<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7036.0"> <TITLE>RE: [SCC_Active_Members] New Name for SCC --- Software PreservationGroup</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY>  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@computerhistory.org [<A HREF="mailto:scc_active-bounces@computerhistory.org">mailto:scc_active-bounces@computerhistory.org</A>] On Behalf Of Bernard L. Peuto Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:49 AM To: SCC_active@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 <A HREF="http://community.computerhistory.org/scc/">http://community.computerhistory.org/scc/</A> [URL to be changed] Concord Consulting, 1333 Jones Street #1106, San Francisco, Ca 94109-4118 Phone: (415) 775-7801, Fax:   (415) 775-7265 blpeuto@peuto.com   _______________________________________________ SCC_active mailing list SCC_active@computerhistory.org <A HREF="http://mail.computerhistory.org/mailman/listinfo/scc_active">http://mail.computerhistory.org/mailman/listinfo/scc_active</A> </BODY> </HTML>