[SCC_Active_Members] New Name for SCC --- Software PreservationGroup

[H.M. Gladney]

On the topic of Web presence for CHM volunteer groups, may I suggest that we
spend a few minutes of the January SPG meeting talking about it.

Specifically, what I have in mind is a topic that is probably being thought
about by several other SPG members, viz., availability to visitors of
"uncurated" digital content that is candidate for eventual formal accession
by the CHM staff.  I believe that the most sensitive issue requiring
attention has to do with the public words used to differentiate information
offered by SPG (and other volunteer groups) from that offered "officially"
by the CHM as an institution.

Almost surely, CHM staff will not be able to handle any sooner than several
years from now information that SPG can make publicly available in 2007.
The staff workload is simply too great.

I did talk briefly with Bernard P. about this topic, and we seem to agree on
the likelihood that the metadata associated with SPG information offerings
is likely to be more extensive and more authoritative than CHM can offer (at
least in the near term) because of the expertise and energy that SPG members
can bring to their favorite topics.  This might make it attractive to the
CHM Collections staff to use (eventually) quite a bit of what SPG makes
available with less red tape than CHM might feel it can afford.

Cheerio, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: scc_active-bounces at computerhistory.org
[mailto:scc_active-bounces at computerhistory.org] On Behalf Of Bernard L.
Peuto
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:49 AM
To: SCC_active at computerhistory.org
Subject: [SCC_Active_Members] New Name for SCC --- Software
PreservationGroup

Software Preservation Friends (ex SCC)

Based on your inputs I propose to change the SCC name to "Software
Preservation Group"

First thanks to all members of the distribution list who responded in
October to my suggestions for renaming the SCC. I realize that it was three
months ago but it does not change my great appreciation for the many
constructive suggestions that were made.

>From the discussion it seemed that there was not much of a controversy
behind abandoning any reference to an acronym like SCC. There seemed also to
be no controversy in selecting "Software Preservation" over "Software
Collecting".

So as one of you asked: why have a discussion about it. Clearly one name or
the other was good enough but I was expecting that a name changing exercise
would bring "... as a subtext the relationship of our site with the main CHM
site as well as the emphasis that we might give to our association with the
museum." and it did!

Consequently most of the discussion was focused on the last modifier the
"Committee" modifier. Most of the points raised about this last modifier
dealt with issues that will not be solved by just picking a name so I
decided to pick the more neutral "group" modifier  and undertake to find a
solution to these other issues independently.

Coming back to the discussion, nobody liked the "Committee" "talk and don't
do" connotation so suggestions like SIG, alliance etc.. were presented.

The museum is trying to create an umbrella around its multiple volunteer
groups. Several of them are using the SIG moniker and as a whole these
groups are all special interests groups of volunteers. So why not call this
group the "Software Preservation SIG"? I do not like acronyms in general and
SIG in particular. Also I am not certain that all volunteer groups should
match one naming convention as they may have different purposes some of them
are genuine coordination committee like the Collection Strategy Committee,
some are restoration groups like the PDP-1 group etc. As a compromise and to
respect this Special Interest Group umbrella I decided for the simpler
"group" over alliance or some other moniker that might have been more
descriptive. 

Some objection were made to using alliance, which was one of my favorite,
pointing out that we currently have none. I though that the argument was
somewhat strange as the fact that we have no alliance today certainly should
not stop us from using the name if we felt that it was very important, as I
believe we do, to establish many alliances in the future. Anyway in this
matter it is more important to establish them than to name them so the
"group" compromise is still a valid decision.

Other excellent points  were made that basically try to answer important
questions about our relationship with and visibility on the CHM web sites. I
think that the current web site organization does not highlight the
volunteers groups enough. It is an important issue and solutions to that
issues are in the planning stage. Participation in that effort is fairly
independent of the name chosen and will be done independently of it.

Bernard

Bernard L. PEUTO, Ph.D.
Chairman Software Preservation Group
http://community.computerhistory.org/scc/ [URL to be changed] Concord
Consulting,
1333 Jones Street #1106,
San Francisco, Ca 94109-4118
Phone: (415) 775-7801,
Fax:   (415) 775-7265
blpeuto at peuto.com
 


_______________________________________________
SCC_active mailing list
SCC_active at computerhistory.org
http://mail.computerhistory.org/mailman/listinfo/scc_active
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: ../attachments/20070117/c1ec42d4/attachment.html