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:

Week 2 - Membership criteria

From:

Hugh Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:14:43 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (85 lines)

Can I offer some thoughts on the question of Membership Criteria (and
reassure you all that I'm not planning to take advantage of the earlier time
zone every week...).

One of the minor irritations of the extract from Fenly's report that was
distributed to PoCo is that it lacks the evidence that (presouambly)
supports the assertions and recommendations he makes. With that in mind, I
took his example of a minimum of 20 proposals p.a. and tested that against
the FY 2001-2002 statistics. And I also looked to see what difference a
minimum of 10 proposals would make. In both cases, I was using the aggregate
of "new" and "change" proposals, without any sort of distinction.

On the basis of last year's figures, requiring a minimum of 20 proposals
would mean that the SACO program had just 20 members (10 BIBCO/CONSER, 5
NACO, and 5 SACO only, following the categorisation used by the stats
document).

Requiring a minimum of 10 proposals would increase the number of SACO
members to 37 (17 BIBCO/CONSER, 10 NACO, 9 SACO only).

(I've not included the Coop Team in these figures, BTW.)

Looking at the overall proportion of SACO work done by the 20+ category,
these institutions accounted for 79% of all new SACO proposals in 2001/2,
and 86% of all change proposals.

Looking at the overall proportion of SACO work done by the 10+ category,
these institutions accounted for 85% of all new SACO proposals in 2001/2,
and 89% of all change proposals.

A very small number of SACO participants are doing a very large proportion
of the work, whichever benchmark you use.

I hope those figures are of use to us.

I've a few more general thoughts, a little random in their coverage.

1. It's not our job to justify the overall change in policy, I think, but to
come up with workable proposals to support the proposed new policy.

2. Demand for "new" headings, even in large institutions, is rather less
"predictable" than for names. Whatever "minimum" figure is arrived at, I'd
have thought a certain amount of leeway will be required from year to year.
(This probably happens already with NACO, but I'm unaware of how that
process operates.)

3. I like the idea of funnels. But I worry about the assumption that
volunteers will be forthcoming. It's basically pushing the burden away from
LC and on to other people (that's not a criticism...).

4. 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 (see, for example, the final para. of
Recommendation 6). Perhaps Ana or Tom would care to comment on that. I would
be more inclined, in theory, to trust a small specialist library dealing
with an area in which it has a high degree of knowledge over an institution
like my own, a large "general" library.

5. Looking at the stats, there's a potential inpact on BIBCO in that some of
the members wouldn't make the "cut off" figure. Since they're required to
have controlled access points, presumably records for which they don't have
suitable subjects and which they couldn't contribute, would have to be
excluded from BIBCO. (But perhaps there could be a BIBCO funnel for such
institutions?)

Overall, building on the Fenly work, I think we need to be clearer about the
reasoning behind the "minimum" level of contribution. Is it to do with
quality? Is it to do with more general management overhead (the sheer amount
of effort of keeping in contact with so many small contributors, for
example)? Is it designed to encourage/discourage contributions? And what
might we collectively lose if some of the smaller contributors don't find a
funnel or take umbrage at the new arrangements?

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