Dear All
Having been involved in managing the PRO's web operations for a number of
years, I felt I should make a small contribution to this debate:

First, while the Society's web site is ok, it is not a must-visit site.  You
don't feel as an archivist that you are missing out on vital professional
information if you don't go there every day.  Ask yourself - if the
Society's site was a car, what make and model is it now?  What should it be?
It will only become a must-visit site if it has a professional look and feel
and, in my view, a professional (i.e. paid) web site manager who can be
proactive and seek out information and resources.

Second, call me old-fashioned if you like, but in this area it is terribly
tempting to be supplier-driven.  The Society should actively seek the views
of all its members (and indeed other information professionals) as to what
they want its site to be and not merely give them what it thinks they ought
to have..

Third, there seems to be a real gap in the market for a site which combines
current awareness with long-term resources of professional value.  Neither
Resource, nor the PRO, nor the HMC have got all these issues covered and the
Society has scope to do this.  It should, of course, work with the other
players in the field to avoid duplication of effort.

Fourth, what's it going to cost?  Well, a professional 'look and feel' which
would give a new home page and style sheets for the other pages would
probably run out at between £6,000 and £10,000.  There would also be the
cost of a web manager - probably half-time.  We are not looking for a
programmer here, just good HTML, Dreamweaver, etc skills and sadly, these
days, such skills are not expensive.

Finally, how do we pay for it?  That is a matter for the Society, but one
option might be to switch resources from print to electronic.  Does
everybody need a paper newsletter if we have a good web site?  Do we all
need a paper Journal?  Another body which I am involved in offers discounts
to overseas members who take its stuff electronically and is just taking the
plunge to offer the same to UK members.  I fear, however, that would be a
bridge too far.

David Thomas


----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Society website


> Dear All,
>
> Since I raised this issue at the beginning of the week, perhaps I can be
> permitted another word under Dick Sergeant's governance (I am babysitting
> while my wife is out having a life). Forgive the bullet point approach.
>
> 1/ Firstly, I think we are all agreed no criticism has been made or
implied
> of Simon Wilson and others who have been or are now involved with the
design
> and maintenance of the site. They have done and continue to do a great
job,
> largely in their own time for all of our benefit.
>
> 2/ Similarly, no criticism was meant by me of our elected officers in the
> amount of hard work they do. I offer a sincere apology if this was how my
> message was interpreted. Having undertaken the odd Society activity
myself,
> I am well aware how hard their responsibilities are, how this is often
> unseen and unacknowledged by the rest of us, and how hurtful it must be
when
> this is rewarded by apparent ingratitude.
>
> 3/ Nevertheless, I defend absolutely my right as a member to challenge the
> direction and strategy of my professional body as a corporate
organisation,
> and to discuss the same - without personal criticism or malice - with my
> colleagues and peers. The fact that the Archives-NRA is the only vehicle
for
> doing this quickly is evidence of the issue I originally raised. The point
> has been made that this list is open to non-members, but there is
currently
> no closed members list on our website as an alternative. And hasn't an
> obsolete and limited site sent just as negative a message to the outside
> world, albeit passively? In fact, I think this debate to be healthy, and
not
> at all shaming to our community that it is so open. What is more
important?
> Saving face or moving forward?
>
> 4/ We are encouraged to use traditional (although re-organised) methods of
> communication. The fact that we are having this debate - amongst others -
> shows that these traditional routes alone (of course they remain crucial)
> are slower and not as inclusive as the means now open to us. As evidence,
> again, is the time it has taken to propose, discuss and agree a revamped
> website. Surely we should be embracing newly available communications
tools,
> not avoiding and discouraging them or regarding them with suspicion. It
may
> at times feel uncomfortable, but it does bring officers and members
closer,
> as this debate has shown.
>
> 5/ The issue of prioritising resources needs much more extensive
> consultation, and there are clearly seriously challenging issues here. I
> personally can't see that we can employ a web designer / administrator
full
> time, but I find it hard to believe that we cannot buy in expertise as
> required, on a contract basis if necessary. Nor do I believe we can simply
> say we must do (and pay for) everything we are already doing without a
> searching review at least. I really don't think a big increase in subs is
an
> option that people would find acceptable.
>
> Finally, thanks to everyone who has responded and contributed on and off
> list to this discussion. I for one am more informed and enthused as a
> result.
>
> David Hay
> BT Group Archives
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Oxborrow-Cowan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 07 December 2001 11:48
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Society website
>
>
> Dear All
>
> As a recently retired Assistant Treasurer and thus a former member of the
> Management Committee and Council I would just like to heartily concur with
> Gareth's comments.  The Society has to fund a very wide range of
activities
> - just look at the number of Society bodies listed in the Year Book.
While
> certain issues may look paramount from outside Council meetings, once in
> the meetings one quickly realises that the Society is called on to address
> a whole host of issues, all of prime importance to the profession.
>
> I strongly support Gareth's suggestion to members to use the current
> methods of communication to put across ideas and concerns. Reorganization
> was implemented to try to spread the workload, speed up decision-making
and
> bring the role of the regions, many members' only link with the Society,
to
> the heart of the Society's process.  PLEASE use these mechanisms along
with
> means such as the AGM, the Newsletter, the Annual Report to understand
what
> the Society is doing.  When there is more than one person involved
> comprehensive communication is always difficult but we do have lines of
> communication that feed into the decision-making process. (You might want
> to consider standing for Chair of the Society and really get to the heart
> of things.)
>
> I would also like to dispel the myth that Council and the Management
> Committee are some Machiavellian force which works in some dark,
> undemocratic way.  Don't forget that anyone can stand for membership and
> that the Society members vote for their composition.  All Council work is
> reported in the Newsletter and financial activity is summed up in the
> Annual Report.  The two bodies have an enormous workload while constrained
> by a severe lack of time, finance and manpower.  There is also no personal
> glory or payback, other than the interesting work and the pleasure of
> working with other motivated professionals.  Council really does work with
> the best interests of its membership in mind while working within the
> confines of issues such as Charity Law and competing needs of Society
> bodies.
>
> I would strongly suggest that if you have an issue about which you feel
> strongly please put together a coherent paper which you could present to
> Council or your Regional Representative outlining the issues and possible
> solutions (with resource implications maybe?).  Please don't just
criticise
> the Society's decision-makers, inform and assist them. If you have
concerns
> about what goes on in Council perhaps you might attend as an observer
> (Byelaws permitting).  You would soon realise the constraints and
> complexities within which decisions have to be made.
>
> The Society is not perfect and perhaps it does have to reconsider how it
> communicates with its membership and where its priorities lie.  Perhaps
new
> solutions such a quinquennial membership consultation to draw up a 5 year
> business plan or replacement of the Newsletter with purely the Website
> might address these issues. There is no ideal answer but if you think you
> have one please tell the Society constructively.  Don't just send out an
> angry email to the world about it.
>
> Regards
>
> Elizabeth Oxborrow-Cowan
> Greater Manchester County Record Office
> 56 Marshall Street
> Manchester
> M4 5FU
> England
>
> Tel + 44 161 819 4705
> Fax + 44 161 839 3808