From the monthly archives:

September 2009

I posted this to a STC listserv, but it applies to all STC communities. Sorry in any of the crudeness used in making my point offends.

Context: A new STC Community extended an invitation to join to several STC mailing lists, and the discussion quickly turned to “Oh jeez, another tool? (Google Groups) How many is STC going to employ? What about consolidation?”

My post:

Stepping on my soapbox for a minute.

Yes, yes. I know, new technology, doesn’t quite fit with the others.
Pain in the ass. Yep, check, gotcha. But really, consider the
following:

* The STC is broke.
* The STC is employing archaic tools, currently (yes, we’re working on that).
* Communities are looking for/needing something else NOW, not at the
speed of STC committee approval resource appropriation bureaucratic
nonsense.
* The communities are offering you something!!!

Really, we can all bitch and moan about multiple group platforms and
scary new social networking technology that OMG, wants my freakin’
birthdate???? AHHHHH!!!! IT’S EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or, we can see this as an opportunity to get more out of our
communities while the STC slowly shifts gears, as an opportunity to
try out these new and varied tools and be able to give an informed
opinion about them when STC is ready to decide on a platform, and as a
means of boosting our own skills with these new technologies in
support of our own professional growth because they ain’t goin’ away,
folks, and you’ll find yourself using something like them at work soon
if you aren’t already.

Stepping off my soapbox now.

{ 3 comments }

New STC Online Buyers’ Guide & Consultant Directory

September 2, 2009 Information Delivery

Online Buyers’ Guide & Consultant Directory
The skinny:
Great idea, poor execution.
The fat:
When I heard about this initiative I was totally on board. A complete directory of consultants and vendors? Bring it on! Now that it’s released, I’m a bit disappointed, mainly because…
It’s a PDF.
Why oh why oh why is the STC so hung up on PDFs? [...]

3 comments Read the full article →