Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Elaine Hardy]

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 
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 
> 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 

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Kathy Lussier]

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 tel
404.235.7201 fax
www.georgialibraries.org 
www.gapines.org 

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Kathy Lussier > 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/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 

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Leslie St. John]

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
www.gapines.org

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Kathy Lussier  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/
> 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 

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Kathy Lussier]

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/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

web: http://EquinoxInitiative.org

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Tiffany Little 
> 
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 
tlit...@georgialibraries.org 

On Fri, Apr 21, 

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Sarah Childs]

I would vote no, also. I agree that the cataloging listserv is currently
very low volume, and I would not mind at all seeing the acquisitions
discussion on the cataloging list if a relatively quiet space is needed to
hash things out. I say this as a subscriber to the cataloging listserv with
no direct interest in acq, as we're not currently using it at my library. I
think including all tech services topics on the cataloging list is totally
appropriate.

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Christine Burns <
christine.bu...@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
>
> Thank you
> Christine
>
> --
> Christine Burns
> Co-op Support
> BC Libraries Cooperative
> Ph: 1-888-848-9250 
> <(888)%20848-9250>https://bc.libraries.coophttps://status.libraries.coop/
>
>


-- 
Sarah Childs
Technical Services Department Head
Hussey-Mayfield Memorial Public Library
250 North Fifth Street
Zionsville, IN 46077
317-873-3149 x13330
sar...@zionsvillelibrary.org

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Rogan Hamby]

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
web:  http://EquinoxInitiative.org

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Tiffany Little <
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
> tlit...@georgialibraries.org
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Jason Stephenson  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
>> > > > > 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
>> > 
>> >
>> > Thank you
>> > Christine
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Christine Burns
>> > Co-op Support
>> > BC Libraries Cooperative
>> > Ph: 1-888-848-9250 
>> > https://bc.libraries.coop
>> > https://status.libraries.coop/
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Tiffany Little]

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
tlit...@georgialibraries.org

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Jason Stephenson  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
> >  > > 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
> > 
> >
> > Thank you
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christine Burns
> > Co-op Support
> > BC Libraries Cooperative
> > Ph: 1-888-848-9250 
> > https://bc.libraries.coop
> > https://status.libraries.coop/
> >
> >
>

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Jason Stephenson]

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
>  > 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
> 
> 
> Thank you
> Christine
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christine Burns
> Co-op Support
> BC Libraries Cooperative
> Ph: 1-888-848-9250 
> https://bc.libraries.coop
> https://status.libraries.coop/
> 
> 

Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Elaine Hardy]

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.bu...@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
>
> Thank you
> Christine
>
> --
> Christine Burns
> Co-op Support
> BC Libraries Cooperative
> Ph: 1-888-848-9250 
> <(888)%20848-9250>https://bc.libraries.coophttps://status.libraries.coop/
>
>

[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Acquisitions Interest Group meeting minutes & request for dedicated Acquisitions Listserv

[Christine Burns]

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


Thank you
Christine


--
Christine Burns
Co-op Support
BC Libraries Cooperative
Ph: 1-888-848-9250
https://bc.libraries.coop
https://status.libraries.coop/