A quick note on Adam's comments (which he seems to have stayed up very late
to write, unless I've got my timezones wrong). We don't use LCC, and I know
nothing of the classification proposal process, but I've had a quick look
at the stats and there are only two institutions who managed 10 or more
class proposals (new and changed) last year. Just Adam and Stanford.
On the one hand, the class activity is relatively limited; on the other, if
we wish to retain those who are putting time and effort into it, and maybe
even encourage others to do more, then improving the processes is
important. The significant thing I, as a non-participant, picked up from
Adam's message is that the current process isn't exactly designed to
attract proposals. In the context of the report, I'd be happy to go along
with the last sentence of Adam's section on class proposals.
I'd also be happy for class work to "count" towards membership activity.
It's no less important for a large body of people than LCSH.
One other follow-up to Adam. Whilst we should look to promote contribution
via the utilities as the preferred option for *members*, I feel we should
leave as many of the other options open as LC is prepared to support,
providing the report makes clear that members' contributions via the
utilities are going to be processed by LC staff *before* the generality of
proposals, submitted by whatever method, coming in from non-members. That's
part of the trade-off in having a membership program. And Adam did a very
good job of articulating just why Cambridge prefers e-mail to the Web form
(and continues to use it in preference to the latter)!
Head, Collection Development and Description
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)