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 <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 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 >> > <mailto: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 >> > <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:(888)%20848-9250> >> > https://bc.libraries.coop >> > https://status.libraries.coop/ >> > >> > >> > >
