[DCRM-L] DPC: Discussing proposed changes to DCRM text on DCRM-L

[Laurence S. Creider]

This sounds like a way to make good progress between meetings.  A few
points if I may:

1) If one week is allowed for discussion, then certain periods, notably
Thanksgiving and Dec. 22-Jan. 2 or so, need to be off limits for the DPC
process.

2) Is the discussion of a particular change open to everyone on the list
or limited to BSC members?

3) There may be some issues where discussion at ALA midwinter or annual is
helpful.  Sometimes the face-to-face give and take leads to a superior
result.


Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Wed, November 24, 2010 6:50 pm, Erin Blake wrote:
> With apologies for the delay: at Annual, it came to the attention of the
> Bib Standards Committee that there should be a way for DCRM editors to
> propose a wording change to DCRM-L, have it discussed by list members,
> then have the change voted on by BSC members.
>
>
>
> I was tasked with coming up with a mechanism, proposing it to the BSC
> chair for his approval, then trying it out. I came up with an idea,
> Stephen Skuce approved.... and months later, I realized I haven't
> followed through.
>
>
>
> Here's the mechanism: subject lines for discussion of proposed changes
> to DCRM wording will be prefaced by "DPC" meaning "Discussion of
> Proposed Change," similar to the "CFP" for announcing "Calls for Papers"
> and "TOC" for announcing journal tables of contents used in H-Net
> discussion lists. "DPC" was chosen because it's short (the default
> [DCRM-L] preface already takes up valuable character spaces) and easily
> searched-for and sorted-on (or filtered out, for people who aren't
> interested in DCRM revision).
>
>
>
> There will be one week for discussion, after which time BSC members will
> vote. As decided at the BSC meeting, the vote will be an ALA Connect
> poll of the BSC committee members (it seems cumbersome, but  it does
> save DCRM-L from being cluttered by up to fourteen messages saying only
> "yes" or "no". More importantly, it will save time in committee meetings
> for things that need fuller discussion by providing an official forum to
> log votes). The DCRM editor posing the question will be responsible for
> sending a reminder the day before the vote that discussion is about to
> end.
>
>
>
> The DCRM editor posing the question will also be responsible for
> documenting the outcome in the appropriate section of
> http://wikis.ala.org/acrl/index.php/DCRM_Editorial_Guidelines
>
>
>
> Note: minor changes, such as corrections to typos and formatting errors,
> need not be discussed. DCRM editors can add them directly to
> http://wikis.ala.org/acrl/index.php/DCRM_Editorial_Guidelines (and other
> keepers-of-the-text will find out about them because we're all presumed
> to be getting e-mail alerts when that page changes).
>
>
>
> Coming up next... a Discussion of Proposed Change (one I think will be
> straightforward and non-controversial, for an easy test-drive).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>   EB.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger
> Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE  | Washington, DC
> 20003-1004  |  office tel. (202) 675-0323  |  fax:  (202) 675-0328  |
> eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu
>
>
>
>