Dear participants of this discussion group!
Since weeks I try to do my best and to follow the discussions. It is not
always easy to follow long statements sometimes agreements sometimes new
ideas etc. As some of you noticed  and as I also can feel, it is easier
for English native speakers as for us - therefore beg your pardon for
mistakes! And also not easy with french and what's with Spanish?
As I can see, there is a very important possibility to bring in ideas
 what can and should be a museum, but this ideas come steadily as
answers - like my statement here - or proposals to be answered. What I
am missing are the steps forward (I have the feeling we all are going in
a circle, could be quicker and quicker) and such steps only can be made,
if somebody is the head of the discussion who gives after a certain time
of incoming ideas the results, who makes a statement and asks further
questions about things which are not clear enough and who fixes the
others as mostly accepted. Therefore I would ask the inventor and
starter of this discussion list (I am keen or silly enough to say, that
in the moment I do not know a name) to control and drive the discussion
to a useful and acceptable result.

I wish all of you a good, healthy, successful New Year 2004, in which
the General Conference in Seoul will be the highlight for the ICOM community
your Günther Dembski (for all who do not know me: Chair of ICOM Austria,
Vice chair of ICOM Advisory)

Per BjXrn Rekdal schrieb:

>Dear Patrick, Gary and all others on this list,
>
>Gary's (and many others') concern about the limited number participating
>in the discussion and Patricks follow-up questions, raises several issues
>that possibly should be treated separately.
>
>1) The ICOM-L.
>Gary writes ".. the limited number of ICOM members having access to
>ICOM-L". The main problem is NOT how few members that have ACCESS to
>ICOM-L, the main problem is that so few members KNOW OF or HAVE CHOSEN to
>be subscribers to ICOM-L. I would think that at least 10.000 and probably
>more of ICOM's members have access to ICOM-L, but they do not know about
>it or they do not want to subscribe. How to make more ICOM members
>subscribe to ICOM-L is one challenge we may perhaps discuss next year. One
>obvious thing to do that has not even been tried is simply to advertise
>effectively ICOM-L's excistence through ICOM News.
>
>2) How do we ensure that all members of ICOM get an opportunity to
>participate in discussions like the one on the definition of "Museum"?
>
>A: It is important that we stress OPPORTUNITY to participate. In reality
>there will always be a tiny minority that really participates, but every
>member must be ensured the opportunity.
>
>B: I take for granted that all members of the Advisory as well as the
>Executive are subscribers to ICOM-L. It was and still is the
>responsibility of the members of the Advisory to make known to the members
>current issues and act on behalf of the members at the Advisory meetings.
>
>C: Electronic discussion lists have changed this situation: Issues  are
>brought forth on the ICOM-L and all members of ICOM are invited to have
>their say. Very, very good! But it also creates an injustice: Not all
>members of ICOM have access to or know about ICOM-L. And the danger is:
>Issues are "solved" on the ICOM-L!
>
>D: ICOM and it's organs have to adapt to this new situation.
>The only economically viable way to give ALL ICOM members an opportunity
>to react to current issues is through ICOM News. ICOM News must set off
>space for ICOM actualities (but watch out: we must not turn ICOM News into
>a periodical for the ICOM "insiders", making it uninteresting for the
>majority of ICOM members).
>Current issues must presented in ICOM news right from the outset and
>handled parallelly in different open fora. Otherwise we will be hung up in
>an endless process.
>But remember the Advisory! We should still trust the Advisory's ability to
>sum up the discussions before making it's recommendation to the Executive.
>In the heath of ICOM-L discussions, it is easy to forget the role of the
>Advisory, isn't it?
>
>3) Do we need a new definition of "museum"? Well, it will not hurt if the
>Executive tell us why they want a new one.
>
>That's it for now. Like Patrick's it is too long (which shows a limitation
>to ICOM-L discussions: long messages are often not responded to!).
>
>Per
>
>Per B. Rekdal
>ICME President
>
>###########################################
>
>This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft
>Exchange.
>For more information, connect to http://www.F-Secure.com/
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
>archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
>
>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html