[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv
Elaine Hardy
ehardy at georgialibraries.org
Thu Apr 27 13:16:27 EDT 2017
I've put in a request for the list to be created.
Elaine
J. Elaine Hardy
PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
Georgia Public Library Service/PINES
1800 Century Place, Ste. 150
Atlanta, GA 30045
404.235.7128 Office
404.548.4241 Cell
404.235.7201 FAX
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>
wrote:
> Ideally, a process would come before a new list, but given that this is
> the third time in my memory that there has been discussion of an
> acquisitions list, I have no objections.
>
> Kathy
>
> On 04/27/2017 10:58 AM, Leslie St. John wrote:
>
> This is not the first time the group has discussed or requested a separate
> mailing list.This keeps coming up because when the group meets there is
> indication that if we had the list more users would become more vocal,
> which is really something we need to facilitate. I've noticed that most
> of the no's are coming from people who aren't acquisitions users. Why
> can't we at least try it out? If we need guidelines to surround this
> process, fine, but let's make them so they allow the possibility.
> Thanks for listening,
> my 2 cents,
> Leslie
>
> Leslie St. John
> *PINES Services Specialist*
> Georgia Public Library Service
> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
> Atlanta, GA 30345-4304
> 404-235-7129 <(404)%20235-7129> tel
> 404.235.7201 <(404)%20235-7201> fax
> www.georgialibraries.org
> www.gapines.org
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm just catching up to this email thread now. I also saw that there was
>> a similar request for a circulation list that was briefly discussed in IRC
>> last week.
>>
>> There seems to be two schools of thought in the community about mailing
>> lists. There are a lot of people who would like to see most of the
>> discussions happening on just one or two lists so that nobody is missing
>> out on information that may be important to them. The volume of discussion
>> in the community is certainly small enough to support the idea of using
>> just one or two lists for all of our communication.
>>
>> We also have people who prefer to communicate on topical lists that
>> pertain to their area of focus.
>>
>> I'm one of those people who would prefer that all Evergreen discussions
>> happen on the general list, but I'm also a person who feels comfortable
>> posting to the general list. When the catalogers list was created a few
>> years ago, I noticed a couple of people posting to the list who I had
>> previously rarely seen posting on the general list. I think that's one
>> value to creating these topical lists. No matter how much we tell people
>> they should feel comfortable posting on any Evergreen-related topic to the
>> general list, there will always be people who feel a little intimidated
>> about posting to a list the goes out to the entire Evergreen community. If
>> a new list gets more people comfortable with participating in the
>> community, I consider it a win.
>>
>> Although I also sometimes hear concerns that talking too much on a given
>> topic might clog up another list, I've ever heard anyone complain about
>> this issue. It would be good to know if there are people who do indeed
>> think there is too much traffic coming from their Evergreen list
>> discussions, but I personally find the volume very low.
>>
>> Another factor to consider is that topical lists might give people a
>> feeling that there is a place for them in the community. Since we have
>> already created lists for reports and cataloging, I can see why community
>> members might hope there is a similar communication platform for other
>> topical areas.
>>
>> What we seem to be lacking is any kind of process for requesting new
>> lists or guidelines about when a new list is warranted. With no process, my
>> concern is that this request and the circ request will just die with no
>> definitive answer. A clear 'no' answer with reasons why the list will not
>> be created is better than no answer at all.
>>
>> I've looked around and found a couple of other communities that have some
>> kind of language around new lists.
>>
>> Debian - https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/HOWTO_start_list (very
>> vague)
>> One Laptop Per Child - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mail
>> ing_lists#Starting_a_new_list
>>
>> If you all think this is a good idea, I would be willing to work on
>> coming up with some guidelines. Also, let me know if you are interested in
>> helping out.
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/21/2017 09:37 AM, Rogan Hamby wrote:
>>
>> My concern would be that we have already seen other lists (such as the
>> Sysadmin one) suffer from splintering as Jason pointed out. People may not
>> sign up for a new list serv and less eyes on communication ends up being a
>> detriment.
>>
>> The cataloging list for example I don't think is suffering from such a
>> volume of messages that adding to it will create too many noise points or
>> disrupt it's existing communication. So far in the whole of 2017 to date
>> (109 days) we have had 23 messages on the cataloging list, so a frequency
>> of just over one every five days. I think there's plenty of room in there
>> for focus to happen :)
>>
>> And I will also echo Jason's point about development input should happen
>> on the development list where possible. The dev list is not a secret club
>> for coders but for development. Sometimes the lines blur and discussion of
>> features, bugs, etc... happens across lists (which is healthy) but when
>> things are clearly about specific development I don't see how splintering
>> the communication away from the people who file bugs, test bugs, write
>> patches, etc... benefits it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rogan Hamby
>>
>> Data and Project Analyst
>>
>> Equinox Open Library Initiative
>>
>> phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
>>
>> email: rogan at EquinoxInitiative.org
>> web: http://EquinoxInitiative.org
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Tiffany Little <
>> <tlittle at georgialibraries.org>tlittle at georgialibraries.org> wrote:
>>
>>> My vote would be "yes" for having a specific listserv for Acquisitions.
>>> It would let the discussions be more Acq-specific instead of clogging up
>>> the Catalogers' list with stuff they might not care about, and could be a
>>> more focused discussion since it wouldn't be mixed in with other areas of
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> Tiffany
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tiffany Little
>>> *PINES Services Specialist, Acquisitions*
>>> Georgia Public Library Service
>>> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
>>> Atlanta, Georgia 30345
>>> (404) 235-7160 <%28404%29%20235-7160>
>>> <tlittle at georgialibraries.org>tlittle at georgialibraries.org
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Jason Stephenson < <jason at sigio.com>
>>> jason at sigio.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd argue for "No" on the creation of an acquisitions list. Mainly for
>>>> the same reasons that the administrators' list was shut down and that I
>>>> disagree with the creation of a circulation list.
>>>>
>>>> I think the discussion of Angularization of acquisitions interfaces
>>>> belongs on the development list and not on the catalogers, general, or a
>>>> new list. If you want to discuss how the interface looks and works,
>>>> you're a developer whether or not you write code, like it or not.
>>>>
>>>> Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary, etc.
>>>>
>>>> On 04/21/2017 08:27 AM, Elaine Hardy wrote:
>>>> > Christine,
>>>> >
>>>> > Works for me....
>>>> >
>>>> > Elaine
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > J. Elaine Hardy
>>>> > PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
>>>> > Georgia Public Library Service/PINES
>>>> > 1800 Century Place, Ste. 150
>>>> > Atlanta, GA 30045
>>>> >
>>>> > 404.235.7128 Office
>>>> > 404.548.4241 Cell
>>>> > 404.235.7201 FAX
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Christine Burns
>>>> > <christine.burns at bc.libraries.coop
>>>> > <mailto: <christine.burns at bc.lib>christine.burns at bc.libraries.coop>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Hello
>>>> >
>>>> > The Acquisitions Interest Group is requesting an Acquisitions
>>>> > specific listserv. Currently Acquisitions falls under the
>>>> > Cataloguers list with the rest of technicial services. During the
>>>> > Acquisitions Interest Group meeting at the Evergreen Conference
>>>> this
>>>> > month the group discussed the need for an Acquisitions specific
>>>> > listserv to facilitate AIG activity. We are anticipating an
>>>> > increased amount of Acquisitions specific discussions during the
>>>> > Angularization of the Acquisitions module in the web client.
>>>> >
>>>> > This topic is open for discussion please voice your opinion by
>>>> > *Friday May 5th*.
>>>> >
>>>> > A copy of the meeting minutes can be found on the Acquisitions
>>>> > Interest Group wiki page here -
>>>> > https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=acq:interest-group
>>>> > < <https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=acq:interest-group>
>>>> https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=acq:interest-group>
>>>> >
>>>> > Thank you
>>>> > Christine
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Christine Burns
>>>> > Co-op Support
>>>> > BC Libraries Cooperative
>>>> > Ph: 1-888-848-9250 <tel:(888)%20848-9250>
>>>> > https://bc.libraries.coop
>>>> > https://status.libraries.coop/
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Kathy Lussier
>> Project Coordinator
>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>>
>> --
> Kathy Lussier
> Project Coordinator
> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128klussier at masslnc.org
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20170427/2ff551e1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Open-ils-general
mailing list