Attendance

Present: Lou Burnard (LB), Marilyn Deegan (MD), Mike Fraser (MF), Michael Pidd (MP), Andrew Prescott (AP), Claire Warwick (CW), Nigel Williamson (NW)

Apologies had been received from Jean Anderson, Susan Jeffcote, Brad Scott, Harold Short and Christine Wise.

Selection of chair

It was proposed that Marilyn should chair the meeting, and further that she should be formally appointed chair of the Standing Committee; the former proposal was accepted nem con, and the latter recommended for consideration by the whole of the committee, since there was some uncertainty as whether the meeting was itself quorate.

Minutes of the last meeting (King's, xx sept)

The following corrections were noted: Under item 3, it was agreed that the discussion about appointment of the Conference Chair for DRH2000 was excessively detailed, and should not record more than the appointment of Mike Fraser. Under item 1.4, it was clarified that student helpers had been mentioned as a convenient means of providing statistics by doing headcounts for sessions Under item 1.8, correct DRH200 to DRH2000

The following actions were reported: AP volunteered to take on the action originally assigned to HS to provide analysis of the feedback from DRH99, in conjunction with WM. MF reported that SJ was hoping to complete the action to NW had been in touch with John Bradley about the scripts used to maintain the reviews database; he and MP were actively working on a local alternative Peter Robinson, Christine Wise, Michael Jubb, and Lorcan Dempsey were now all members of the Standing Committee and had also been added to drh-discuss. MF reported that Seamus Ross had not yet added a representative from MLAC, since MLAC itself had not yet been constituted MD reported that publication of the DRH98 proceedings was still on schedule, though distribution was unlikely to begin before the end of January 2000.Only a few proposals had so far been received for the DRH99 volume. Under 6.2, the protocol was now on the website. WM proposed, and it was accepted, that password protection was unnecessary for SC materials, and would be removed. SC related documents would be held, in decent obscurity, under http://www.drh.org.uk/admin and maintained by King's. It was agreed that SC members should not provide links to this material from publicly accessible pages.

DRH Protocol

The committee worked through the body of this document at some length, agreeing a number of clarifications and minor changes. LB agreed to revise the draft accordingly by 10 December. Comments on that revision should be made by the 17th.

The committee did not review explicitly the non-normative appendixes; any comments on these should be made to LB before 10 December.

Call for hosts

MF proposed that the DRH2000 Call for Participation should contain two further calls for proposals to host DRH2001 and DRH2002; MD volunteered to draft these calls.

Further feedback from drh99

As noted above, AP would provide this to the local organizers as soon as possible.

DRH2000 MF asked whether the SC wished to propose further additions to the Programme Committee. There was some discussion of the distinction between the SC and the PC, and a list of reviewers. MD asked whether reviewers' names should be listed. MF and NW would propose extensions to PC. Reviewers would be identified and assigned to papers later. Noted that MD (and others) were happy to review larger numbers of papers. NW described the local committee: it was as listed in minutes of the previous meeting (NW, MP, CW, AP, Yorick Wilks, RC), except that M Hannon had not proposed anyone from the library. Philip Davies (Commercial Director, HRI) had been asked to join the committee. Responsibilities so far assigned: technical details would be handled by MP; PD would handle sponsorshop; CW and RC to do publicity; NW to do finances. Exhibition: WM would provide NW with details of DRH99 exhibitors who wished to rebook for DRH2000. NW asked whether was a mailing list or similar likely to be read by publishers read: Brad Scott should be asked. TimetableNW circulated a draft timetable. Workshops would be offered on campus on the morning after the banquet, as an altermative to an excursion. Some concern was expressed at the loss of a session implied by closing with a plenary of day 2. MF asked whether many people had skipped the preliminary Sunday sessions at DRH99: WM opined that they had. LB suggested that a plenary poster session might be held on the Sunday to make it more attractive. Four strands were anticipated in each session, but the Hall could accomodate more. Call for Participation: It was noted that this should include more administrative detail about papers, posters, workshops, etc. A (much shorter) announcement should also be prepared for email distribution. Prelimary deadline for proposals was end of Feb. NW noted that the reviews database system would need to be in place at the same time as the CFP went out. NW/MF would agree on a date asap. Some rewording of the CFP was proposed: MF would prepare a revised version for circulation by 3rd dec. It was noted that the local conference website (and the CFP) might usefully include information about Sheffield itself and that there should be links to (and from) the main DRH website. Local facilitiesNW circulated details of the accomodation to be offered, and of venues for social events on the programme. It was noted that network access for exhibitors would need to be provided in dining hall. A number of postgraduate student helpers would be recruited. NW circulated a provisional budget; although this did not include publication cost, it did (erroneously) include a cost for registration fees for SC members. The budget indicated a break even point of 105 registrations and a maximum of 220. LB advised against overbooking. WM noted that income could easily be increased by more exhibitors. MF was reminded to make clear in the CFP that speakers had to pay registration fees. The proposed cost for t-shirts seemed unusually high. NW circulated a draft prospectus to be sent to potential sponsors of the conference; WM noted that this should not be sent to potential exhibitors. MD asked whether other flyers might be prepared to go out with the next issue of LLCC. NW said that local housing arrangements had to be handled acording to university procedures, as did budgetary questions. The SC agreed that the state of preparation already evidenced was very impressive and congratulated the local team on the progress made.

AOB

AP noted that the SC still needed a new representative from the British Library; two possible candidates were discussed. AP also thought it might be possible to persuade the British Library to take on the publication of the conference proceedings. MD and AP would pursue both questions. The need to secure plenary speakers as soon as possible was stressed. Names proposed so far included Jerry McGann (currently in the UK on sabbatical); Mark Greengrass; Yorick Wilks; Umberto Eco; Joanne Drucker. Wilks had offered to approach Eco. Terry Jones had been approached as an after dinner speaker. Conference fees would be fixed and announced when Registration commenced, probably in April. The SC would next meet as such at DRH2000. MF would propose a date before Easter for the PC to meet as soon as possible: 13th April in Sheffield was suggested as a possibility.