Home LITA Membership LITA Interest Groups Heads of Library Technology 2005 Annual Meeting Minutes

GROUP = Heads of Library Technology Interest Group

CHAIR = Sue Thompson

REPORTER = Sue Thompson

EMAIL = sthompsn@csusm.edu

MEETING = Interest group business meeting

ATTENDEES = 20

CURRENT ACTIVITIES = Discussed how HoLT can communicate with members. One initative was a membership directory which is now up on the Web site for initial comment. The bulk of the discussion focused on ALA's Online Community project and how this type of system may or may not facilitate communication. The HoLT Web site is primarily seen as an external communication device that can serve as an outreach/promotion device. The Online Community, on the other hand, is internally-oriented and can facilitate discussion among existing members, particularly when working on specific projects. Since this turned out to be a bigger topic than expected, it was decided to make groupware in general a future HoLTalk topic.

We also looked at ways HoLT might expand its audience. Of particular concern was whether our name Heads of Library Systems might discourage participation by systems people who don't manage a department or are the only systems librarian. The new people attending the meeting were asked what drew them to attend this meeting and what their opinion on the name issue was. All stated that they had come in response to the meeting announcement posted LITA-L. In particular, because they thought the HoLTalk topic sounded interesting. Several also pointed out that HoLT's announcement didn't really have competition -- they hadn't seen postings by any other interest groups. None of them had a particular problem with HoLT's name.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES = HoLT is planning a program for ALA Annual 2006 focusing on core technical competencies expected of library staff. It includes four areas: 1. core competencies expected of all library staff; 2. core competencies expected of the library systems staff; 3. the role and skills of students in systems departments; and 4. constraints imposed on defining competencies by organizational regulations, unions, etc.