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 tel
404.235.7201 fax
www.georgialibraries.org <http://www.georgialibraries.org>
www.gapines.org <http://www.gapines.org>
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Kathy Lussier <kluss...@masslnc.org
<mailto:kluss...@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
<https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/HOWTO_start_list> (very vague)
One Laptop Per Child -
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mailing_lists#Starting_a_new_list
<http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mailing_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: ro...@equinoxinitiative.org
<mailto:ro...@equinoxinitiative.org>
web: http://EquinoxInitiative.org
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Tiffany Little
<tlit...@georgialibraries.org
<mailto:tlit...@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 <tel:%28404%29%20235-7160>
tlit...@georgialibraries.org
<mailto:tlit...@georgialibraries.org>
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Jason Stephenson
<ja...@sigio.com <mailto:ja...@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 <tel:404.235.7128> Office
> 404.548.4241 <tel:404.548.4241> Cell
> 404.235.7201 <tel:404.235.7201> FAX
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Christine Burns
> <christine.bu...@bc.libraries.coop
<mailto:christine.bu...@bc.libraries.coop>
> <mailto:christine.bu...@bc.lib
<mailto:christine.bu...@bc.lib>raries.coop
<http://raries.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
<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:1-888-848-9250>
<tel:(888)%20848-9250>
> https://bc.libraries.coop
> https://status.libraries.coop/
<https://status.libraries.coop/>
>
>
--
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128 <tel:%28508%29%20343-0128>
kluss...@masslnc.org <mailto:kluss...@masslnc.org>
Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier <http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier>
