Attendees:

There was discussion of apparent discrepancies that had crept into the working document resulting from the face-to-face meeting.

Actions:

• MarieWaltz to draft something for the intro to section A to point out various aspects of a TDR and then make it clear that we focus on preservation in the standards.
• DavidGiaretta to put corrected renumbered doc on WIki and correct the Wiki text.

BarbaraSierman >> (All): I've only half an hour, what did you think of the evidence
documents overview?
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - did you want to describe the spreadsheet?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have not looked at it, two three day meetings since the face to face .
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I think evidence should always be mentioned in context.
If we also want to develop a comprehensive set that's fine.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The lengthy description could include text on the purpose
of gathering evidence and the types of documents created by that repository could qualify.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): right
Mark Conrad >> (All): B.1.8 was moved to Section A. It still shows up in Section B.
Mark Conrad >> (All): B.6. Begins with B6.5. Were B6.1 - B. 6.4 eliminated?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): because it was renumbering
RobertDowns >> (All): B6.1 appears on the following page: http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/bin/view/Main/MetricsSectionB6
Marie Waltz >> (All): My notes show we deleted B6.1, B6.2 and combined B6.3, B6.4, B6.5 into B6.1
KatiaThomaz >> (All): in my document b6 starts with b6.1
Mark Conrad >> (All): I am looking at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/RAC20090213-rev.doc
David Giaretta >> (All): Should look at http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/MetricsWorkingDocumentFollowingFaceToFace/RAC20090213-renum.doc
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): renum.doc is better
KatiaThomaz >> (All): david, we left conditional text in B2.3.1 and B2.7.3
Mark Conrad >> (All): What happened with B.6.? It was drastically reduced.
Marie Waltz >> (All): B6.1-2 were felt to be more about access than preservation,
B6.1 was deleted and replaced with B6.4
Mark Conrad >> (All): B.6. is about access.
David Giaretta >> (All): There was a hot discussion about preservation wrt access
Marie Waltz >> (All): We decided that access was less important than preservation
so access lost a lot of ground.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, It is the sense that this document is about preservation
and what is unique about a trusted repository that sets up what elements should be measured.
Access is not unique to a TDR.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): but there is one thing that looks strange. the document doesn´t
mention access policies before b6.
BarbaraSierman >> (All): I think you need an access policy explictly
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i do
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We should list all of the functions of a TDR, than focus on preservation
David Giaretta >> (All): Is that an action on Marie and Bernie to add something in?
Marie Waltz >> (All): Yes we do need to say it and bring it up in each section so everyone
is aware that it exists and is part of repository
Marie Waltz >> (All): We can state it very clearly in the policy framework part of A
David Giaretta >> (All): OK Marie
BarbaraSierman >> (All): ok
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - what would you say is missing?
BarbaraSierman >> (All): Sorry need to leave now (no, not the train!)
KatiaThomaz >> (All): bye barbara.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - what would you say is missing?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We certainly have trimmed down security and tech support so
they should be listed in A as part of the functions of a TDR that are necessary but not
unique to a TDR or totally controlled by the archives.
David Giaretta >> (All): I don't recall that we moved those because they were not
preservation - but I might be wrong
Mark Conrad >> (All): B.6. seems to be talking about two separate things. The Access Policies
in Section A should cover both. Creating 
and disseminating correct and complete DIPs and ensuring that folks that should have
access do and those who shouldn't don't.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I got both points and will include in section A
David Giaretta >> (All): The second part of B6 (B6.2) was about authentic copies etc
David Giaretta >> (All): Not clear that Access Policies should cover that
Mark Conrad >> (All): Where would you put it? In a spearate section on creating DIPs?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, Are you saying a TDR can produce unauthentic copies?
David Giaretta >> (All): No - the metric in B says that it procuces authentic copies
David Giaretta >> (All): Should a policy repreat the metrics? - Maybe so!
David Giaretta >> (All): OK I see what you mean
David Giaretta >> (All): In terms of B1.8 - should I put up another version?
Mark Conrad >> (All): It wouldn't hurt to put up a revised version deleting B.1.8.
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'm not sure I did but I can create one which I think others need
to comment on
Marie Waltz >> (All): I'll post to the Wiki
David Giaretta >> (All): OK marie will draft something for the Intro to A to point out
various aspects of a TDR and then make it clear that we focus on preservation in the standards
KatiaThomaz >> (All): ok
David Giaretta >> (All): ACTION: DG to put corrected renumbered doc on WIki and
correct the Wiki text
Mark Conrad >> (All): B.1.8. and B.6. were the only things that I noticed.
David Giaretta >> (All): OK
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok.
Marie Waltz >> (All): Sounds good
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Ok.  I will try to get to parts of B2
RobertDowns >> (All): ok
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - bye folks

-- SimonLambert - 02 Mar 2009