[NHCOLL-L:800] Re: FW: "best practice"

[Peter Rauch]

I do agree with Robin's sense that there are shades of meaning (and
emotions) to the terms being discussed, and that those variations in
intent and emphasis can be confusing while at the same time they can be
useful.  But...

Thanks to all who create and adopt useful "standards"!

None of the other terms (guidelines, best practices, procedures,
protocols, policies, etc) offer the _community_ an agreed-upon minimum
of conformance/uniformity/level/measure across the community to which
it is intended to be applicable (and useful). (Those other terms do
have their places; they do not substitute for "standards".)

These days, with our collective experience in diverse fields such as
informatics' RFCs (among other important standards), national building
plumbing and electrical codes (standards), and bicycles with exactly
two wheels, there is no reason for anyone's hackles to be raised.

The place for (really well-done) standards is abundantly established
and clearly beneficial to those who want to play in the same sandbox.
Peter

> From: "Panza, Robin" <PanzaR at CarnegieMuseums.Org>
> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:39:11 -0500 
... 
> "Standards" has two rather different meanings.  On the one hand, it refers
> to levels of achievement against which to measure oneself.  However, it also
> refers to uniformity of action, as is "standardization".  When "standards"
> first became an issue in collection database sharing, I think it
> unnecessarily raised some hackles ("Who are you to decide whether my system
> is good enough?") when all that was meant is that we make interaction easier
> by agreeing to uniformity.  For this reason, I'd be only too happy to see
> "standards" fall into disuse, replaced by "best practice" or any other term
> for referring to levels of achievement.
...
> "Standards"
> implies there's some minimum level of achievement below which you've failed,
> hence has negativity.
...