Notes from Megameeting 3rd December 2007


All the discussion at this meeting was conducted by chat, so the following transcript of the meeting (with a few typos corrected) is complete.

Barbara Sierman >> (All): Hi Mark, how are you?
candida fenton >> (All): Hi there
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Hi Candida
Mark Conrad >> (All): Good Morning, Barbara. I am doing well. How about you?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Good morning, Candida.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Fine also, too busy in this last month of the year!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi folks
Mark Conrad >> (All): Good morning Katia.
Mark Conrad >> (All): According to the e-mail David and Simon both will be unable to attend today. Is there someone else who is authorized to turn off the video?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Good morning Robert.
RobertDowns >> (All): Good morning Mark and everyone.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): now i saw david´s email
JohnGarrett >> (All): Good Morning
Mark Conrad >> (All): Good morning John
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Well, here it is afternoon!
Mark Conrad >> (All): My apologies. Good day!
Barbara Sierman >> (All): David just sent us a mail with some interesting info
KatiaThomaz >> (All): afternoon for me too...
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Will we have a discussion today?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Nancy McGovern just sent an e-mail saying she is electing not to attend today's meeting based on th enumber of e-mails from others saying that they would not attend.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Ok, may I'll receive that mail later, but is your suggestion that we will skip todays meeting?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, I am not suggesting that we cancel the meeting. I was just relaying Nancy's message.
RobertDowns >> (All): It might be useful to discuss some of the items with comments to improve the language.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): ok
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK with me
KatiaThomaz >> (All): in the matrix?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Was there a particular item that you had in mind to start with?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Is B1.7 the next to discuss?
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, B1.7 might be a good place to start
Mark Conrad >> (All): Don Sawyer's comments suggest that B1.7 might need to be two separate requirements. I agree.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes, I agree with Don's comments. But the evidence part focuses more on content, while you can also read this requirements as a procedural requirement
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, I agree, as well. If others agree, perhaps one requirement is to record the date of ingest.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Robert,
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think that your suggested change would be sufficient for Don's second requirement.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes, the date of ingest is a procedural matter, but does not say that you take responsibility for the content, or does it?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Again, the answer is a combination of requirements
JohnGarrett >> (All): Do we already have the record keeping covered in  B1.8 about recording actions and processes
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am not sure I would make it the point of ingest , but rather the point at which the repository takes responsibility for preservation of the transferred material.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): So related to the preservation level of the object?
RobertDowns >> (All): Perhaps acquisition date, which could be different than ingest date
RobertDowns >> (All): Accession date might be better yet
JohnGarrett >> (All): We also have B1.5 that says that we take sufficient physical control of objects.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think when the repository takes responsibility is an implementation decision. This should be spelled out in the repository's policies. This gets to Don's first requirement.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): All these terms need a definition, acquisiton date is when it arrives at the front-door of the organization? Before any check>
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes Mark, and that can vary with different repositories
Mark Conrad >> (All): Exactly.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): What you want to achieve with this requirement is that a repository is aware of the fact that there should be a formal decision point?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, I agree. You also want to record the date when that happens (i.e., Don's second requirement.)
JohnGarrett >> (All): I could see the Archives' decision about accepting responsibility varying by project.  For some, the Archives would take responsibility for each data object as soon as they get it securely in the door.   For others, they may not accept responsibility until they have the whole set of products.
Mark Conrad >> (All): That formal decision point needs to be spelled out  in repository policy.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes, so it is important that an organization has some document on these decisions, Agree with Mark
KatiaThomaz >> (All): section A5
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes, but more in detail I think
Mark Conrad >> (All): A3.7 also seems to cover part of this requirement.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Sorry, I need to go, see you next week!
KatiaThomaz >> (All): sorry, i must go too. have a nice week. bye
RobertDowns >> (All): For the criteria for determining acceptance of responsibility, perhaps the B1.7 Evidence should state that policies and/or procedures specify the event when responsibility for the object has been accepted
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK sounds like we need a requirement that says Archives need to describe a policy for when it accepts responsibility for submitted objects.   I think the record keeping for that is then covered in B1.8.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree. I was just trying to turn Don's comment in to a requirement for the policy.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Sounds good to me.
RobertDowns >> (All): Me too
Mark Conrad >> (All): Repository can demonstrate the criteria it uses to determine when it accepts information preservation responsibility.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK, I'll be leaving also.  Can someone capture the chat so it can be posted.  I can't seem to capture this window.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will copy it and send it to Davis and Simon.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Thanks
Mark Conrad >> (All): David and Simon.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. See you all next week.

-- DavidGiaretta - 04 Dec 2007

Topic revision: r1 - 2007-12-04 - DavidGiaretta
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2018 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback