A few thoughts on the draft. I'll concentrate on the more "serious" points,
as I see them - in any case, I'm conscious that American English and
English English are almost two separate languages, so it's a little
difficult for me to try to deal with style issues.

I think we may need to look at the order of the bullets in the summary of
recommendations compared with the order of the main section headings that
follow. Should they match? Should the wording of the summary of
recommendations be lifted directly from the text that follows, or is it ok
for them to have a life of their own (so long as they don't contradict each
other, of course!)?

Membership benefits. Para. 1. I didn't like the idea that we were keeping
the "best" bits for members, so perhaps add "or developed further" after
"reserved" here.

Next para. "Utility-based submission ... should be developed with the
cooperation of OCLC, RLG and the Library of Congress and should be a
privilege ..."

Later on in the same para - the reference to macros is almost certainly
OCLC-specific (I have little to do with OCLC, so can't be sure), so perhaps
add "or record generation software" after "macros"?

Next para. Add after "quality proposal preparation": "and delivery of
records in MARC format already validated by the utilities". I see this to
be important - one of the benefits must be that the utilities will be
delivering MARC records ready for loading into LC's Voyager system that are
as "reliable" or "safe" (in a technical sense) as the NACO records they

Final sentence of that para. "Similarly, future ... task group recommends
for future consideration."

Responsibilities of membership. 2nd para. I feel this para. needs expanding
a bit. I've noted down, amongst the issues that would need to be considered
        variety of backgrounds of Members
        level of experience
        responsibility of members to identify training requirements

In the next para. perhaps there could be a reference to the consultant's
report at the spot where we're repeating the problems that LC staff face in
dealing with some of the less able contributors.  A quote even (means we're
not the ones dishing out the criticism....).

Training. Paras on "Workshops at conferences" and "Institutional training".
Couldn't see any fundamental difference between these two paras - they
seemed to be saying pretty well the same thing. If so, could they be

Penultimate para of this section needs redrafting to a more impersonal
style (I realise Jimmy was desperate to have a draft for mailing before the
end of my working day!).

And the final para here duplicates some of what's gone before.

Processes. 1st para. Again, the end of this para repeats some of what was
said in the section on Membership benefits.

Next para. Do we want to add complaints about lack of feedback to the list
of issues at the beginning of this para?

I feel the para beginning "Librarians preparing subject authority..." is
the beginning of a new section, but I haven't managed to come up with a
heading for this!

The reference to the PCC TG on Internat. Participation must be to the
interim report, I think.

Good work, Jimmie. Sooner you than me!

Best wishes,

Hugh Taylor
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)