Discussion Groups Report on Conference Activities in Toronto

The reports below are summaries of the activities that took place during meetings of ALCTS discussion groups held at Annual Conference in Toronto. Included are groups whose reports were received by the editor as of August 1; when known, groups that did not hold a meeting are so indicated. For information on discussion groups not shown here, see the ALCTS Organization page on the ALCTS Web site.

Division / Acquisitions Section / Cataloging and Classification Section / Collection Management and Development Section
Preservation and Reformatting Section / Serials Section

Division Discussion Groups

Electronic Resources Discussion Group: focused on digital preservation of resources. Three guest speakers presented information about digitization projects at their institutions. Corey Harper (University of Oregon) gave a detailed presentation on digitizing a collection of plate glass negatives from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation. He focused particularly on scanning and color management, development and implementation of descriptive and administrative metadata structures, and criteria for differing treatments of resources. Lisa Robinson spoke about audio digitizing, presenting the details of an NSF-funded project to digitize audio files from Michigan State University's Vincent Voice library, focusing particularly on digitization standards for audio materials and copyright issues. Julie Grob discussed two different digitization projects at the University of Houston, highlighting levels of staffing and technical requirements for beginning digitization projects. Audience discussion followed the presentations.

This session of the ALCTS Electronic Resources Discussion Group relates directly to ALCTS Goal 2. Best Practices: Research, develop, evaluate, and implement best practices for creating, collecting, organizing, delivering, and preserving information resources in all forms. These digitization projects clearly exemplify best practices in the area of digital collection, access, and preservation of resources.

Newspaper Discussion Group: Sandra Burrows (Newspaper Specialist, Research and Information Services at the Library and Archives of Canada) described that National Library of Canada's newspaper collection, newspaper preservation in Canada, and that country's new national strategy for newspapers. Despite technical difficulties that prevented the speaker from using her power point presentation, the audience was able to follow along using handouts of the slide presentation. Burrows also encouraged attendees to stop by the National Library and Archives of Canada Booth to look at the Web site

Out-Of-Print Discussion Group: The topic of the meeting, "Back By Popular Demand: OP Materials and Digitization," featured three speakers describing their respective organization's digitization projects with implications for libraries and librarians. Mark Sandler (University of Michigan) explained how the University of Michigan's "Making of America" project has expanded the "life" of out-of-copyright materials that had been placed in storage. Sandler indicated that the use of such collections has increased a thousand-fold. The collections of predominantly brittle materials were scanned into 600 dpi with "dirty" OCR added so that they could be searched. Sandler also discussed the University of Michigan's involvement with the ProQuest "Early English Books Online" (EEBO) Project and the newly released Newsbank/Redex Evans Early American Imprints project.

Mary Sauer-Games (Chadwyck-Healey) discussed the primary source material currently being made accessible through ProQuest's Historic Periodical project. The values of digitizing these materials include: making fragile, hard to locate, primary source materials readily available to scholars and students; preservation; space savings; searchability; and the ability to show such materials in their original layout design and historical language, including advertisements. ProQuest is including non-English language materials as part of its projects as well as extensive indexing. ProQuest is seeking information from librarians in the form of market research, e.g., what materials are most important to you? as well as input on current product functionality. ProQuest is also interested in doing more collaborative projects, i.e. re-keying, indexing/abstracting, etc.

Lightning Source, Inc. has been operating since 1997 and currently has over 200,000 titles in their digital library, according to their Vice President, Andrew Pate. They are currently printing over 350,000 books per month. Their turnaround time for production, once a file has been loaded, is 48 hours. A book literally can be printed in 22 seconds. While Lightning Source does not deal directly with authors, there are opportunities for libraries to work with Lightning should they want to pursue publishing out-of-copyright works in their collections. However, Pate indicated that they do need to be aware that there are costs in scanning and preparing files for the database and that Lightning Source doesn't provide content management, marketing, or editing.

While the attendance at this meeting was not large, attendees learned of some potentially valuable information for reaping rewards from their aging, remotely stored collections.

Pre-Order and Pre-Catalog Discussion Group: did not meet.

Scholarly Communication Discussion Group: provided a forum for discussion on several timely and troubling issues in scholarly communications, and efforts underway to create new models for supporting scholarly communication. Susan K. Martin, ACRL Visiting Program Officer for Scholarly Communication, presented a summary of the major issues in the economics of information (changes in the aggregation and pricing of journals and databases in electronic format, skyrocketing journal prices, copyright extension, UCITA and 'shrinkwrap licensing') that face both libraries and scholars, along with efforts currently underway to establish new models and avenues of communication. Julia C. Blixrud, Assistant Director, Public Programs, for SPARC, (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) continued the discussion with information on SPARC and related initiatives aimed at expanding the availability and viability of open access journals, institutional repositories, and other experimental models for scholarly exchange of ideas.

Ms. Blixrud then presented a brief overview of the initiatives in the absence of discussion leader Gerry McKiernan (Iowa State University). These centered primarily on scholar-based innovations in publishing including: arXiv.org; e-Print Archive, currently owned and operate by Cornell University and funded by the National Science Foundation; CogPrints: Cognitive Sciences Eprint Archive launched by Stevan Harnad of the University of Southhampton (UK); RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, a collaborative effort of over 100 volunteers in 30 countries to enhance dissemination of research in economics; eScholarship Repository sponsored by the California Digital Library; Glasgo ePrints Service; Ohio State University's Knowledge Bank; and Dspace, newly developed digital repository to preserve the intellectual output of MIT's faculty and staff. The room scheduled for our meeting was filled to capacity and the meeting was very successful. The program drew yet another exceptionally impressive group of librarians that ensured a lively discussion at the end of the program.

Heads of Technical Services of Medium Sized Academic and Research Libraries Discussion Group: our theme for the past year has been: "Technical Services Cooperation with Public Service Needs and Demands." At Midwinter in Philadelphia the 55 attendees discussed five topics at individual round tables. In Toronto three discussion leaders presented ideas to the 35 attendees for discussion: Cecilia Leathem (University of Miami, Coral Gables) spoke on the role of the cataloging department in fostering public service to patrons, and the cataloger as "part of the public services team." Elizabeth Brice and John Millard (Miami University, Oxford, Ohio) described the digitizing unit located within their technical services as a nexus for collaboration with public services. Their title was "Unite and Conquer: Converging Roles Through Digital Services." For the next year, chairman Jack Hall plans to concentrate on the topic of mission statements for technical services.

Back to Top

Acquisitions Section (AS) Discussion Groups

Acquisitions' Administrators Discussion Group: discussed "Jell-O Revisited: Nailing Down a Flow Chart for Acquiring E-Resources." The process of acquiring electronic resources is dramatically more complex than the traditional library workflow for purchasing books and serials. Interaction with IT, legal affairs, consortia, publishers not used to dealing with libraries, and vendors complicates the issues. This discussion group defined what the library's process should look like based on the experiences of the audience. The discussion was informative as attendees shared their experiences and procedures in acquiring and processing e-resources. Models were discussed and shared. In addition, there was some discussion on the new format this group might take as an Interest Group.

Acquisitions Librarians/Vendors of Library Materials Discussion Group: the main discussion topic among twelve attendees was "Getting What You Pay for and Paying for What you Get." The discussion centered on the fact that overall the economics of the library book selling business is not well understood by acquisitions librarians even though most acquisitions librarians would say that they do understand. This ignorance may be coupled with librarians' expectations of double-digit discounts and lots of value added services. The question became how do libraries and vendors meet in the middle-profit for the vendor and service at a fair cost for the library?

Librarians want vendors to make a profit so that they stay in business. They also want accuracy in the material supplied as well as the fastest possible turnaround time. Discounts are important but cannot be the driving force in vendor selection. The vendors in attendance indicated that mix of material was more important than the actual sales volume. Accuracy of bibliographic information provided by the libraries is very import to the vendors, because it is costly to deal with returns on the part of the books vendors and in supplying the correct journal on the part of the periodical vendors. A key suggestion focused on the need for acquisitions librarians to do a better job of analyzing what is happening in their operations. They need to define problems and solve them while not creating new problems for the library.

Back to Top

Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS) Discussion Groups

Catalog Management Discussion Group: focused on automated approaches to authority work. The emphasis was on using the library management system to perform authority control functions, either as a supplement to, or instead of, using an outside vendor. Linda Ballinger (Binghamton University) began the meeting with a brief presentation on using Ex Libris' Aleph system. Cheryl Gowing (University of Miami) followed with a presentation on using Innovative Interfaces. After these presentations, the attendees discussed their own experiences with their own library management systems for authority work functions.

Cataloging and Classification Research Discussion Group: discussed "Creating Up-to-Date Corporate Authority Records by Using Official Corporate Home Web Pages," led by Qiang Jin (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign); and "Word Association Testing and Thesaurus Construction," led by Louise Spiteri (Dalhousie University School of Library and Information Studies.)

Section Chair Mary Dabney Wilson attended and stayed for the business meeting, where we discussed the new Interest Group option. The consensus was that the Discussion Group format meets the needs of the group very well. The present and past officers are pleased with the health of the DG. We seem to have found the ALA attendees who want to think about cataloging and classification theory, and we have seen robust attendance at both Midwinter and Annual over several years.

Cataloging Norms Discussion Group: J. McRee McElrod (President of Special Libraries Cataloging, Inc, and former Head of Cataloging at University of British Columbia) led discussion of "Collation for Remote Electronic Resources." He addressed the need for collation for remote electronic resources. With the publication of AACR revised chapter 9 (2001), a major step forward was taken in describing electronic resources that have physical carriers. Perhaps the most remarkable advance was allowing use of special materials designators, which our patrons understand. However, the revised chapter fails to provide for collation, on the ground that nothing "physical "exists. The nature and extent of remote electronic resources are right here on earth, and not in the spiritual sphere or in the hereafter. Collation is not only needed for physical description, but also for an "smd" to narrow the very broad "gmd" electronic resources. Furthermore, it would be helpful for patrons to know whether a remote electronic resource is "one Web site" or "one electronic document." McElrod supports collation descriptors for all remote electronic resources.

Rachel L. Wadham (Brigham Young University) relayed the results of a study performed to determine the extent of inaccurate or unavailable information about multipart item fictional series in bibliographic records. Multipart item fictional series are defined as a group of fictional novels that share some common link such as plot, setting, or characters. It was observed that even when series information appeared on the printed items that information was not always represented in the bibliographic record. The study collected data on 166 books with multipart item fictional series and found that 54% of the books with multipart item series had some type of error. In addition data on specific types of errors and the existence of series authority records were collected. Despite the significant data gathered in the study, there are still few explanations as to why these particular series are so often represented inaccurately on bibliographic records.

Copy Cataloging Discussion Group: discussed copy-cataloging training. Philip Melzer (Library of Congress) covered training at LC, and Arlene Klair (University of Maryland) discussed her experiences training copy catalogers to use a new ILS. Melzer related background information regarding copy cataloging at LC (goals, positions involved, job responsibilities, etc.) before discussing the actual training processes. He informed the group that copy-cataloging training begins with a series of courses taught by LC's Technical Processing and Automation Instruction Office. These courses provide the incoming copy cataloger with basic cataloging skills. Individuals also take relevant subject heading and classification workshops covering the use of the printed LCSH, subject analysis, use of cross references, etc. LC also has two sets of written instructions on copy cataloging: Descriptive Cataloging Manual B13 and Copy Review, Cataloging Technician Instructions. Because these documents were last issued in 1994, the information contained in them might be somewhat dated. Melzer concluded by describing the large role that one-on-one training plays and the variations that exist from team to team at LC.

Arlene Klair discussed the training conducted at Maryland when they migrated to a new ILS earlier this year. The timing of the migration was such that the old database was taken offline (Nov. 22, 2002) before the new ILS was available (Jan. 6, 2003), and during this downtime they tried to get a head start on training for the new system. The initial training covered a wide range of topics, from editing records, to searching in both the staff and the public modes, to customizing the ILS desktop. She stressed the importance of making up-to-date documentation available to staff. After the new ILS came up, they continued to monitor problems and issues as they occurred. When a pattern of errors was found, new training sessions were held to correct the situation. In closing, Klair mentioned that even though things have settled down to a great extent six month after going online with the new system, the training continues as they find new ILS related issues that need to be addressed.

Heads of Cataloging Departments Discussion Group: asked their audience to "picture your cataloging department five to ten years from now." Beth Picknally Camden (University of Virginia), Mac Elrod (Special Libraries Cataloguing), and Judith Hopkins (SUNY Buffalo and AUTOCAT Listowner) launched a lively conversation about key trends likely to have a significant impact on the functioning of cataloging departments in the future. Among the issues discussed were:

• Staff Retention and Recruitment: increase in retirements and with them the loss of corporate memory, the need for higher salaries, and redesigning jobs in light of changing expectations;
• Outsourcing: greater reliance on vendor services, increasing demands to manage services as well as staff;
• Metadata: proliferation of standards, integration of new metadata workflows, the need for better coordination among standards-making organizations;
• Partnerships: development of collaborative relationships with IT, digital centers, public services, etc. to assess user needs and deliver services;
• Workflow: pressure to catalog an ever-increasing variety of formats in addition to cataloging a continuing high volume of print material, growing reliance on non-degreed catalogers, pressure to simplify the cataloging process and catalog records;
• Cataloger Education and Training: need for LIS curriculum to meet current and future needs, growing demand for continuing education for catalogers.

Back to Top

Collection Management and Development Section (CMDS) Discussion Groups

Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries: heard a report by Mary Jackson (ARL) on very preliminary data from the ARL study of interlibrary loan. Among the notable findings is that unit transaction costs for user-initiated ILL requests are about one quarter the cost for mediated borrowing requests. Cornell asked about the volume of ILL, and Mary replied that it was her impression the volume of ILL activity is up from an earlier study-or at least running about the same. Cornell also asked about fees for the Global Resources Program, and Mary said she expected it would be folded into basic membership fees.

It was noted that a statement of principles titled "Research Libraries Commitment to Special Collections" was presented and adopted by the ARL Board in February 2003.

In response to a question regarding whether reporting for E-Metrics is adequate or if something needed to be done to encourage timely reporting, the general sense seemed to be that it was too early yet to tell if this is or will be a problem. OSU was "stunned" by the time commitment required. Kansas would like to map vendor reports directly to e-metric and could use help from ARL to accomplish this. Yale questioned the group counting methods adopted by ARL for counting shared copies as owned by each of the "partnering" libraries.

Concerns were raised about the future availability of electronic resources. LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) is creating tools and support to encourage distributed responsibility for archiving. Cecile Jagodzinski reviewed the technological underpinnings of the LOCKSS project. It was noted that membership was $10,000 per year plus the cost of dedicating and maintaining a server to "suck down" resources designated by LOCKSS. She said the in her view, the greater costs were in time spent on selection and coordination with others. Encouraging publisher participation is another time consuming activity to which a cost could be attached. It was asked if it wouldn't be more cost effective for everyone to suck down everything to avoid the costs of selection and coordination. Ross Atkinson noted the good work being done on this by Stanford. He noted that this effort to superimpose a traditional print based perspective on preserving digital shouldn't close down discussion of other possible solutions. New York Public Library reported on their experience to archive dance journals through LOCKSS. Information on this initiative is available in an article by Michael A. Keller, Victoria A. Reich, and Andrew C. Herkovic, "What is a library anymore, anyway?" in First Monday 8:5 (5 May 2003).

The chair asked if there were new categories of information that should be gathered in the Sewell/Stoller budget survey. Suggestions included: designation of "untouchable" or contractual budget commitments; central vs. distributed collection funds; further breakdowns of spending for electronic resources (i.e., journals vs. monographs, backfiles, etc.)

Are licensing trends towards or away from consortial? What percentage of budgets is tied up in packages that are not supportable in the long run? What are we doing about it? Have collection officers had success in negotiating license agreements that reflect the current budget situation on most campuses? The chair noted a trend toward value-based pricing, i.e., what a product is worth to a particular institution. In talking about actual strategies for containment, Kansas indicated it was approaching cuts programmatically rather than across the board. Ohio State noted that negotiating caps on inflation were holding down serial costs. And all seemed to agree that the predominant strategy being employed was cutting print when suitable electronic copies were available.

Collaborative development of subject-specialized Web pages: AgNIC was described as an example of such a collaborative initiative. University of Washington would welcome more joint efforts to build sites, although Cornell reaffirmed the value of local specificity.

On-the-job training for new collection managers: How are we teaching about publishing industry, e-resources, budgeting? University of Illinois stated their concerns about time and methods being used to train new staff as selectors, and Princeton reinforced the importance of the issue. Michigan State reported on monthly selector brown-bags at MSU. University of Alberta talked about mentoring programs at their institution. Kansas described their formal orientation efforts and offered to share their training schedule. Penn State has an elaborate training process but yet codified for sharing. LC uses visiting vendors to speak with staff about trends, etc.

UC San Diego presented data from the Journal Use and User Preference Study, part of the UC Collection Management Initiative E-Journal Use Project. The chair noted that the faculty expressed a dependence on print but that actual use was very low. Cornell asked about next steps and policy implications. UCSD indicated that some expressed concerns of users about electronic access will be built into UC license negotiations.

Is our members' responsibility for oversight of digital projects a new trend? In a brief show of hands, it was the sense of the group that collection development officer involvement was mixed, depending on the project.

Melissa Trevett (Center for Research Libraries) highlighted a few points from the CRL report submitted prior to the meeting. She noted that the CRL report, Developing Digital Archives was recently completed and can be accessed via the CLIR Web site. She also pointed out that CRL and IMLS were hosting a conference on preservation July 21. Trevett also called attention to a change in the schedule for reviewing purchase proposals-the review will now take place in fall. Nancy Davenport (Library of Congress) announced the appointment of Deanna Marcum as Associate Librarian for Library Services at LC. She said that LC was announcing new interpretations of copyright rules affecting the capture of Web sites. She noted the legal obligation of copyright registrants to deposit copies of their content with LC. LC is negotiating with vendors of sound recordings about the business rules for transferring and managing deposited files. LC is also encouraging vendors to produce more cataloging records for products being sold. Finally, Davenport noted an effort to optimize the serials budget by limiting duplication to a bound copy plus one.

Collection Management in Public Libraries Discussion Group: 41 people enjoyed a lively discussion of Opening Day Collections - what people have done, what's worked, what hasn't worked, what vendors can do to help, etc. Vendors have lots to offer, and the importance of working with the vendors was emphasized.

There was a brief discussion of "floating collections." Jefferson County Public Library has had a floating collection since 1994 and will be doing a program on this topic at PLA in Seattle. Also in Seattle, PLA's collection management group will do a table talk continuing the "Good Times, Bad Times" theme.

The final discussion was about changes in the nature of our jobs. Many collection managers now have increased responsibilities, or at least increased interactions with, acquisitions, cataloging, processing, and Web-based resources/products. Budget cuts have also affected many jobs and processes. Discussion topics at Midwinter 2004 will be Floating Collections and Centralized/Decentralized collection management/selection

Back to Top

Preservation and Reformatting Section (PARS) Discussion Groups

Cooperative Preservation Programs Discussion Group: did not meet.

Library Binding Discussion Group: 18 attendees heard an update on ABLE development by Paul Parisi (Acme Bookbinding); an update on LARS development by Suzanne Wiersma (Wallaceburg Bookbinding); an update on LINCPlus development by Bill DeWitt (Heckman Bindery); and a presentation and discussion on joint cost cutting strategies for Libraries and Binderies by Bill DeWitt (Heckman Bindery).

PARS Discussion Group: discussed "The Impact of Tight Budgets and How Institutions are Managing Creatively. " This was a very general discussion about the current fiscal situation across the country and how institutions are coping. In general, the theme that ran through many comments was that there are collections-related funds to complete some services, but that institutions are losing the operating funds necessary to actually do the work to complete these projects. As expected, the public institutions are having a much harder time than the private schools. However, even the private schools represented are facing no-growth situations.

Three topics suggested as possible future topics for discussion included:

• Developing databases for tracking information about collection materials in the preservation and conservation workflow.
• Developing tools for tracking larger collection needs
• Holding a primer on designing and completing collection-level surveys.

Two other topics remain on the table for future discussion from the last conference: (1) Stabilization for remote storage and (2) the ARL Task Force on Special Collections and its implications for dealing with security issues. Stabilizing materials for remote storage generated a lot of interest when it was brought up as a possible topic.

Physical Quality and Treatment Discussion Group: invited Alice Carli (Conservator at the Sibley Music Library and the Eastman School of Music) to share her insight into providing access to scores for a large music library while also providing appropriate preservation housing for these items. Ms. Carli is known to be innovative in her approach to music conservation. She brought over thirty samples of binding structures to show how practitioners can adopt and improve upon standard binding practices in the context of printed music materials. Participants were excited by the possibilities demonstrated by these binding variants as there are very few standards for dealing with the unique and complex issues presented by music materials in research collections. Working with Ms. Carli and Jane Gottleib (ALA Liaison from the Music Library Association), we were able to provide a no-cost educational opportunity for discussion group members. We were also pleased to have several library-binding vendors represented in the discussion to foster communication between vendors and library clients. Constituents represented at this discussion group included conservators, preservation administrators, librarians, and library binding vendors. A wide range of experience in the field was represented from long-time librarians to library school students.

Preservation Instruction, Education and Outreach Discussion Group: had two topics suggested in advance: the role of preservation needs assessments in the development of staff training; and the use of video-conferencing in preservation training The following ideas were products of the discussion.

The use of video-conferencing as well as other approaches to distance education in preservation training -- When can hands-on training not be replaced? What are other approaches? This was a very successful topic several years ago that was proposed for a conference program, but funding was too difficult to secure for the technology aspects of the program. Perhaps getting some vendor support early on would help to facilitate it?

How to educate and promote the value of preservation to library administrators -- There were several variations on this theme, but a general agreement that we need to better educate the value of preservation managers (as positions) and preservation (as a service) to administration, especially during these tough budget years. A well-managed preservation program saves the library money, but how do we determine what is and is not cost effective? This could possibly be linked to the Cost Study Task Force's work, or approach the collections as a capital asset and view the costs of preservation versus the costs of not preserving materials. How can we teach people to prioritize action items and make educated decisions (i.e. know what the repercussions of those decisions may be, both immediately and long term)? This could be a joint discussion with LAMA, but could also develop into a pre-conference or conference program for library administrators.

How do we better advocate for preservation training in library schools? -- This topic could be discussed in conjunction with the launch of the Preservation Education Directory and also further discuss the role that "presedex" (a Web site formerly hosted by Solinet regarding preservation education curricula and other education information) has played, and whether it should be re-established. A general feeling of the group was that there is not a lack of student interest in preservation, but a lack of education opportunities and jobs. How can we improve this? This could be co-hosted with ALISE meeting during mid-winter, as a pre-conference or at least early enough in the conference to include them.

The role of preservation in digitization projects -- This was seen as a two-fold step. The first step is our own education, to better understand the technology behind digitization and the mechanisms by which it is done. This will aid in our understanding of the physical stresses that the materials may go through, but also the degree to which a piece should be repaired before scanning. The second step is educating others about the importance of integrating preservation and conservation work into digitization projects. How can we better inform those that are planning digitization projects about the repair and re-housing needs/opportunities for collections proposed for such projects? Representatives from granting bodies (NEH, IMLS, etc.) to discuss what a "well-balanced" digitization grant proposal entails, as well representatives from some of the technological support side of these projects (LITA) would be assets.

Small to Mid-Sized Preservation Programs Discussion Group: did not meet.

Reformatting (Analog/Digital) Discussion Group: did not meet.

Back to Top

Serials Section (SS) Discussion Groups

Journal Costs in Libraries Discussion Group: discussed "The divine aftermath: impact on the serials industry". The panelists were Julie Gammon (University of Akron), Dan Tonkery (Vice President and Director of Business Development for EBSCO Information Services), and Adam Chesler (former Vice President of New Business at Ingenta). Each panelist spoke for a few minutes about how they felt the collapse of Faxon, a divine Company (a.k.a. Rowecom), would affect libraries and specifically the price of journals.

The general consensus was that although the collapse was difficult for the customers that remained with divine, the market share that they held had fallen so sharply over the past few years that the affect on pricing would be minimal. The largest fallout will be in the relationship between libraries, subscription agents and publishers. For many years, there had been handshake deals between the groups, but in the future, dealings will be more "ruthless".

The discussion was lively, and several of the panelists and members of the audience were able to contribute interesting "insider" bits of information. Although the lawsuits and clean up continue, many of the attendees said thet felt better knowing that the collapse would not have an extremely adverse affect on library budgets.

Research Libraries Discussion Group: only one person showed up for this meeting. We talked, briefly, about the two Serials discussion groups merging.

Back to Top