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

[Stephen A Skuce]

Regarding the 7-day time period for DPC discussion on DCRM-L, I'm sure we can remain flexible. If constructive discussion continues into day 7, I hope we'd all consider letting it continue for a while until all opinions seem to have been expressed. And we definitely should extend the deadline when holidays of any relevance occur during a given discussion.

If a discussion is particularly heated, certainly we'll want to extend the period as well. But seriously contentious issues probably will need to be moved to the Bib Standards meeting at ALA. The DPC mechanism is specifically intended, in large part, to take care of simple or at least relatively uncontroversial changes, thereby saving precious face-to-face meeting time for those issues that warrant it. 

I do want to second Manon's suggestion that we limit the number of concurrent discussions. I'd prefer limiting the number to one, myself.

With thanks to the mindbogglingly productive Erin Blake,

Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 9:18 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: Discussing proposed changes to DCRM text on DCRM-L

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
--

Stephen Skuce
Program Manager for Rare Books
Institute Archives and Special Collections

MIT Room 14N-118
77 Mass. Ave.
Cambridge MA 02139-4307
617.253.0654