Notes from Megameeting 23rd June 2008


BruceAmbacher UM
JohnGarrett GSFC
KatiaThomaz INPE, Brazil
MarieWaltz Center for Research Libraries
MarkConrad NARA

The meeting was mostly conducted by chat so the transcript (given below) is a fairly complete record of the discussion.

Progress made:

Progress was rather limited this week but a number of actions were set as below.


  • All to complete the action items that were supposed to be completed for this meeting (23 June) - see notes of last week's meeting.
  • BruceAmbacher and MarkConrad to do a conceptual walk-through of an AIP creation to see if B.2 contains all of the mandatory requirements for AIP creation.
  • All to post their comments for B.3.4 and all of B.4 by next Saturday - 28 June.
  • SimonLambert to re-poll everyone for preferred day of the week, preferred start time, and preferred length (60 or 90 minutes) for future meetings.

For next time we will meet at the same day and time for a 90 minute session.

Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we get started?
Bruce Ambacher >> (All): Where - B3?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do you think it makes sense to replace section B.2. with the text from the B2Rewrite.doc?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
Marie >> (All): yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): and yes to section replacement.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie and Katia what do you think about the section replacement?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i didn t understand de numbers B2.3.1, B2.3.2 and so on. why?
Mark Conrad >> (All): These numbers were to signify that there was a hierarchy of requirements and sub-requirements.
Marie >> (All): I didn't get the changes Mark, did you email them?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I e-mailed them. They are also posted with the minutes of the last meeting.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): every section in a standard must be numbered to show its position and place within the hierarchy of that standard.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): in this level are they necessary? they made me confused...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We should number them now and let a technical editor bring it into compliance.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Agreed.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): are they subrequirements?
Mark Conrad >> (All): They are a breakdown of the requirement into its component parts.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): They would appear to be now but may be raised to requirements by the technical editor 
Katia Thomaz >> (All): this way we need to discuss and give examples for each one 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Can you say more about that, Katia? I think that the subrequirements are fairly self-explanatory. If they listed as separate requirements, then I agree we would need examples for each one.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): in my opinion, the document must present the same structure. so, if they are subrequirements, each one must be discussed separetely. this way you don t know the references about the discussion and exemples...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Consistency also could have examples only for a requirement and all of its sub-requirements but with no examples for each sub-requirement.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, Does this mean you would prefer to keep the text of B.2. as it is presently written?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): look for example B2.3. we have only one subdivison...
Katia Thomaz >> (All): yes, i prefer as it is presently written.
Mark Conrad >> (All): That's one vote for replacing the text with B.2Rewrite.doc and one for retaining the current text. John and Marie, what do you think?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I"ve been having trouble connecting today.  Are we using audio?  I don't hear anything.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Good morning, John.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We have not been using audio because it keeps dropping out.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Is this the B2 rewrite we discussed last week?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): according to availability matrix, david and simon would appear today...
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, It is with the changes that we discussed last week.
Marie >> (All): I think David said he was going to be out at the last meeting.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David announced last week he would be in a review and not be here.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't have a strong preference either way as long as we are consistent throughout the document.
Marie >> (All): Yes, I agree with John, it says the same thing, though I do agree with katia that having only one subcriteria is kind of weak.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can we park the issue of adding examples until we work through the document and see whether we establish any sub-requirements in other sections?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): I have begun an initial analysis of B.1. and I believe there will be sub requirements for at least some of the requirements there.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Did anyone go through B2Rewrite.doc to see if it had all of the mandatory requirements for AIP creation?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i think it had all the mandatory requirements for AIP creation 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Such an embarrassing question.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We talked about having volunteers do a walk-through of an AIP to see if everything was there.
Mark Conrad >> (All): AIP creation.
Marie >> (All): I think we need a volunteer 
Mark Conrad >> (All): Did anyone complete any of the action items from the last meeting? If not, do we want to continue with B.3.? At some point I would like to get consensus on whether or not we should redo other sections in the style of B2Rewrite.doc.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Its clear we are not prepared today.  Should we go back to Mark's email and do the assignments and reconvene next Monday?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would like to know if we think we will move faster or slower with a rewrite.  I vote for whichever can be completed the quickest.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do you want speed or do you want quality?
JohnGarrett >> (All): We have a commitment to have a new version of this document for our Group by October and the completed standard by next March.  I don't see us hitting those dates.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, I sensed a concurrence last week.  The re-read of B2 wa to confirm that and also to see if anything was missing from the ingest steps.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I want good enough quality to have a standard.  It doesn't need to be perfect.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): This all shows the desparate need for a face-to-face multi-day meeting 
JohnGarrett >> (All): The effort to get a certification standard started back in 2004 for TRAC to provide us a starting document.  And we've been trying to get something going in CCSDS since mid 2005 as a followon to TRAC.  So we've been waiting 5 years for this already.  At our current rate of looking at this, I would expect at least another 3 years before we get a standard out.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I prepared the rewrite to see the trees and the forest. I also found what I believed to be missing (sub) requirements.
So far we have only completed one pass  through B.1.and two through B.2.
If we adopt the style of the rewrite document going forward it won't be a rewrite.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can 2 people volunteer to examine B2 fof ingest steps completeness from the perspective of their repository, with at least one being an archives?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I can do a hypothetical walk-through. I am too many years away from the Center for Electronic Records to know all of their current procedures.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We set assignments last week but there were no designees for each assignment so they did not get done.  I am no longer at a repository so I can't do the ingest steps review either.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The action items other than the walk-through were for everybody.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree with Bruce that a multi-day face-to-face meeting would be very helpful.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is it worth it for me to do an initial rewrite of B.1. for next time?
JohnGarrett >> (All): If we expect to go the subrequirement route, it is worth it to do the rewrite.  But it might be better to do rewrite first on B3 and go forward.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We have not even discussed C have we?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): no
JohnGarrett >> (All): No we haven't.  We stopped before C when we did our first rewrite into this form and started back at B1.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will do an initial analysis of B.3. for next time.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): If we move forward, we may be able to establish a path and tone for a technical editor to see where sub-requirements are needed and/or to create them for our review.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John do you have suggestions for how we speed up the process?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would set a schedule for which items we review each week.  Set a time limit on each item.  Say if we can't get done in 45 minutes, we mark it as having issues and go on.  Only after we finish the document or only have we have specific recommendations for fixing it do we go back.
Marie >> (All): I like this. 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I feel we must get into the other sections to at least know what mountains/mole hills await us.  Then we may be able to assign sections for writing and review.  I second John's time limits and/or topics for each webchat.
Mark Conrad >> (All): This presumes that everyone completes the action items for the following week.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i am prepared today.
Mark Conrad >> (All): How do we want to proceed today? or do we?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I don't sense a mood to continue, so lets terminate the chat.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): what about returning to one hour meeting. for me UK 3:30 pm has been very difficult...
Mark Conrad >> (All): We went to 90 minute sessions to try and speed up the process. Do we want to cut back to 60 minutes? What do others say?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Will we be able to accomplish enough in 60 minutes when so many are so late signing on whether we start at :00 or :30?
Marie >> (All): An hour and a half is fine with me, but would we get more people if it was shorter or even at a different time?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Did we go over B3 already.?   Looks like we already did and then went back to B2 again.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We have not completed B.3.4.
Mark Conrad >> (All): What time are we meeting next week? What are the action items?
JohnGarrett >> (All): So we should be prepared with B3.4 and B4 next time.
Mark Conrad >> (All): And the action items that were supposed to be done by this week?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok
Marie >> (All): ok
JohnGarrett >> (All): Let's go ahead and keep 90 minutes at least for next week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Who will volunteer to do a walk-through of AIP creation for next time?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): and we can call for another "choice of day of meeting" matrix 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I can't.  I no longer have NARA's current procedures.  I can give it a conceptual look.
Marie >> (All): CRL does not have a respository.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, Monday was established after a poll of preferences.  We can always re-poll.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok, bruce.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, can you get Simon to reset the matrix and re-poll us?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Everyone posts their comments for B.3.4 and B.4. by next Saturday. Every one completes the action items for this week. 
Katia Thomaz >> (All): and reassign the time 
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will check with Simon about re-polling.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): don t forget to change the time too.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So for next week at least we will meet on Monday and at the same time.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes.goodbye
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok.
Marie >> (All): bye
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK goodbye
Katia Thomaz >> (All): have a nice week. bye.
Mark Conrad >> (All): See you next week.

-- SimonLambert - 23 Jun 2008

Topic revision: r1 - 2008-06-23 - SimonLambert
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback