On Mon, 12 Sep 1994 Peter Rauch wrote:
 
> As Cary Karp stated, CIDOC-L is:
>
> "intended to serve as a medium of communication for CIDOC's specific
> organizational needs, but far more importantly, it is intended to serve as
> a platform for the discussion of all matters of joint significance to the
> museum field and the field of documentation, in the broadest sense of the
> terms."
>
> I take _no_ issue with the first objective of CIDOC-L. It's the second one
> that leaves me concerned. I imagine that most museum professionals have
> enough interest in documentation that they will not only "tolerate" discussion
> of such on MUSEUM-L but would welcome it, especially as it relates to the
> museum field in general. Why not discuss it there?
> . . .
> I am not arguing territorial issues here. I just find it confusing to have
> several lists which do not distinguish their mission adequately to permit
> subscribers to easily (most of the time) know to which list to post a
> particular message.
 
CIDOC-L underwent a rapid genesis from a closed list for the CIDOC Board
to an open list for the discussion of CIDOC's disciplinary concerns. Two
intermediate alternatives were considered. The first was to keep the list
closed, but allow the entire CIDOC membership access to it. The second
was to have a moderated open list, where the moderator(s) would both
dictate the focus of the list and ensure that it was adhered to. The
first option was rejected as being unnecessarily exclusive; the second as
unnecessarily elitist and potentially intimidating.
 
Matters relating to museum documentation are discussed in CIDOC's various
working groups on a level of detail which far exceeds anything that has as
yet been seen on Museum-L. Nor, I suspect, would such detailed discussion
be welcomed on that list by the majority of its membership. Given a
perceived need for a network forum for such discussion, and an
unwillingness to presume upon the patience of the membership of any
pre-existing list, the scope of CIDOC-L was set beyond its parent body's
immediate organizational needs.
 
Although I can certainly appreciate anyone's desire to avoid the
gratuitous appearance of new lists, I don't agree with either of the
notions that an increase in the number of lists is in and of itself a bad
thing, or that the creators of a list can steer its contents.  (Unless,
some qualified individual(s) volunteer(s) to perform the daunting task of
moderating it.) This is not a question of well-formulated mission
statements. It is a matter of cognizance of the realities of a
distribution list being whatever its members make it, and the
non-legislatability of the areas in which people will want to have lists.
 
If the network community chooses to expand the scope of Museum-L to
include detailed discussion of documentation issues, fine. CIDOC-L will
then be used solely for the discussion of CIDOC's business. Some
overlapping of coverage will, of course, be inevitable -- but that's the
nature of the beast. If the network community chooses to utilize CIDOC-L
to off-load the discussion of documentation from Museum-L and/or to
increase the detail in which the subject is treated, that's fine, too.
T'ain't either of the list owners' choice.
 
I am posting this message to both CIDOC-L and Museum-L only because it is
in response to a message which was cross-posted. I suspect that the
continued discussion of this matter is something which best might be
restricted to CIDOC-L.
 
Cary Karp <[log in to unmask]>       Department of Information Technology
Phone: +46 8 666 4055       Swedish Museum of Natural History
Fax:   +46 8 15 22 77       Box 50007, 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden