As the individual who brought this issue to DC5 on behalf of a US
community of librarians, archivists, and museums I feel this is an
illustration of the need for a more formalized process that can be tested
and adapted if necessary. The phrase 1:1 has become metaphoric rather
than meaningful, at least to me. I would recommend that we begin to think
about a more formalized process for discussion. The original proposal,
otherwise known as the "RLG report" was in such a form. To my knowledge,
although it was the subject of much discussion at DC5, it has not received
a formal response in which the position of the DC community was clarified.
At DC6, it was clear that the issue either was not resolved or needed
further discussion as real implementation problems of interpretation had
emerged. I will agree with John, that we need a more formal record of
issues and resolutions at an issue level. Lynn
On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Jon Knight wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Priscilla Caplan wrote:
> > Actually, David, I was in the 1:1 breakout group and this is not what we
> > proposed.
>
> I think this is beginning to become an excellent example of why important
> decisions should be made based on consensus on the mailing lists rather
> than at face-to-face break out groups. At least with the mailing list
> there is the archive so we can step back in time six months or a year and
> see what was really said if decisions do need to be revisited.
>
> Tatty bye,
>
> Jim'll
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl -- -Whois++-client-in-6-lines-of-Perl -Beat-that-Z39.50!
> use IO::Socket;sub w{$f=shift;$a{$f}=1;($h,$p,$q)=split("/",$f);$s=
> IO::Socket::INET->new(PeerAddr=>"$h:$p")||return;print $s "$q\r\n";while(<$s>)
> {next if(/^%/);if(/^# SERVER-TO-ASK/){while(<$s>){$x=$1 if/Name: (.*)\r\n$/;$y
> =$1 if/Port: (.*)\r\n$/;$f="$x/$y/$q";@j=(@j,$f)if(/^# END/&&!$a{$f})}}else{
> print}}close($s)}@j=shift;while(@j){w(pop(@j))}# whois++.pl host/port/query
>
>
|