[fall recs and gpo responses] [got here late, so missed fdsys discussion]
web harvesting:
need to update t44 to reflect changing nature of information
learn from state activities
what’s the deal with the lockss project? still have partners with caches.
ted priebe:
lockss content is on permanent archive; need to reach out to partners in terms of their role.
sandee mc: but is gpo still interested in multiple site preservation for digital materials, even if it’s not lockss?
ric davis: yes, gpo is still interested. lockss may still be the solution.
PAA:
council commends gpo’s activities. are there other concerns from the community that council needs to take into account?
kathy hale: like the idea of gpo developing a checklist as to what elements will be assessed.
michele mck: needs to be a way to ask what ppl want to do/are planning to do, not just what we’ve always been doing. in academic community, the term assessment has a different connotation. assessment shouldn’t just be the letter of the law.
arlene weible: agree with michele. concerns about info received re: process. assumption that you’re a good depository if you have info on your web site about the depository. just as good if all of your items cataloged, vs. having a logo on the web site. we have a lot of creative ways to provide access to this, and it’s not about putting — behind the logo. urge council to — develop criteria, it’s not something that’s hard and fast, but a dialogue. [not everyone has free reign on web site.]
kathy brazee: we do look at the whole picture. biennial survey questions 28a,b,c - we asked dep coords to fill in up to 5 entries re: public services and activites that you do. we’re interested in what you do. easy to look at web pages, but we’re looking at all of your activities and services. assessments are individual, and are based on legal and program requirements.
the more specific requirements we have, the less flexibility there is in the program.
checklist for assessment, but self-study will also be updated, with more info about activities, etc.
sandee mc: need some statements about regional services, and talk to selectives about what their expectations are
kathy brazee: would encourage the regionals to take a look at the focus — access and services paper; is specific info for regionals as well as selectives
outcomes-based program, so looking at feedback about each individual library.
barbie selby: agree re: plans and future things. when i talk to my selectives, i want to know what their expectations are of me. helps to have something to aspire to, so idea of checklist and suggestions are helpful.
kirsten clark: re: user comment form: - what do we want to get out of that? specific to the depository library? way to gpo to have public comment on the program itself?
kathy brazee: newer emblems being sent out, there’s a 1-800 # that goes to gpo help center. idea is to show partnership between fdls and gpo; ability to send comments, complaints, compliments, etc. will be testing on a voluntary basis at first.
partnerships, future fdlp:
doesn’t make sense to discuss this when the next session is following this one.
john shuler: any reaction from regionals re: discussion of last night?
cindy etkin: discussion at regionals mtg revolved around letter from jcp. letter specifically requested information on conditions [organizational, financial, technological] and meeting was focused on brainstorming in these areas.
shuler: might want to draw on data from pew [public libraries - aka uiuc study]
denise davis: offered more current library data
kathy hale: regionals were tasked to go back to our admins and provide additional data - how this will affect the public access to gov’t info if regionals aren’t allowed flexibility. letter will go out to all directors, cc’ing dep coordinators
