I'm quite happy to confess that I'm not a member of CILIP, but I do contribute to list discussions on CILIP & on other matters. I do so because I am a qualified librarian, working in a library, and would be a member of a professional body if I thought it benefitted me directly & indirectly - I don't think CILIP does either. I was a member  of the Library Association, but that eventually became mainly because of the 'you're not qualified if you're not Chartered, & you're not chartered if you're not a member of the LA' argument. I think the last straw was when the LA made librarianship a graduate qualification without the possibility of those of us who qualified through the two-year course upgrading (as nurses were able to when nursing was made a graduate qualification). An old argument, I know, & possibly of historical interest only to younger members, but still an important one. In my early years in the profession I was 'active', being a member of the Youth Libraries Group (Chairing the regional committee, if my memory serves me right - a member of it, at least), and a member of the Carnegie & Greenaway award committees.
 
I feel that I have every right to criticies CILIP, which I feel appears at time to work against individual members' interests, & doesn't seem to have much clout in supporting libraries generally. If I felt it was a more effective organisation I might re-join.  To suggest that CILIP shouldn't be criticised in the presence of non-members is wrong - it ignores the reasons for people choosing not to be members of CILIP, & suggests that they are not interested in professional issues generally, or CILIP issues in particular.
 
Malcolm Dobson
-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Diana Nutting
Sent: 11 July 2006 09:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Closure of this List

I think it's worth pointing out that there's an element of mis-understanding in David McMenemy's assertion about "postings that have an anti-CILIP agenda and not much else". A criticism of something that is done in the name of CILIP - like attempting to close this list - is not necessarily anti-CILIP. It's wanting CILIP to be better. I hope most people accept that it's possible even for an organisation as close to perfection as CILIP to be better. I believe that this is a wrong decision - and I won't go over again all the arguments. As a member I have a right (and if I want to be self righteous, a duty) to say when I consider a decision to be wrong. I am a huge supporter of CILIP, (as anyone who read my recent article in Update knows). I contribute where I am able, which does not include sitting on committees, for which I have neither time or inclination. And probably not aptitude either.
 
There is one argument in this debate which has not been addressed. There have been many assertions that there are some people who use this list who not CILIP members and therefore we shouldn't be criticising CILIP in their presence. But I haven't seen any numbers. Has anyone cross checked the subscribers to this list against the CILIP membership list. If not, how do they know?
 
And one final rant from me. As librarians, surely we know that censorship simply doesn't work - ever.

Diana Nutting 

-----Original Message-----
From: David McMenemy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 July 2006 18:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Closure of this List

I think LIS-LINK serves a different function.  LIS-CILIP is more about debating issues, and any successor should do likewise. 

 

LIS-LINK is more practical and is a day to day tool for help and assistance rather than a debating forum.  Personally I'd like to see both kept distinct. 

 

A list that doesn't bear CILIPs name may be a major step forward, as it would remove one of the most annoying aspects of the current list, i.e. postings that have an anti-CILIP agenda and not much else.

 

Just my tuppence worth.

David

 

From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Royan
Sent: 10 July 2006 17:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Closure of this List

 

John McFarlane said:

"Why is this an either-or issue?

Is there any reason we cannot keep the current mailing list and have the communities of practice, too?"

 

        So long as a new list-owner from the .ac.uk community can be found (I understand Ian Johnson has been asking to step down), the current list could continue with a new name which doesn't imply it's a list for CILIP members only (Frances' suggestion of LIBPROF sounds nice, or what about LIS-LINK, to keep it in the LIS family?) If this is what subscribers want, it would be simple to do. My suggestion of merging with LIS-LINK was just based on the fact that LIS-LINK has a similar remit, more subscribers and is more active (apart from this current thread).

 

What would LIS-CILIP subscribers prefer?

 

Bruce

 

******************************************

Prof Bruce Royan   www.concurrentcomputing.co.uk

41 Greenhill Gardens, Edinburgh, EH10 4BL,   UK

+44 131 4473151                    +44 77 1374 4731

******************************************

 

 



This message has been scanned for viruses at Business Link for London.


============

http://www.businesslink4london.com
Winner: Most effective public sector website 2004

============

This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify [log in to unmask] You are not permitted to disclose the content of this email or attachments unless specifically authorised by the sender to do so. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender.

Business Link for London is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales under registration number 4110283. The registered office is situated at:

3rd Floor Centre Point
103 New Oxford Street
London
WC1A 1DP

Although Business Link for London has scanned this email for viruses, it accepts no responsibility for viruses once this email has been transmitted.


***********************************************************************************************************************************************
NHS Lanarkshire Confidentiality and Disclaimer Notice
***********************************************************************************************************************************************

The information contained in this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

This email is intended only for the addressee named above and the contents should not be disclosed to any other person or copies taken. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of NHS Lanarkshire (NHSL) unless otherwise specifically stated.
As Internet communications are not secure NHSL do not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or responsibility for any change made to this message after the original sender sent it.

We advise you to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment, as we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of any software viruses.

If you have received this email in error, please forward the original email message for the attention of the system administrator at the following address: - [log in to unmask]
***********************************************************************************************************************************************