For about a year, nothing much has happened in this group. Is anything yet to be expected by way of results? Or the whole matter to be considered shelved?

Yeah this thing really fizzled out over the winter and spring. It certainly looks dead in the water.

If Tim hasn't given up on the idea, I still think it would be worth rebooting and starting over with new leadership and a new model.

I think the current project made a dead-end for itself by adapting the BISAC model. Instead of OSC, it could be called BISAC, Only Complicated (BOC.) There's no compelling reason why a library would want to switch from Dewey to this. It would make more sense for a library to just switch to BISAC itself (or come up with its own modified BISAC) than to follow this crazy monster.

But I think there are some things that could be salvaged in a reboot (namely material and audience facets.) And I still think the original impetus for this project (an open source classification system for the 21st century) is still very valid. It's a shame that we are where we are right now.

Tim, are you still interested in this? I am if you are.

Even if all interest has died down, it should still be useful to have a final statement or report on the findings in this project and the reasons for its eventual abandonment or infeasibility or whatever, if not downright failure.

I think the project needs to be rebooted, only this time with the leaders and the Thingamabrarians agreeing on the basic model. The past one was dead in the water once it became clear that the librarian-leaders were operating under the model of "we create a classification, and may or may not take into account or even acknowledge suggestions, even if there's an overwhelming consensus that we disagree with" -- in short, top-down -- while most participants were operating with a model of "we're all in this together, let's see what we can come up with" -- a bottom-up model. Participants got irritated by the lack of communication from the leaders; they'd swoop in once a month or so to make proclamations that usually showed no indication of even having read the discussions, and the leaders probably got irritated at the participants' unwillingness to just accept their decisions without question. I'm not saying either model is necessarily the right one, but the clash of expectations was a recipe for disaster. (And, speaking personally, if the intent was a top-down model, why all the requests for comments and the big to-do about being open?)

If it is rebooted, the first step should be deciding on some sort of basic parliamentary procedure. I expect a lot of the perceived lack of communication (though certainly not all of it) was a result of there being no set way to make a decision. Eventually after months of discussion on a topic, somebody just had to pick a side and say it wins.

I think part of the problem might have been that the "leaders" were experts. For one thing, they had every reason to think they knew better than a bunch of random members of a book website. For another thing, they were busy professionals without the time to even read the discussions, much less participate. What I'd like to see is a leader who's just someone with a lot of time on his/her hands. Experts would be far more useful to the project if they're in a position to contribute freely, and to tell non-experts why we're wrong without seeming like they're taking over.

I have to say while I have followed since Day One the goings-on of this project, I was hesitant to jump in. By the time I got over my fear of being rejected for my silly ideas, I felt I had missed too much to be able to catch up and contribute.

I agree wholeheartedly that some sort of "wrap-up" document should be put forth. That will enable future instalments not only to avoid some of the mistakes in the creation of the actual classification system, but also to provide suggestions on future frameworks and how to collaborate in a much more fluid manner.

This would enable newcomers to offer suggestions while not feeling grossly uninformed.

5>

I think part of the problem might have been that the "leaders" were experts. For one thing, they had every reason to think they knew better than a bunch of random members of a book website.

They were experts in library and classification areas. Participants were experts in other areas, not necessarily just "random members of a book website". Subject-matter expertise -- things like, oh, say, knowing that birds are animals -- was considered completely worthless by the "leaders". If they aren't going to admit that there are areas where participants might know more than they do, then why bother with an "open" system at all?

I agree with the problems with top-down design and ignoring feedback.

The other problem I saw was that there were just too many classifications at each level. I recommend everybody look up the classic paper The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two.

By that criterion, even the Dewey Decimal System had too many levels, but it was, well, decimal.

7>
Exactly. They didn't necessarily listen to "subject-matter" experts, because they had reason to think they knew better about classification.

#5 should be deciding on some sort of basic parliamentary procedure. I expect a lot of the perceived lack of communication (though certainly not all of it) was a result of there being no set way to make a decision.

That isn't a problem as such. A lot of open source is developed with a benevolent dictator making the decisions.

The main problem I saw was two disjunct processes. The community one where we argued long and hard for various points, and then some hidden one where the leaders came and told us what they had agreed and sketched out the next level for us. Sometimes minor changes from the community were accepted but if the community had agreed that something completely different would be better it was ignored. The leaders were just not part of the community - they did not join in the conversations.

If the project is rebooted then the new leaders have to be active in discussions. http://www.librarything.com/topic/58578 sums up people's frustrations (in a relatively short thread) quite well.

As another example of confusion between leadership and participants, it looks like the leaders have indeed called for new project managers on their blog http://openshelvesclassification.blogspo...

This was posted back in June with no mention here--where most interested participants check in. Frustrating.

I'm in favor of just blowing this whole thing up and keeping the few good pieces. Trying to refine the monster that the past leadership created will just lead to countless dead-ends and an ultimately useless and unworkable classification scheme.