I've been looking at this "draft for consultation" document, and
although there is a request for comments, I find there is little to
comment about. It is full of good intentions, with target dates and
deliverable that may or may not be unrealistic -- only time will tell
-- but to me it seems rather empty, there's nothing to "grab hold of".
What am I missing?
From this document (and other Re:source documents) I get the impression
that the role Re:source is creating for itself is somewhat akin to
Moses:
a) as a spokesman (or spokes-body) for its people (Museums, Archives and
Libraries) to Pharaoh (i.e. other government bodies, especially funding
ones);
b) as an overseer of its people, bringing from above the commandments of
best practice, effective communications and productive partnerships,
and so guiding them in their implementation;
c) as a judge of its people, evaluating and assessing their work to see
how worthy they are of further reward (i.e. future funding).
Am I being too cynical?
In any case, it is to be hoped that Re:source is as successful as Moses
at bringing its people to the promised land of Improved Service
Delivery, but without the painful forty years in the wilderness of the
original exodus.
I await enlightenment.
Jonathan Moffett
-------------------
Dr Jonathan Moffett
Oxford University Museums IT Manager (based at the Ashmolean)
[log in to unmask]
* This e-mail message was sent with Execmail V5.0 *
|