Some of us have been doing a good job introducing new concepts and processes
by writing to, or  discussing with, fellow librarians.

Many of us have been in the situation where a librarian who doesn't want a
change (i.e. add homework and work for her/his load) would hide that by
saying 'I don't understand, let's discuss it some more, reach a consensus',
etc. Alas, those who refuse a change can be re-programmed only by the
administration. Anything else is a democratic waste of our time.

Ya'aqov Ziso






On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Oct 30, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Peter Schlumpf wrote:
>
> > And you are correct in pointing out that the natural response of
> librarians to a problem is to seek consensus in a self-absorbed way.  Form
> committees and all that nonsense which never goes anywhere.  They are happy
> enough going around in circles, like the Nowhere Man making all his nowhere
> plans for nobody.
>
> The above certainly does seem to jive with my experience. Going around in
> circles. Endless consensus. Librarianship could use a bit more democracy
> and/or science to their (our) method. At the same time I agree that "E V E R
> Y T H I N G ! ! !" is wrong with the profession creating our own language.
>
> --
> EL Morgano
>



-- 
ya'aQov