Hi Larry,
I hope you understand that I used "" with a little bit sarcasm.
I found it that people communicate few years after they graduated from the same "school" ( read kindergarten, high school, university, army, college, previous workplace). After few years the connections are getting weaker, new players are coming.
Also, for me it is strange that some groups declare them selves as the developers of the standard and in some cases require to follow it.
If we take international agreement, they come into effect after they ratified by Parliaments of the countries who signed them.
I thought that the same situation with all these "standards"
I remember that you, Peter, and other mentioned few times that DoD it is the recommendations only, and it is only in US, but I saw many times that people refer to the same DoD as standard.
MOREQ- is it world wide Standard???
I think your answer would be "NO", but people refer It it as standard, or the last question that I tried to answer this week -What Sedona said about applying retention retroactively...
It's a pity, it creates problem, but...
Regards,
Alex Babin
[log in to unmask]
--- On Thu, 12/2/10, Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [RM] RM-UK Records Classification Handbook - Standards Australia
To: [log in to unmask]
Received: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 8:11 AM
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 sasha babin <[log in to unmask]> suggested:
>
>It was the time when people were interested to know others opinions.
>Now "we" are "independent".
>(snip)
>
True 'things' have changed, but one that has remained consistent across most
industries is if you want to issue STANDARDS that are useful and accepted
across the entire spectrum of any given industry, they are developed in an
OPEN, COLLABORATIVE, and CONSENSUS based environment. The "WE" factor has
not left the processes used in developing Standards; and if they're
developed "independently", then they won't have nearly the same weight.
This isn't to say the Australians developing these recent Standards aren't
doing this, but the Americans and others don't seem to be actively engaged
in the process. Either that, or it's only involving a small, select number
of individuals in a closed environment. This process was previously done in
a fully open, inclusive, environment that encouraged input and collaboration
from others who would be impacted by the content of the Standards once they
were issued.
And it's true that no one has to apply, adopt, or comply with Standards
whether they're developed by ANSI, NISO, ISO just like no one has to utilize
or adopt any recommended practices... but having everyone on the same page
sure makes it easier to make a case for consistent practices being accepted
in an industry.
The difference between the two is the requirements for issuing a Standard
involve collaboration and consensus- practices can be written by anyone
without seeking input form others. While it's common for audits to be
performed against the more rigorously developed requirements in a Standard,
no one pays much attention to recommended practices besides those who wrote
them, and I've not heard of anyone using them for auditing, just informal
assessments.
Larry
[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
