Skip to content

Change of Plan

March 26, 2012

The MPLP Twitter chat has just finished so thanks to all who took part. It was a lively debate which ranged from the Health and Safety dangers posed by staple removers to the idea that if there is enough metadata archivists will not need to catalogue anything and it finished in the socialist wonderland of beautiful and consistently catalogued archives.

For the next topic there is a slight change of plan. We were due to meet at the Marquis of Granby at 6.30pm next Monday (2nd April) to talk about developments in FOI, but the FOI debate is going to be moved to May, in order to make room for a discussion on archives accreditation, which is more time critical. Therefore for Monday, please take a quick look, if you haven’t already at the draft standard for archives accreditation and we’ll see you in the pub (only I won’t because I can’t make it this time). The Twitter chat for archives accreditation will then take place 8-9pm on Monday 30th April, so there is plenty of time to suggest some questions below.

Sorry to everyone who was looking forward to FOI. It has not been granted the right to be forgotten however, so will be discussed on 7th May (in the pub) and 28th May (on Twitter). See Jon Garde’s (Thanks Jon) comments to ‘The evil of the paper clip’ post if you want to get ahead on the reading for this.

Thanks again for an enjoyable if exhausting chat this evening and see you soon.

Advertisements
One Comment
  1. Thanks to the Continuum for taking the time to have a look at the issue of accreditation – we really appreciate your input.

    Just to reiterate (you probably all know this but it’s a point worth bearing in mind), the ‘draft’ standard is there as the springboard for discussion about what needs to be included and how it needs to be phrased to support development across the archives sector. It is, essentially, a hash together of existing standards and assessment frameworks (museum accreditation, TNA standard, PSQG access std, self-assessment for local authorities etc). I think it helps a lot when reviewing to bear in mind that you aren’t looking at a formal consultation draft; it most definitely doesn’t yet cover everything nor work for all parts of the sector because several of the standards it combines never had that aim. We call it the ‘destruction document’ for a reason!

    The single most useful thing anyone commenting can do is to suggest alternative content/language – what *would* work? What’s missing? How can you evidence it?

    Look forward to your input!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: