarian can help assess resource requirements for many of these possibilities.

It is important to recognize the differences in workflow for born-digital materials vis-a-vis the digitization workflows already in place within UWDCC. Born-digital projects tend to be ad-hoc, such that it is difficult to estimate time-to-completion precisely. They are, however, relatively easy to automate; they tend to take much less time to prepare and ingest than a digitized collection of comparable size.

Rights management
Rights management for MINDS@UW materials should be addressed by CUWL as a matter of risk assessment and policy. This problem goes beyond advising individual faculty about their self-archiving and publication options, necessary though that is, into campus- and UW-System-wide policy questions. At the University of Iowa earlier this year, for example, faculty ignorance of rights questions surrounding electronic theses and dissertations led to a highly embarrassing retreat from an ill-planned mandatory open-access ETD policy after vociferous student protests appeared in national news outlets such as the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Issues CUWL should examine, in collaboration with the Digital Repository Librarian, include:

• How librarians uploading material on behalf of third parties such as faculty members or students should arrange for licensing of that material
• Policies and procedures for checking the copyright status and ownership of published material in MINDS@UW
• Best-practice policies surrounding ETDs: mandatory vs. voluntary submission, licensing, embargo periods for patentable or publishable material, etc.
• Procedures in the event of a copyright challenge to open-access material in MINDS@UW
• When MINDS@UW will accept material that cannot immediately be open-access
  

Discussion

MINDS@UW strengths
MINDS@UW now boasts an extensive and diverse collection of materials:

• images
• digital audio and video
• peer-reviewed research
• theses and dissertations
• undergraduate research
• conference proceedings
• presentation papers, posters, and slideshows
• newsletters and journal backfiles

Content tends to attract content; both the quantity and variety of existing content make the service a much easier sell to potential adopters.

Some adopters think of the repository as a showcase for themselves, their work, and their departments and institutions. New functionality in the just-installed version of the underlying software will allow further fostering of this notion by allowing campus- and department-specific designs to be implemented inside MINDS@UW. Other adopters find value in the assurance of permanent URLs and appropriate curation for their digital objects. Whatever the reasoning, at least three CUWL member libraries have said that if MINDS@UW did not exist, they would be forced to open their own digital repository, which would obviously entail wasteful duplication of technology and staff time.

The innovative BibApp “research gateway” software-development project underway at UW-Madison’s Wendt Library (with collaborators at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, see Appendix A) has already benefited MINDS@UW measurably, and its promise is immense. BibApp has already produced 1400 articles for MINDS@UW; another thousand from the same pilot project await upload, and more will be forthcoming from the UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health.

Several CUWL member libraries have been very active in MINDS@UW support and service. Heidi Southworth of UW-River Falls, for example, has designed her own marketing materials and is an active advocate on the River Falls campus. UW-La Crosse mentioned rewarding faculty upload in MINDS@UW in its recommendations to the faculty library committee regarding serials cancellations. Additional future support may come from System library staff who are already engaged with scholarly communication and open access, such as UW-Eau Claire library director John Pollitz and UW-La Crosse librarian Jenifer Holman, who maintains a detailed website on scholarly communication (http://www.uwlax.edu/Murphylibrary/facultyLibrary/scholarlyCom.html). Bev Phillips of UW-Madison’s Steenbock Library has been a tireless MINDS@UW promoter among faculty, and was instrumental in securing the Land Tenure Center project.

Jim Muehlenberg and Mike Simpson of LIRA have been stalwart MINDS@UW supporters. Muehlenberg volunteered to plug MINDS@UW’s 2008-2009 budget shortfall. Simpson has been generous with his time and considerable expertise, above and beyond his mandate to keep the service running.

Specific skills and expertise available from the current MINDS@UW staff include:

• Theming the MINDS@UW interface per community or collection to harmonize with a community’s other web presence (see, for example, the UW-Madison community’s theme, as contrasted with the default theme)
• Software-development capacity, which has already added features such as clickable authors and subjects in item displays, RefWorks and AuthHub integration, and permanent URLs for individual files
• Significant experience with semi-automated batch projects such as journal backfiles, website-capture projects, and building packages from EndNote exports; these potentially add a great deal of content to MINDS@UW quickly
• Significant file-format and file-conversion expertise
• Strong knowledge of and presence in the national and international open-access community
• Significant professional training in the emerging field of data curation
• Knowledge of policy and procedural issues surrounding electronic theses and dissertations
  

Opportunities
Awareness of self-archiving, open access, and rights management for research articles is growing on some UW System campuses as a result of the National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy and the recent decision by Harvard’s arts and sciences and law-school faculty to grant Harvard a blanket license to collect and display their journal articles. These important national events provide a springboard to open communications with faculty as well as library and institutional administrators about MINDS@UW.

Several UW System campuses are considering or already implementing electronic theses and dissertations, following well-established national and international trends. A member of the UW-Platteville Graduate Council, for example, contacted the Digital Repository Librarian to ask about MINDS@UW as an ETD platform. UW-Madison has worked through rights issues associated with ETDs in connection with the current Wisconsin Library Services practice of scanning certain dissertations requested through ILL and placing the scan in MINDS@UW, and is actively pursuing an ETD program with the Graduate School. If CUWL were to offer policy guidance and encouragement for ETDs, several more UW System campuses would be willing to embark on ETD programs with MINDS@UW as partner. The Digital Repository Librarian helped initiate an ETD program in her previous position, and is knowledgeable about ETD policy issues.

The BibApp project (see Appendix A), which is being examined by institutions as far apart as Georgia Tech and the California Digital Library, may represent a sustainable method for UW System campuses to canvass article databases for archivable faculty research while providing an attractive CV-updating service to faculty. BibApp allows librarians to:

• pull in citations from standard article databases such as ISI Web of Science based on author searches and ongoing search alerts set up by librarians
• package articles for MINDS@UW that the well-known SHERPA/ROMEO database of publisher self-archiving policies says may be archived in the publisher’s typeset version
• present faculty data on the Web in the form of attractive faculty profile pages (see attached sample), with photos, course lists, faculty research interests, etc.

Several UW System campuses already publish e-serials, ranging from undergraduate research journals to peer-reviewed journals, in a more-or-less ad-hoc fashion. MINDS@UW could feasibly expand its services to host, support, and archive these journals: UWDCC already manages an installation of the Open Journal Systems e-journal-management software suite in order to host the Journal of Insect Science. Additionally, interest is growing among UW System IT operations and research centers in providing hosting and services for the data (as well as the publications) generated by research; MINDS@UW is a potential host for at least some of these datasets. The Digital Repository Librarian pursued professional education in research-data stewardship during the summer of 2008 and can offer advice and suggestions to interested campuses.

Some faculty are digitizing strikingly valuable analog materials as class projects; MINDS@UW could easily serve as hosting partner for such projects. At UW-Madison, folklorist Jim Leary is pursuing digitization of textual holdings and realia. UW-Green Bay’s Dr. Andrew Kersten has directed his students to digitize a sampling of written interviews and realia from Brown County’s World War I soldiers, and is pursuing grant funding to digitize the remainder. While the result of the first digitization run (currently in MINDS@UW) is somewhat problematic from a quality perspective, it does point to significant opportunities both in digitization-training services and project hosting for valuable items digitized outside UWDCC’s regular processes.

It should be possible to increase scanning and production capacity by forging partnerships with existing library infrastructure. At UW-Madison, for example, e-reserves manager Carrie Nelson has offered the use of e-reserves scanning equipment and student labor during slow times. Obviously this would be inappropriate for many UWDCC jobs that require careful handling. For common scholarly materials such as faculty papers or thesis backfiles that have always been in MINDS@UW’s purview, this might be perfectly adequate, because they are not time-sensitive or difficult to scan.

MINDS@UW needs
Without clear mission, goals, and direction from CUWL, MINDS@UW tends to be overshadowed by the extraordinarily successful University of Wisconsin Digital Collections Center effort.  In a 2006 survey of instructional staff and researchers on the UW-Madison campus, 91% of respondents indicated that prior to taking the survey, they had not been aware of MINDS@UW. MINDS@UW’s diffuse mission complicates the process of developing a clear message for UW System faculty and librarians.

Among potential adopters, there is significant confusion about how UWDCC and MINDS@UW differ. This problem is exacerbated by the significant overlap in content types between the two services: both contain image collections, conference proceedings, faculty papers, university-published newsletters, etc. Moreover, many potential adopters often do not realize that the UWDCC project-assessment process does not apply to MINDS@UW, and turn away expecting more procedural complexity than actually exists. Merging the two service points will solve this problem and open intriguing opportunities.

CUWL can also help MINDS@UW recover from the serious stigma often found in the very librarians whose support is vital to its success. Some staff regard MINDS@UW as a “junkyard” for materials insufficiently important to warrant UWDCC intervention, and are partly for that reason unwilling to help market the service or develop content for it. Communication between the Digital Repository Librarian and other campuses is not at present strong and has not been integrated with other cross-campus and cross-library communications; CUWL leadership could help.

To be successful, MINDS@UW needs clear, comprehensive collection-development policies, procedures, and priorities. Without collection-development priorities, it is difficult to devise services to offer, decide on groups of faculty to target with marketing efforts, and assess the success of outreach strategies and even of the service as a whole. These priorities must be developed in consultation with individual campuses, as different campuses will certainly have differing priorities. Such differences can be accommodated in many cases, but they must first be clearly articulated.

Without rights-management policies and procedures, MINDS@UW assumes significant unnecessary risks, and important rights decisions may be made in an inconsistent, case-by-case fashion. The current technology infrastructure for rights management is not helpful in this regard; it assumes that whoever is performing the upload holds sufficient rights over the material to grant a license to MINDS@UW. Since a substantial proportion of upload is mediated by third parties (usually librarians), this assumption does not hold.

Advising faculty on copyright and rights management is another vital but unevenly-provided service; expertise exists on some UW System campuses, but not all, and confusion is rampant among faculty even on those campuses with local expertise. Faculty worried that they will incur legal or professional risk by uploading material to MINDS@UW simply will not do it; other faculty may make uninformed decisions about displaying student work without asking student permission. MINDS@UW sits in the middle of many of these questions, and the Digital Repository Librarian tracks developments closely, but the extent of her mandate to advise and assist is currently unclear.

MINDS@UW’s technology platform needs to be improved to meet expressed faculty and library desires. The upgrade to DSpace 1.5 in October ushered in a new and more usable design, as well as the possibility of better campus branding, but unquestionably additional work must be done toward better statistics support, easier distributed management, and better usability.

MINDS@UW has been forced to decline a number of projects owing to inability to digitize analog materials. Modern faculty and students straddle the analog/digital divide, and they expect a service point that helps them with all their materials, not just those born digital. Whenever neither UWDCC nor MINDS@UW can be that service point, both services fail to win adherents among faculty.

The centralization of technology effort undoubtedly makes MINDS@UW a more efficient and cost-effective service, but its staffing structure does not scale well at the UW System level. One Digital Repository Librarian cannot reasonably scale outreach and marketing efforts to all 26 UW System campuses, especially since the best repository marketing (according to the literature) consists of one-on-one contact with faculty. Each campus decides for itself how much effort it cares to commit to MINDS@UW. There has been no concerted effort to seek out available material and arrange to upload it; for this to happen, CUWL needs to provide direction and encouragement.

Threats
The greatest threat to MINDS@UW is budgetary. If its UW System budget is cut any further, one or more campuses will have to step in with support merely to maintain the system at its current service level. Additionally, a successful funding model that restores funds for LIRA must be chosen for the 2010-11 biennium. The MINDS@UW budget is completely expended on staff, such that there is no clear resource-procurement policy or other mechanism for acquiring necessary materials and staff support.

Like most institutional repositories, MINDS@UW was envisioned as a service offering, participation in which would be wholly voluntary. This has led to a stalemate in which the service does not find users, supporters, and (crucially) advocates, neither among faculty nor among librarians, because few currently seem to be using it. If this stalemate continues, the service is unlikely to remain viable in tight budget times. Marketing and outreach to faculty may seem the obvious solution, but they are difficult efforts to manage at the System level, and the literature has shown that they do not produce impressive results.

Faculty are currently using other services than MINDS@UW for their digital-preservation and display needs. Already, MINDS@UW staff have heard credible reports of home-basement server closets, CD-ROMs in shoeboxes, valuable materials simply disappearing after a faculty retirement, and inappropriate reliance on services without a commitment to long-term digital preservation such as UW-Madison’s MyWebspace. This issue is currently recognized nationally as a crisis in digital-data management and stewardship; emerging best practices involve intervention early in the research process by librarians, as well as safe havens for long-term storage like MINDS@UW.

CUWL member library recommendations
The working group prepared and sent out a short survey to CUWL library leaders. Results were cautiously encouraging for the future of MINDS@UW:

• Of those responding campuses not using MINDS@UW, all plan to add material in future.
• Some willingness exists to fund MINDS@UW according to standard CUWL formulas.
  

Chief barriers to use reported were lack of time, lack of upload and rights-management training for librarians, and lack of training on the benefits of the service. Respondents were uniformly enthusiastic about potential added services, their chief desires a copyright-mediation service and copyright training for librarians. Library leaders using MINDS@UW were interested in print marketing materials; those not using the service were much less so.

Desired system features included easy search and browse, usage data, and the ability to emend metadata and upload new versions of files after initial upload. Look-and-feel customizations and access limiting were viewed as less important.

During working-group discussions, it came out that several UW System campuses face serious problems with digital records management. MINDS@UW and UWDCC are not appropriate venues to address this issue, but CUWL may wish to charter a task force to examine it and recommend solution.

Appendix A