FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L Archives

Archiver > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES > 2002-12 > 1039335946


From: Dave Mayall <>
Subject: Re: Syndicate management
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 08:25:46 +0000
References: <000101c29d21$eeb1b360$c55a063e@slann>
In-Reply-To: <000101c29d21$eeb1b360$c55a063e@slann>


On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:17:52 -0000, you wrote:

>This I think raises some fundamental questions that need answers.
>
>1. Why not warn co-ordinators that this is going to happen?

Because nobody remembered to do it.

>2. Why is it thought necessary when duplications and file names inconsistencies will be thrown up when we get our Range Check facility back as they used to be?

Because this facility is here now, and because this facility churns
out the information without anybody having to go through lists looking
for it,

>3. Is the FreeBMD Syndicate Co-ordinator taking over syndicate co-ordinators responsibilities for the accuracy of syndicate transcriptions?

No. The syndicate co-ordinator's responsibility is primarily for the
completeness of the transcriptions. Some co-ordinators choose to
undertake some degree of accuracy checking as well, but it isn't
universal.

>4. Range Checking within the syndicate provide an opportunity to explain a problem at the same time improving accuracy in the future. This cannot be the case when an outsider takes a hand.

With the proviso that we should inform co-ordinators when central
things like this are to happen, so that they know what is coming, I
don't see any difficulty with syndicate co-ordinators hand holding
those who require it.

>5. Do you agree that contact with volunteers on matters like this must take place through co-ordinators?

No. Data cleansing like this, and passing corrections submitted are
matters that can more readily be handled centrally. Trying to pass
data like this out to co-ordinators in the first instance would be a
nightmare of working out who to send what to, and to what end? All the
required information is there already, there is nothing which the
co-ordinator needs to add. Surely we want to work in the most
efficient way possible. Sending this out via the syndicate
co-ordinators would have doubled the effort for Allan, AND required
further effort from the co-ordinators.

>In the meantime as far as my syndicate is concerned I want it to cease.

Again, we come to a matter of running things efficiently. Trying to do
things differently to suit particular syndicates just makes the whole
job harder.

> The FreeBMD Syndicate Co-ordinator says "a new programme just developed" is it too daring to suggest that the time spent on this would have been better spent on getting the Range Checks back on track!!

Given that this facility was developed by Barrie, who wasn't (and
isn't) working on the other facilities, its development had no impact,
one way or the other on the check-range work.

With the one exception, namely that we should have let co-ordinators
know in advance, I believe this was handled in the most appropriate
way.

--
Dave Mayall

This thread: