ACQNET v10n004 (February 22, 2000) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v10n004.txt ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 10, No. 4, February 22, 2000 ========================================= TO: All Subscribers FROM: Eleanor Cook, Editor, ACQNET Everyone: The responses are coming in! The most repeated sentiment is "Go for it!" which certainly captures the spirit. In case you are a new subscriber and did not receive ACQNET 10:3, you can go to AcqWeb to see the issue that talks about proposed changes to ACQNET : the direct URL for this issue is: ftp://listserv.appstate.edu/acqnet/acqnet10/acqnet10.3 There have been a couple of great questions raised which I can answer here: Q: What about ACQflashes? A: They can continue. They will remain for one-shot, time-sensitive postings that need no discussion or follow-up. Items such as: meeting announcements, job postings, surveys, etc. Peter Stevens will remain as the ACQflash editor. Q: Will *all* postings come one at a time? A: Initial queries probably will. But answers can be edited and grouped. Anne McGreer Haynes and I will handle these. I envision this to be somewhat like SERIALST, which is the logical model to follow. Q: What happened to ACQTALK? (A web-based threaded discussion we introduced last year) A: It was an experiment that did not take off. No one wanted to "go there." However, I received a suggestion today from someone (see below) that may merit investigation. We are always looking for new ideas. Q: Should we change the name to make the break logical? Someone suggested ACQ-L? A: I don't know - what do you all think??? (Thanks to Ian Fairclough - Yakima Valley Regional Library) ==================================================================== Here are the comments thus far (in order of receipt): You LURKERS - go ahead and chime in! Mary Kay - Humboldt University: "Thanks very much for moving forward to a moderated list format. As you know, I believe this is long overdue, and will give acq and collection development practioners a fine new tool for the dynamic environment in which we work. It has become increasingly clear in recent weeks that the messages being proferred to Acqnet belong in an interactive arena characterized by the helpful interchange of other library specialties." Sara Tompson - Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory: "I'm a fairly new subscriber. I think this is a really good idea; I have found the only periodic releases of ACQNET cumbersome and don't always read the entries, even though there is good stuff therein; if it was a regular "lis" it would be more conversational and easier to read, and as you say, folks can always get in DIGEST mode if they prefer to read all in a batch (I do not)." Janet Flowers - University of NC-Chapel Hill: Asked the questions above that I answered and I thank her for it! Frank Immler - Temple University "I think the proposed changes are a great idea. As you say, it is past time to do this. Go for it!" Martin Gordon - Franklin & Marshall University: "I would accept as positive steps, given the expansion of technology such as the WWW and presence therein of AcqWeb, both the proposed changes to ACQNET. Hope (most) other responses that you receive are (also) positive." Emily Hutton - Colgate University "These changes make sense to me." Betty Meehan-Black - UNC-Chapel Hill: "Fine with me." Deborah Curry - Oswego State University: "Absolutely Excellent!!!! Thanks for spearheading the change!" Barbara Nelson - Auburn University: "I think the proposed changes are good. ACQNET will be more valuable if messages can be current, but I am glad you are considering a moderated list. That should keep it from being overwhelming. I look forward to the new format." Marie Reed - Mesa State College Library "I am in favor of the change and think it would be much better for exchanging ideas and getting news quicker. Go for it! and thanks for all your hard work." Charlie Kamilos - George Fox University Libraries "I think these changes will be good for the list and, certainly, will be good for me. Thanks. I look forward to the change." Penny Swanson - Douglas College Library "Count me as one vote for the change. I have often thought that questions would be answered faster is ACQNET were a list rather than a serial. Go for it!" Cheryl Kugler - Libraries of the Claremont Colleges "I have always appreciated the tight control and disciplined transmission of ACQNET. However, I feel that the future alternative you describe is also acceptable. Thanks for everyone's hard work on this list. I find it very valuable." Judith Hopkins - SUNY-Buffalo: "I am all in favor of ACQNET moving to a list format. As you noted, that will increase speed and responsiveness and certainly reduce your labor. Good luck!" Fran Stumpf - St. Charles County Communty College: "I like the idea for a moderated list. Hopefully this format will increase traffic on ACQNET." Mary Ellen Kenreich - Portland State University: "I am in favor of the proposed change to a moderated list. Although it may be nice not to be flooded with messages, the current format isn't conducive to a discussion or to getting a quick answer (or several quick answers.) I've grown accustomed to email's immediacy. We shouldn't have to wait a couple of weeks for a question or timely issue to appear on ACQNET. Having said that, I hope that a moderated list will also not delay messages being posted. Free-flowing discussion is good. If it doesn't come with the new moderated list, we should continue to think of other options." Judith Niles - University of Louisville: "I think the change is a good idea." Dennis VanArsdale - Westark College "It's gotten so I'm surprised to see an issue of ACQNET these days. I'm in favor of any action that would allow more activity and usefulness. The restrictions on advertising are good; I would note that we should, however, encourage vendors, publishers and salespeople to subscribe and get our side of things (and present a reasonable response, of course, when necessary). That alone would add to the value of the list. I just hope we don't burn out our moderators! BTW: I had a non-librarian contact me about a posting I made on this list some time ago; apparently, he found the posting through a search of the archives, and wanted to ask me about a certain vendor. We may have more influence than we know!" Julie Bixby - (Huntington Beach PL): "So what you're saying is you want to go moderated post by post, rather than gathering posts into a single message, right? Fine by me." [SEE ABOVE EXPLANATION] Linda Jones - Southeastern College (Lakeland, FL): "Count me in as a vote for a moderated list format. Thanks for asking." Nanette Hamilton - Berkeley County Library System (Moncks Corner, SC): "I'm all for the change. Go for it!" THE REST OF YOU: What do YOU think? We await your responses! ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 10, No. 4 ****** END OF FILE *******