I'm unfamiliar with the term "grandfathering", and even after a few minutes
spent with Google I'm unclear whether what Adam and Mary Charles are saying
is effectively the same thing or quite different. I see nothing that
bothers me personally, and I wouldn't object to some appropriate
modification to the draft. But however it's presented, is it really
possible to avoid seeking institutional commitment in some form or another?

The NACO FAQ, for example, says: "However, part of the application process
for NACO training or retraining is a commitment from the director of the
new institution to contribute the appropriate minimum number of records and
to maintain continuity in the institution's NACO leadership." And BIBCO has
an application form which seeks, inter alia, the name and address of the
library director. So I can't help thinking, regardless of how carefully we
word our recommendation, that PCC, if it accepts the notion that SACO
become a membership program, will want some similar expression of
commitment from the institution.

I notice that the "training and documentation" part of the recommendation
that took Mary Charles by surprise isn't backed up by any corresponding
expansion/explanation in the body of the report. If we want to promote the
benefits of membership in the recommendation itself (and I feel myself
that's a job better left to the report proper) then I'd be inclined to
highlight the speed with which members' proposals should be reviewed.

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)