Dear All

Time to get back to Jim’s original thoughts about how the meetings should work?

It seems that the meetings have two (overlapping) functions: i) to suggest, agree and prioritise software development 2) to discuss and exchange info on how the software is used.

The software development decision making role is an unusual one for this kind of group and it is important that, as someone has already said, we make sure non-attendees are not excluded from the process – so as much clarity about what is proposed as possible in the beforehand list, inviting comments (votes as it were) and then reporting back the results of the meeting soon afterwards, and again inviting comment if anything was not clear cut. So I agree with Jim’s basic scheme for the agenda, which does have to be more structured but I would add a better follow up – speedy minutes perhaps, explaining all decisions taken and inviting further comment if appropriate?

There is bound to be some grey area about exactly where the line is between HBSMR use and general SMR topics, because if one is concerned eg about how SMRs handle finds data (see last SMR meeting) then it may impact on the HBSMR structure. Topics have migrated in both directions between the groups. Again the pre-agenda list of items that Jim suggests would allow people to comment that a topic seems inappropriate. I certainly do not think that all presentations should be abandoned by the group.

Time to stop before I go into stream of consciousness …. but must add a thank you to Jim for wrestling with a pretty difficult role.

Jude

Jude Plouviez
Archaeological Officer
Suffolk County Council
Shire Hall
Bury St Edmunds IP33 2AR
01284 352448