@sebchan and @katelundy suggested I submit it to the #gov2taskforce and adding a comment to this post seems like a great place to do just that

One of the key points that I take away from #glam-wiki is that agreeing on the collection “metadata” that can also be used to re-define the KPIs the Government measures the GLAM institutions performance by is essential.

It also seems clear that there’s a great opportunity to do this through a crowdsourced collaborative wiki driven process that really engages the community to say out loud what it is that they value in the work our GLAM institutions do.

While I know this is not a trivial task, I do believe it is a small enough bite-sized chunk to be feasible.

I also believe the following things could come out of this process:
- this could engage the community in a broader discussion about the “value models” for our GLAM institutions, which if nothing else, would help raise their profile and community engagement.
- give government a tangible way to review and redefine how they measure “performance” along the lines of collaboration, access, re-use and engagement. But not in a top-down “big design up front” kind of way that is just “handed down” to the community…in a way that really reflects what the community wants and values.
- give the GLAM institutions the tools and frameworks to clearly visualise how they ARE delivering on these values and really ARE performing.
- use the tools of “openness” to discuss the “openness” that the community is crying out for.

I for one would love to participate in a process like this and I think it’s important that the process is just as open as we want the access to our cultural content to be.

Let’s keep in mind, however, the actual value of information rests entirely in what it may mean when applied to or by an individual or group.

Could I just make one point. It’s not so much “individual” or “group” (as far as the World Bank, and its peers, talk about these things). It’s ‘Communities of Practice’. I’m being pedantic I know. But with the taxonomies that neil talks about on the previous thread, we should try and get the terminology right, so that when the institutional librarians begin to focus on ‘how they classify things’ on the web, we can say “is that clear enough?”