btw folks, feel free to modify the text of the resolution (above the horizontal rule line) as well as post comments on the resolution either here in the comments or below the horizontal rule line.

Thanks for the quick activity on this!

Aaron-

Thanks for starting this discussion. I hope that this activity will make your proposal stronger.

I would like to suggest that the whereas about people not attending Council sessions should say do not rather than can not -- in particular the Board/Council/Membership Information Session and Council I which are on the weekend. I accept that many can not attend Council II or III since they may have already left the conference by then. I'd like to think there was some way to encourage more people to attend and participate in the Information Session and to observe Council sessions. This is something I did for years before being elected to Council and I found it extremely interesting and informative. (Gusss I am a Council "junkie")

Hi Peg,

As another "Council junkie" who did exactly the same thing, I know where you're coming from. However, I think the "can" may be the more applicable word.

45,000+ members "can" not attend the Sessions (as they are not attending the conference/meeting) and the transcripts would be for their information and use as well as the many conference attendees.

(My edits in the "resolved" clauses were cosmetic. IIRC, the Resolutions Committee is working on a style sheet for resolutions so the format is uniform.)

In all this discussion, I am reminded of a quotation from one of my favorite philosophers, L. P. Berra: "If people don't want to come out to the ball park, nobody's going to stop them." There's a parallel to membership meetings. We (Council, Membership Committee, and others) have tried very hard to increase attendance at those meetings. Cajoling and bribery (free ice cream <g>) haven't worked.

The same thing is true for the proposal here. What is the objective of having transcripts or journal summaries available? Do we expect members to lobby Council about pending issues?

Someone commented on the three-month deadline to implement this resolution. Initially, it may take that long to iron out quirks before the transcript is published. Once the mechanics and details are in place, there should be a shorter gap between Council's final adjournment and the transcripts being posted.

I think it was Michael who said that this resolution would not have fiscal implications. Would the stenographer charge more for providing a "clean copy" to be published on the web?

I have also posted some comments to the Council list. I hope Councilors will feel free to add to them or to bring concerns to this wiki.

The concerns brought to the Web Advisory Committee were based in a desire for transparency of the operation of the organization. Timely availability of the transcripts (2 weeks or so following the last Council session of a conference, once a routine practice is established).

Clean copy is not a necessity, nor is it even a goal. The beauty of members-only access is that the readers will be familiar with the jargon.

The last thing wanted is anything which would contribute to delay, whether in gussying up the "on-the-fly" stenographic interpretation of acronyms or bothering to try to link to anything.

Quick and dirty, warts and all. Those wishing for an executive summary can content themselves with the approved minutes which will be available eventually, complete with pretty formatting and page layout for printing and binding or keeping in a three-ring binder.

Is there something here which may be leveraged for electronic participation? Quite possibly. But in no way should this quickly implementable and achievable concept/goal be sidetracked for an indeterminate period while additional groups attempt to synthesize new and innovative ways to leverage it. There is nothing to leverage until this is implemented.

ALA staff should be tasked with posting the transcripts. These are simple text files, pure ascii. If posted as .txt, it should not take any measurable amount of time for transferring to a web server.

As Chair of the Task Force on Electronic Member Participation, (but without having consulted with the TF), my response is that this is not something that would have to be delayed until after the TF delivers its report at Midwinter. I don't think there are any policy impediments (since, after all the meetings are already open).

Beyond that, I agree with people who think that a deadline of some sort (even "in a timely manner" is better than nothing) would be useful. But what I really think may be missing is an "until something better comes along" statement. That is, (stated somewhat informally)

whereas transcripts of Council meetings already exist, and

whereas posting transcripts to the web is not any particular technological challenge, and

whereas all those things you mentioned about its being a good idea to make this stuff public

therefore (etc.) post the transcript to a web site, while continuing to investigate the possible substitution of other mechanisms, such as streaming audio or live webcasts, for making the activities of Council readily available/accessible to the membership.

AND keep track of the traffic, and request user input, to use in gauging interest, and to help guide future efforts in making the business of the Association more visible to the membership.

janet swan hill

Janet's suggestion of measuring use is outstanding. Likewise the call for immediate and ongoing feedback.

The revolutionary part, to me, is not just leaving the door ajar for technowhiz improvements in the future, but essentially ripping the door from the frame and stating unequivocally, "This is a starting point. Continuing development of archived (podcast?) and real-time text, audio, video etc. proceedings of Council is part and parcel of this proposal. The technological evolution of the Council session transcription service should take place as technically and financially feasible, as a regular part of the evolution of ALA IT."