Even with the explanation below, I agree with Adam about "Not sure" to No.1 .
Sounds like more "levels", red tape, etc. than it is worth... Particularly
since (like Lori) I think we shouldn't get into the business of suppling LCSH
tools... so I vote NO for number 4.
#2... I guess so but still why bother for 5 proposals. My "higher ups" will
probably ignore the letter or will think it silly or make a hugh deal out of
such a request... Any of which will take more time than doing 5 normal
#3 Yes... a separate list.
Mary Charles... attempting to answer from home on an e-mail system that is
being phased out...
>===== Original Message From Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<[log in to unmask]> =====
> 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?