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

[Manon Theroux]

I'd suggest black-out periods for other major civil and religious
holidays as well.

Any particularly thorny issues might need more than a week of discussion.

I'd suggest limiting the number of concurrent discussions.

Manon

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:
> In response to Larry's excellent points:
>
> 1) Black-out periods over Thanksgiving and Dec. 22-Jan2 or so makes
> sense (as someone without family nearby, I tend to forget this: holidays
> are when I can catch up on extra-curricular work!)
>
> 2) The discussion is open to everyone on DCRM-L, since there are many
> more people with interest and expertise on the list than are able to
> attend BSC meetings. Only BSC members are able to vote, but I assume
> that it's unlikely a majority of BSC members would vote for something
> that is overwhelmingly disapproved of by list members.
>
> 3) Some issues will definitely need face-to-face discussion (or
> additional face-to-face discussion with a larger group: many issue will
> already have been discussed in person by a particular DCRM team, which
> then brings it to the list for further discussion and ratification). The
> DPC process will prevent issues that can simply be "consent agenda"
> items at BSC from taking up valuable meeting time. I've added a third
> option to the test poll: Agree; Disagree; Save for face-to-face
> discussion at BSC meeting instead.
>
> Thanks,
>
>   EB.

--
Manon Theroux
Head of Technical Services
U.S. Senate Library