Approved-By:  "Moderator" <RAED@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.govdoc-l
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:54:46 CST
From:         "Moderator" <RAED@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject:      Needs & Offers--7 messages

SEVEN MESSAGES ON THE TOPIC OF A SEPARATE NEEDS AND OFFERS LIST FOLLOW

*********************** 1st message ****************************

I personally don't care whether a new list is set up for needs and offers.
But I do think the whole discussion is a bigger waste of time than
reading through the allegedly annoying messages that instigated the
discussion.  Why bother with a separate list anyway?  Why not, as an
alternative, establish the sort of subject line labelling guideline
I've seen on lists like ACRLNY-L:  for example, all messages pertaining
to needs and offers should have a subject line reading NEEDED: STF3A, MA/NH;
or OFFER: [what you're offering].  If the subject line is clear enough,
people can just delete these "nuisances" without even having to read them.

Jim Hammons
Government Publications Librarian
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23505
jwh200f@oduvm.bitnet  OR
       @oduvm.cc.odu.edu


************************* 2nd message ********************


Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:10:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Jerry Frobom <jerryf@unllib.unl.edu>
Subject: Separate duplicates list

I would like to put in a plug for a separate duplicates/trades/missing
items list apart from GOVDOC-L.  I would sign up for the GOVDOC-L list
under my own address;  I would sign up the docs unit mail address for the
duplicates list.

I am not particularly interested in finding out who or who didn't get
copies of what, but I am very interested in the depository programs and
policies.

On the other hand, my processing staff may not be interested so much in
policy and program information (and I do forward items which they might
find interesting and useful) as they are in finding copies of items we
have not received and finding homes for any duplicates.

Having a separate e-mail for duplicate or missing items would alleviate my
having to read and forward those messages, while providing quick and easy
access to the members of my staff who can really use that information.

I hope I do not sound too elitist when I say that those who have
Internet/Bitnet access should use it to the greatest advantage.
Putting duplicate items on the state and national discard lists seems like a
logical response to those who are concerned about those libraries who do
not have access to the Internet.  Perhaps regionals could assume the
responsibility for those libraries lacking access by telling their
selectives to contact them to keep an eye open to the list for missing
items such as a CD-ROM, or having the regional post a message on their
behalf offering important duplicates.


Jerry Frobom
Government Documents Depository
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
jerryf@unllib.unl.edu

************************* 3rd message *************************


     This depository librarian would happily choose not to
receive a separate needs & offers list, because it's 1) boring,
and 2) not the best use of my time.  But we might try having a
a clerical assistant subscribe to see how useful it was.  In
other words, the advantage of a separate list is in having
more opitions, both as to whether to get it at all and who
will scan it.
     However, having made the same suggestion last summer and
not seen any rush of volunteers to establish a separate list,
it seems that people aren't likely to take on all the hassles
of such a list as long as we can post needs and offers on
GOVDOC-L.  Unless the editors decide that needs & offers are
out of order on this "discussion forum", there's no real
incentive for a separate list.
     Meanwhile, exchange listers, I beg of you, pleeeeeeeeezzzz
use a standard subject heading so I can delete your messages unread:
         Offer:[title or keywords]
         Need: [title or keywords]
     - Clare Beck
       Eastern Michigan Univ. Library
       lib_beck@emunix.emich.edu


*************************** 4th message **********************

Are we voting? I think we should continue with one list. I'd hate to
lose expertise and views of those who might feel duty-bound to only
subscribe to exchange list.

Patricia Parsons
pparsons@aish.llnl.gov


*************************** 5th message ************************

what would be the point of a N & O List?....how can you be a
docs librarian and not want to see what is being offered?..it
seems to me the key, whether we have just GovDoc-L or two lists
is the use of *accurate* subject lines that let people delete
messages that are not of interest to them without opening them
up to read...the people on this list who don't manage depositories
and don't need to see what is being offered could just delete offers
and needs stuff, and the overwhelming majority of us could continue
to get everything from GovDoc-L....


far more annoying than reading about N & O that don't concern me are
postings from people who have *no* idea what we do telling us how we
are lacking and how we should change things....you know the types,
those who could not function in a hands-on information-disseminating
environment but style themselves "experts" and post stuff to lists
about "paradigms" and "conceptual frameworks" and "models"....*they*
should have their own list so we won't have to waste time responding
to their uninformed postings...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  Joel Zucker                      +
+  Head of Government Publications  +
+  Eli M. Oboler Library            +
+  Idaho State University           +
+  Pocatello  ID  83209-8089        +
+  208 236-3045                     +
+  zuckjoel@isu.edu                 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


**************************** 6th message ***********************


Yes, it would help to separate the needs/wants list from GOVDOC-L.  The
latter has tended to crowd out the type of information that many sub-
scribers, I suspect, want from the main list.

PETER HAJNAL                           BITNET: PHAJNAL@UTORVM
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY          INTERNET: PHAJNAL@VM.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA
TORONTO, ONT. M5S 1A5, CANADA
TELEPHONE: (416) 978-4825              FAX: (416) 978-8827


***************************** 7th message **************************

RE Nancy Amen's note:  I have a feeling that there are a lot of
subscribers to govdoc-l who have no interest in the needs and offers
notices.  I would be _real_ pleased to see those broken out.

Jim Veatch

Dr. James R. Veatch
Nashville Tech Library
120 White Bridge Road
Nashville, TN 37209-4515
Tel: (615) 353-3561
FAX: (615) 353-3558
INTERNET: veatch_j%nsti.dnet@net.vanderbilt.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU