Thank Karen
Very helpful
Did any one mention that we would need to see that membership of both,
during the 'trial' period, was of ordinary members and not council
members, officials etc. What I am saying is we want to see like for
like?
Many thanks
F
Ps it would have been good if Cilip had communicated this to the list
themselves?
-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Blakeman
Sent: 06 July 2006 14:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Closure of this list
Hi All
Just caught up with this discussion re the closure of LIS-CILIP.
This was agenda item number 3 at Council. Chris Armstrong's paper on why
LIS-CILIP should be retained and Jill Martin's paper on the Communities
of Practice were both discussed in detail by councillors. The essence of
Chris's paper has already been circulated via this list.
I am not going to attempt to summarise the discussion but I felt that
all the arguments for keeping the list were well presented.
The motion on which we voted was to retain LIS-CILIP alongside the
communities of practice. The votes were as follows:
For: 11
Against: 23
Abstentions: 7
For the record, I voted to keep LIS-CILIP.
I recall that it was also agreed that LIS-CILIP should remain until it
can be demonstrated that the Communities of Practice have at least the
same number of members and level of participation as LIS-CILIP.
Karen
--
Karen Blakeman, UKeiG Management Committee
mailto:[log in to unmask]
t: +44 118 947 2256 f: +44 20 8020 0253 m: +44 7764 936733
88 Star Road, Caversham, Berkshire, RG4 5BE
|