LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  March 2003

PCCTG1 March 2003

Subject:

Re: Membership criteria

From:

Hugh Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:10:39 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (65 lines)

In principle I share the unease that others have voiced about "excluding"
those who contribute only a small number of SACO proposals, or who do so
only infrequently. I, too, am concerned about what the program might lose -
it might not be much in purely statistical terms, but who's to say just how
valuable those authority records are to the rest of the community. Some of
the proposals might be picked up by others if the "small" players were
excluded, but 9a) we can't be sure of that, and (b) we also can't be sure
that the quality of a proposal coming from a "generalist" institution would
be as high as that from a "specialist".

Picking up on Jimmie's message from Tuesday - he's suggesting that any
BIBCO/CONSER/NACO member would be, de facto, eligible for SACO membership.
I'm guessing here that this assumes they want to, and are willing to sign up
to the "responsibilities and benefits" we'll be looking at next week. On top
of that there's going to have to be some sort of SACO-only membership for
those who aren't already in the other programs (see the stats sheets for
details). I don't think we can ignore this last group - for which either
minimum levels of activity and/or funnels may still be a necessity.

The potential problem with that overall scenario is that SACO is left with
as many, if not more, members as at present. Personally I have no problem
with this - providing everyone's prepared to sign up to, and adhere to, the
"responsibilities and benefits". But Fenly's report points in another
direction - one which we seem collectively to be antipathetic towards (but
on the basis of just 3 days' work on our charge...).

I wasn't sure I learned much from the CONSER membership categories, except
they made a point of allowing in the specialists and funnels ("projects" in
CONSER terminology, I think) with fewer contributions than the rest -
something with which I'm also quite comfortable, if we end up having to go
for a "numbers"-based solution.

We are obliged only to "recommend parameters for membership". We don't have
to follow Fenly's recommendations. But those recommendations didn't come out
of thin air, and must have been prompted by what he found during his
investigations. What we haven't heard yet are the reasons which led Fenly to
say what he did.

I return to a couple of things I said earlier in the week coming out of
Fenly's report:

"Is there a relationship between quality and quantity? Underpinning Fenly's
thesis is an assumption that the fewer contributions an institution makes
the less reliable the quality?"

"I think we need to be clearer about the reasoning behind the "minimum"
level of contribution."

Unless we have some magic way of getting inside Fenly's mind (as in "Being
John Malkovich" perhaps - and I don't look a bit like John Cusack...) then I
can't help thinking we need more background information on these issues to
guide our deliberations.

Regards to all,

Hugh
--
Hugh Taylor
Head of Cataloguing, Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England

email: [log in to unmask]   fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager