Mark Lindner asks why ALA should have a Bloggers’ Roundtable, an idea that Michael Golrick posed. In response to another blogger’s question, yes, if the roundtable were large enough, it would have a full vote on Council, and its own Councilor; and if it were not, it would have partial representation through what I call the Kibbles ‘n’ Bits Councilor–the ALA Councilor who represents all RTs too small to qualify for a council.
The bloggers’ RT could also co-host programs, qualify for meeting-room space, and not be reliant (no offense to the Big O) on one company’s largesse for a place to meet at ALA. Not that I’m discouraging OCLC from holding its bloggers’ soirees, which are wonderful, but a roundtable would be vendor-neutral (though vendors could join).
A bloggers’ RT could also attract new members to ALA. It could offer its expertise in helping (shoving?) ALA along in the arena of new technologies. It could even have its own blog!
And since you wouldn’t have to join it–paying the extra dues would be up to you. But I think I have $5 sitting around with that roundtable’s name on it.
Not only that, it could be a good entree to learning about ALA governance–as all the ALA members wondering what an ALA roundtable could do might crack open the Handbook and find out.
I also don’t agree with Fiona’s caveat that we only do it if it won’t be obsolete in five to ten years. Technology changes too quickly for that caveat to be useful. It’s o.k. if something else more wonderful comes along, and we find ourselves erging, or kwivelling, or superfiggling, instead of blogging. If the RT serves a function now, let’s carpe the heck out of that diem.
Is this the most important RT proposal I’ve ever heard? No. Am I waiting with bated breath? No. But it certainly would make it easier to get together under the Big Tent of the (ding!) Biblioblogosphere–and it could be a fun exercise in ALA governance. (No, really, it could!)
Posted on this day, other years:
- Crowdvine versus SWIFT - 2008
- Gloryoski, Metadata! (Thoughts from IA Summit 2008) - 2008
- Adam Gopnik on Sentences - 2007
- ALA's "Citation" For Laura Bush - 2005
- Name That Rose! - 2004
- RFID in Libraries - 2004
- ALA Election Update: Better than I Thought - 2004
- More on that Mystery Rose - 2004
Thanks for this Karen! As I said, I’m pretty sure I would/will join too. It just struck me as very odd that so many people were jumping on this with absolutely no public idea of the what or why.
I highly respect Michael Golrick, but I also found it odd that his post *seemed* (to me) more of a quick toss-off post than something actually thought out. I mean this is from the same gentleman who gave us a multi-part ALA governance series of posts. This is not to say he isn’t entitled to quick posts or that he doesn’t have a fully formed concept of what this RT might be. Maybe he does and maybe he was short on time.
The whole situation just strikes me as odd is all. There are other (specific) reasons why the reaction strikes me that way, but they probably aren’t relevant as they are my own (non-judgemental) reasons–just me coming to grips with the humanity of our profession.
But again, thank you so much for this public airing! I had already come up with many of these myself, along with some possible others. I just think that a fully public airing and conversation on the why and what is important.
Blogs are good places to float new ideas; not all of them have to be fully-formed. Michael’s idea was to get input on the idea–and he has been getting exactly that!
I fully agree with you on all of those points, Karen, at least in the vernacular. Lord knows that I’ve floated enough non-fully-formed ideas of my own over the years, but if I was soliciting input….
Oh, forget it. Maybe I just should have kept my mouth shut. Again, I agree with you. I guess I just differ on what sort of ‘input’ has actually been given.
I don’t see why you shouldn’t speak up on this issue; clearly it touched you. I think if the RT has any traction, it will find a handful of people who will make it happen. The proof is in the puddin’.
I thought RT=Roy Tenant.