I deliberately did not include "not sure" as an option :-)
What I am thinking about how this would work in the new scheme that
we are proposing is that (1) Anyone, new or old as a SACO contributor, would
still be able to propose new or changed headings, member or not. This is a
point that we made pretty strongly and that I shared at the BIBCO OpCo
meeting in May. John Mitchell told me he was very happy to hear it, and I
heard no arguments against it. (2) A new kind of membership would become an
option for those who choose to sign on to it with a formal agreement, and
certain benefits which we need to define will be limited to those who choose
to become the new kind of member. Other contributors will not be called
"members" but simply "contributors". Thanks,
From: Adam Schiff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCTG1] Input for report
1. To make SACO more consistent with other elements of the PCC, a letter
asking for a written commitment to following LC policies, etc. for subject
contributions should be sent by the PCC to those libraries who are
particpants in SACO or other parts of the PCC?
_X_ NOT SURE! How would this work in practice for a library that wants to
submit its first SACO proposal? They would not be allowed to until they
had signed a written commitment? Would this only be applied to formal
2. Can you get behind the idea of a goal of 5 records each year for
libraries that make a commitment to joining the SACO program as members?
This is in the context of other libraries and librarians continuing to have
the option of contributing without that commitment.
3. Do you think we need a separate list of SACO libraries for the utilities
to enable subject authority work in the utilities, or will it serve
satisfactorily to expand the capability of those already authorized for
_X__Separate list required
___Use NACO list
If BIBCO or CONSER, then one authorization should allow all. But I think
there are quite a few prolific SACO contributors that are not part of
NACO and I don't think we should require NACO. Nor do I think they should
have NACO authorization if they don't have the training and approval to
change name headings.
4. As part of the contribution of LC do you want provision of resources such
as Catalogers Desktop or print versions of SCM and LCSH to be provided to
those libraries who make a written commitment to be SACO members?
_X__YES (Which resource(s)? Print is sufficient. But what about online
access to Classification? Should that be free if they are going to be
doing classification proposals? If they commit to doing a certain number
of class. proposals?