Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Create item/call# records without permissions

[Aubrey Area Library]

Hey April,

Our consortium is currently in the process of overhauling our permissions
as well, using yall as a base.

After looking over it, I wonder if the UPDATE_COPY permission might the the
culprit here. It is the only permission in the Circulator group that looks
like it may be the cause outside of a bug. Unfortunately we haven't got as
far as setting up new groups for testing. Give it a shot and let me know as
this is definitely something to know since we are in a similar boat with
similar goals.

Thanks,
Jordan Woodard
Aubrey Area Library

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:53 PM Durrence, April 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I wanted to ask for feedback on an issue we recently uncovered. We
> recently upgraded from Evergreen 3.1 to 3.3 and implemented a complete
> revamp of our permission structure to include a strict requirement that
> anyone who creates/deletes items or bibs must pass cataloging assessments.
> However, we have found that staff can create new volume/call# and item
> records with only the permissions granted to Circulator, which do not
> include CREATE_VOLUME or CREATE_COPY. These should be the permissions
> checked before Evergreen permits a user to create a new item or call#
> record, right? I don't see any other permissions that should supersede
> those, but am I missing something?
>
>
>
> I created a bug with links to our permissions list and examples from two
> different test databases (running 3.1 and 3.3) where I was able to create
> new holdings without having CREATE_VOLUME or CREATE_COPY permissions:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1853062
>
>
>
> Any testing/feedback/confirmation that anyone is willing to provide would
> be most welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> April
>
>
>
> *April Durrence*
>
> NC Cardinal Training Specialist
>
> NC Dept. of Natural and Cultural Resources
>
> 919.814.6794 | april.durre...@ncdcr.gov
>
> 109 East Jones Street | 4640 Mail Service Center
>
> Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4600
>
> Facebook   Twitter
>   Instagram
>   YouTube
>   Website
> 
>
> [image: A close up of a logo Description automatically generated]
>
> *Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
> Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.*
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

If you need further assistance, please contact the library at 940-365-9162
or send a reply email.
Thank You, The Library Staff

226 Countryside Dr., Aubrey, TX 76227

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Auto Renew Feature

[Elizabeth Davis]

Thank you both.  This has given us more to talk about and consider.

Elizabeth

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Aubrey 
Area Library
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group 
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Auto Renew Feature

We also implemented auto renew in late February this year (we are also the 
other library Geoff mentioned). It was a little rocky at first, being the test 
library for implementation, but once we worked out the kinks it has been smooth 
sailing.

Overall patrons have been very happy with it though we did have one patron that 
did not like the fact that the items renewed before their actual due date. Yes, 
we are also the library Geoff mentioned whose items auto renew before their due 
date. Thankfully it was resolved after speaking with the patron and explaining 
renewals, how auto renewal works etc. I have started looking at changes to this 
as I would prefer for the items to renew on their due date. The setup is what 
it is due to how courtesy notices are set up.

Geoff mentioned the issues with generating notices.

For patrons with no email/sms; we tend to just explain to patrons about how 
auto renewal works if they ask about it. After a few times it sinks in and they 
come to expect it. We do not require email address so, personally, I look at it 
as if a patron does not want notifications from the library that is their 
choice. Can't force it on them.

We had already taken measures years ago to reduce fines (80% reduction) so 
the impact that auto renewal has had is minuscule but as it was mention if 
fines are a source of revenue auto renewal may not be a good fit.

I would echo Geoffs recommendations for implementation. It was something that I 
overlooked and has been a thorn in my side since. Not only to give patrons time 
to return items but also so you o not have a mess of notices like we do. 
Simplicity.

Thanks,
Jordan Woodard
Aubrey Area Library

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 3:56 PM Geoff Sams 
mailto:gs...@roanoketexas.com>> wrote:
We implemented auto renew back in March this year and things have gone fairly 
smoothly with the implementation for my library.

Generally, the patrons have been happy about it.  We did have one complaint 
that boiled down to a patron simply not wanting to be notified at all, which 
was an interesting one for me, but that was certainly possible to fix for us.

The only rocky start part was getting our notices to generate properly.  The 
stock notice wording was a little too generic, so we made changes that took a 
bit of work to get implemented properly.

We don’t really have the email/sms issue, so I’m not sure what the best course 
of action would be for that to be completely honest.  I have some ideas, but 
I’m not sure if any of them would be viable over the long run.

This has drastically reduced fines here, for the moment.  It’s not a forever 
renewal process, so I do still see fines, but it has generally decreased fines 
across the board.  We don’t rely on fine income for operation here, so this 
isn’t a giant issue for us, but if you do rely on fine income I’d probably 
recommend against implementing such a process.  With that said, my staff spend 
a lot less time dealing with fine related issues, and I believe it’s enough to 
have saved money in general.

For implementation, I’d recommend one of two options for the sake of making 
things reasonable.  Either set the renewal to happen a few days before the due 
date so that patrons have time to return materials that are not renewed, or set 
the renewal on the due date but add a multi-day grace period for the same 
reason.  We renew on the due date and give patrons 3 grace days to return the 
item to avoid fines.  Another library in my consortium renews the item 3 days 
before the due date instead.  Both work, but I think the important factor is 
allowing patrons the time to return items.

Thanks,
Geoff Sams
Library Manager
Roanoke Public Library
817-491-2691

From: Open-ils-general 
mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org>>
 On Behalf Of Elizabeth Davis
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 12:09 PM
To: 
open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Auto Renew Feature

Hello Everyone,

For those of you who are using the Auto Renew feature, how is it going? What 
are the general impressions from patrons? Was it a rocky start?   We have some 
concerns about how staff deal with patrons who do not have email or sms 
notification capabilities. How did you deal with this aspect?  Any unexpected 
financial impacts in terms of fine revenue? What are your suggestions for those 
interested in implementing it?

Thank you,


Elizabeth Davis
Head of Digital Services
Scranton Public Library
500 Vine Street
Scranton, PA 18509
Office 570-348-3000 ext. 3050
Cell 570-795-4332

[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Create item/call# records without permissions

[Durrence, April]

Hi all,

I wanted to ask for feedback on an issue we recently uncovered. We recently 
upgraded from Evergreen 3.1 to 3.3 and implemented a complete revamp of our 
permission structure to include a strict requirement that anyone who 
creates/deletes items or bibs must pass cataloging assessments. However, we 
have found that staff can create new volume/call# and item records with only 
the permissions granted to Circulator, which do not include CREATE_VOLUME or 
CREATE_COPY. These should be the permissions checked before Evergreen permits a 
user to create a new item or call# record, right? I don't see any other 
permissions that should supersede those, but am I missing something?

I created a bug with links to our permissions list and examples from two 
different test databases (running 3.1 and 3.3) where I was able to create new 
holdings without having CREATE_VOLUME or CREATE_COPY permissions: 
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1853062

Any testing/feedback/confirmation that anyone is willing to provide would be 
most welcome.

Thanks!

April

April Durrence
NC Cardinal Training Specialist
NC Dept. of Natural and Cultural Resources
919.814.6794 | april.durre...@ncdcr.gov
109 East Jones Street | 4640 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4600
Facebook  
Twitter  
Instagram  
YouTube  
Website
[A close up of a logo  Description automatically generated]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina 
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Auto Renew Feature

[Aubrey Area Library]

We also implemented auto renew in late February this year (we are also the
other library Geoff mentioned). It was a little rocky at first, being the
test library for implementation, but once we worked out the kinks it has
been smooth sailing.

Overall patrons have been very happy with it though we did have one patron
that did not like the fact that the items renewed before their actual due
date. Yes, we are also the library Geoff mentioned whose items auto renew
before their due date. Thankfully it was resolved after speaking with the
patron and explaining renewals, how auto renewal works etc. I have started
looking at changes to this as I would prefer for the items to renew on
their due date. The setup is what it is due to how courtesy notices are set
up.

Geoff mentioned the issues with generating notices.

For patrons with no email/sms; we tend to just explain to patrons about how
auto renewal works if they ask about it. After a few times it sinks in and
they come to expect it. We do not require email address so, personally, I
look at it as if a patron does not want notifications from the library that
is their choice. Can't force it on them.

We had already taken measures years ago to reduce fines (80% reduction)
so the impact that auto renewal has had is minuscule but as it was mention
if fines are a source of revenue auto renewal may not be a good fit.

I would echo Geoffs recommendations for implementation. It was something
that I overlooked and has been a thorn in my side since. Not only to give
patrons time to return items but also so you o not have a mess of notices
like we do. Simplicity.

Thanks,
Jordan Woodard
Aubrey Area Library

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 3:56 PM Geoff Sams  wrote:

> We implemented auto renew back in March this year and things have gone
> fairly smoothly with the implementation for my library.
>
>
>
> Generally, the patrons have been happy about it.  We did have one
> complaint that boiled down to a patron simply not wanting to be notified at
> all, which was an interesting one for me, but that was certainly possible
> to fix for us.
>
>
>
> The only rocky start part was getting our notices to generate properly.
> The stock notice wording was a little too generic, so we made changes that
> took a bit of work to get implemented properly.
>
>
>
> We don’t really have the email/sms issue, so I’m not sure what the best
> course of action would be for that to be completely honest.  I have some
> ideas, but I’m not sure if any of them would be viable over the long run.
>
>
>
> This has drastically reduced fines here, for the moment.  It’s not a
> forever renewal process, so I do still see fines, but it has generally
> decreased fines across the board.  We don’t rely on fine income for
> operation here, so this isn’t a giant issue for us, but if you do rely on
> fine income I’d probably recommend against implementing such a process.
> With that said, my staff spend a lot less time dealing with fine related
> issues, and I believe it’s enough to have saved money in general.
>
>
>
> For implementation, I’d recommend one of two options for the sake of
> making things reasonable.  Either set the renewal to happen a few days
> before the due date so that patrons have time to return materials that are
> not renewed, or set the renewal on the due date but add a multi-day grace
> period for the same reason.  We renew on the due date and give patrons 3
> grace days to return the item to avoid fines.  Another library in my
> consortium renews the item 3 days before the due date instead.  Both work,
> but I think the important factor is allowing patrons the time to return
> items.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Geoff Sams
>
> Library Manager
>
> Roanoke Public Library
>
> 817-491-2691
>
>
>
> *From:* Open-ils-general <
> open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org> *On Behalf Of *Elizabeth
> Davis
> *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2019 12:09 PM
> *To:* open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org
> *Subject:* [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Auto Renew Feature
>
>
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
>
>
> For those of you who are using the Auto Renew feature, how is it going?
> What are the general impressions from patrons? Was it a rocky start?   We
> have some concerns about how staff deal with patrons who do not have email
> or sms notification capabilities. How did you deal with this aspect?  Any
> unexpected financial impacts in terms of fine revenue? What are your
> suggestions for those interested in implementing it?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Davis
>
> Head of Digital Services
>
> Scranton Public Library
>
> 500 Vine Street
>
> Scranton, PA 18509
>
> Office 570-348-3000 ext. 3050
>
> Cell 570-795-4332
>
> eda...@albright.org
>
> pronouns: she/her/hers
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

If you need further assistance, please contact the library at 940-365-9162
or send a reply email.
Thank You, The Library Staff

226 Countryside Dr., Aubrey, TX 76227

[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen 3.5 Roadmap and Schedule

[Bill Erickson]

Hi All,

As one half of the Evergreen 3.5 Co-RM team (along with Chris Sharp), I'd
like to kick off the new release cycle with a call for 3.5 roadmap
entries.  We have started a roadmap page here:

https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=faqs:evergreen_roadmap:3.5

If you are working on a project that you expect to be ready for 3.5, please
add it to the wiki page or email Chris or me the details.  As a reminder,
the roadmap is for projects that have people actively working on them, not
wishlist items.

I'd also like to propose the following schedule as a general outline.

xx/yy/zz - Feedback Fest pre-feature freeze?
2/26/20 - Feature freeze
3/4/20   - Beta release
xx/yy/zz - Bug Squashing Week in this gap?
3/25/20 - Release Candidate
4/1/20   - Final release  (April Fools, yes!)

I pushed the GA release to April 1, not only because of April Fools, but
because I may be traveling for part of March which could impact my
availability.

If this schedule is agreeable, I'll follow up with feedback fest proposal
times and add all of this to the general roadmap page:

https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=faqs:evergreen_roadmap

Thanks,

-b

Bill Erickson

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Auto Renew Feature

[Geoff Sams]

I would like to add that if you currently send out pre-due notices that it’s 
probably ideal to stop those as the auto-renew notifications serve the same 
purpose in general.  Jordan touched on that briefly there, but it was something 
we dealt with as well and I wanted to state it outright since it could be 
overlooked.

Thanks,
Geoff Sams
Library Manager
Roanoke Public Library
817-491-2691

From: Open-ils-general  On 
Behalf Of Elizabeth Davis
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:37 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group 
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Auto Renew Feature

Thank you both.  This has given us more to talk about and consider.

Elizabeth

From: Open-ils-general 
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Aubrey 
Area Library
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group 
mailto:open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org>>
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Auto Renew Feature

We also implemented auto renew in late February this year (we are also the 
other library Geoff mentioned). It was a little rocky at first, being the test 
library for implementation, but once we worked out the kinks it has been smooth 
sailing.

Overall patrons have been very happy with it though we did have one patron that 
did not like the fact that the items renewed before their actual due date. Yes, 
we are also the library Geoff mentioned whose items auto renew before their due 
date. Thankfully it was resolved after speaking with the patron and explaining 
renewals, how auto renewal works etc. I have started looking at changes to this 
as I would prefer for the items to renew on their due date. The setup is what 
it is due to how courtesy notices are set up.

Geoff mentioned the issues with generating notices.

For patrons with no email/sms; we tend to just explain to patrons about how 
auto renewal works if they ask about it. After a few times it sinks in and they 
come to expect it. We do not require email address so, personally, I look at it 
as if a patron does not want notifications from the library that is their 
choice. Can't force it on them.

We had already taken measures years ago to reduce fines (80% reduction) so 
the impact that auto renewal has had is minuscule but as it was mention if 
fines are a source of revenue auto renewal may not be a good fit.

I would echo Geoffs recommendations for implementation. It was something that I 
overlooked and has been a thorn in my side since. Not only to give patrons time 
to return items but also so you o not have a mess of notices like we do. 
Simplicity.

Thanks,
Jordan Woodard
Aubrey Area Library

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 3:56 PM Geoff Sams 
mailto:gs...@roanoketexas.com>> wrote:
We implemented auto renew back in March this year and things have gone fairly 
smoothly with the implementation for my library.

Generally, the patrons have been happy about it.  We did have one complaint 
that boiled down to a patron simply not wanting to be notified at all, which 
was an interesting one for me, but that was certainly possible to fix for us.

The only rocky start part was getting our notices to generate properly.  The 
stock notice wording was a little too generic, so we made changes that took a 
bit of work to get implemented properly.

We don’t really have the email/sms issue, so I’m not sure what the best course 
of action would be for that to be completely honest.  I have some ideas, but 
I’m not sure if any of them would be viable over the long run.

This has drastically reduced fines here, for the moment.  It’s not a forever 
renewal process, so I do still see fines, but it has generally decreased fines 
across the board.  We don’t rely on fine income for operation here, so this 
isn’t a giant issue for us, but if you do rely on fine income I’d probably 
recommend against implementing such a process.  With that said, my staff spend 
a lot less time dealing with fine related issues, and I believe it’s enough to 
have saved money in general.

For implementation, I’d recommend one of two options for the sake of making 
things reasonable.  Either set the renewal to happen a few days before the due 
date so that patrons have time to return materials that are not renewed, or set 
the renewal on the due date but add a multi-day grace period for the same 
reason.  We renew on the due date and give patrons 3 grace days to return the 
item to avoid fines.  Another library in my consortium renews the item 3 days 
before the due date instead.  Both work, but I think the important factor is 
allowing patrons the time to return items.

Thanks,
Geoff Sams
Library Manager
Roanoke Public Library
817-491-2691

From: Open-ils-general 
mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org>>
 On Behalf Of Elizabeth Davis
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 12:09 PM
To: 
open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Auto Renew Feature

Hello Everyone,

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Evergreen 3.5 Roadmap and Schedule

[Terran McCanna]

Thanks Bill!

For the Feb Feedback fest, I propose Feb 17-21.

For Bug Squashing, I propose March 16-20.

(I am available to help those two weeks!)



Terran McCanna, PINES Program Manager
--

Georgia Public Library Service | University System of Georgia

2872 Woodcock Blvd, Suite 250 l Atlanta, GA 30341

(404) 235-7138 | tmcca...@georgialibraries.org

http://help.georgialibraries.org | h...@help.georgialibraries.org




Join our email list  for stories of Georgia
libraries making an impact in our communities.



On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:01 PM Bill Erickson  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> As one half of the Evergreen 3.5 Co-RM team (along with Chris Sharp), I'd
> like to kick off the new release cycle with a call for 3.5 roadmap
> entries.  We have started a roadmap page here:
>
> https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=faqs:evergreen_roadmap:3.5
>
> If you are working on a project that you expect to be ready for 3.5,
> please add it to the wiki page or email Chris or me the details.  As a
> reminder, the roadmap is for projects that have people actively working
> on them, not wishlist items.
>
> I'd also like to propose the following schedule as a general outline.
>
> xx/yy/zz - Feedback Fest pre-feature freeze?
> 2/26/20 - Feature freeze
> 3/4/20   - Beta release
> xx/yy/zz - Bug Squashing Week in this gap?
> 3/25/20 - Release Candidate
> 4/1/20   - Final release  (April Fools, yes!)
>
> I pushed the GA release to April 1, not only because of April Fools, but
> because I may be traveling for part of March which could impact my
> availability.
>
> If this schedule is agreeable, I'll follow up with feedback fest proposal
> times and add all of this to the general roadmap page:
>
> https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=faqs:evergreen_roadmap
>
> Thanks,
>
> -b
>
> Bill Erickson
>
>
>