RSC/Operations/5 — Guidelines for Proposals, Discussion Papers, and Responses to Them

RSC/Operations/5
1 August 2019

NARDAC members have been asked to share these operations documents with our constituencies for feedback, comments, suggestions, concerns, etc. CC:DA, please review and comment by September 24th.

CC:DA members are also encouraged to read and respond to these additional operations documents: https://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/?p=3756

  • RSC/Operations/1 — Policy and Procedures for RSC Operations
  • RSC/Operations/2 — RSC Position Responsibilities
  • RSC/Operations/3 — General Terms of Reference for RSC Working Groups 
  • RSC/Operations/4 — Policy and Procedures for Updating RDA Content
  • RSC/Operations/6 — Policy and procedures for RSC Meetings
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to RSC/Operations/5 — Guidelines for Proposals, Discussion Papers, and Responses to Them

  1. Tim Kiser says:

    This looks like a good starting point to me. It might be good to expand the note at the top: “…will be revised based on RSC *and stakeholder* experiences in the post 3R period,” to indicate a willingness to revise in response to unanticipated difficulties/pain points on the parts of parties submitting proposals, RDA regional reps, task groups, etc.

  2. Kathryn Lybarger says:

    The content looks fine to me. Would it be possible to include (or link to) an example proposal document, or template? That would probably encourage consistency of submitted documents, and would save the submitter the time of creating one using the requirements from these guidelines.

    I have two minor editing suggestions:

    1. On page 2, should those sentences starting “If necessary, Revised…” have the word “revised” in lowercase? Or maybe “If there are revised proposals, they will be numbered based on…”

    2. Near the end of page 2, the line ending “separated by slashes” should have a : at the end for consistency.

  3. Calli Neumann says:

    I second Tim’s suggestion but have no further comments.

  4. Nancy Mitchell Poehlmann says:

    I agree with Tim that it would be good to include some inclusive language beyond RSC experience.

Leave a Reply