Attendees:

RobertDowns >> (All): Hi
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Good morning Robert.  I just finished B5.  There is a 
reference to B2.5  That should be changed to B2.4
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Did you see that John and Helen will not be joining 
today?
RobertDowns >> (All): I appreciate your suggestion and will change it.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, I just received both of their messages.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The reference only changed due to renumbering in B2.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I sent B2 off to David yesterday to see if it looked 
right because some points/rules have multiple subpoints with no individual 
supporting text or examples.  But they were that way in the old working 
document.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, I am looking at B2 now and see that they were 
renumbered.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi robert and bruce.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): hi
RobertDowns >> (All): It might be helpful to look at the notes in the previous 
versions.
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I will be meeting with an NEH grant officer next week 
about potential grant funding for this project - moving it to ISO status and 
especially developing audits, training auditors, getting repositories ready for 
audits and making adjustments after the audit.  If you have any suggestions on 
cost categories beyond the obvious (salaries, travel, overhead,) I welcome them. 
Also any suggestions for other activities that could come under a grant.
RobertDowns >> (All): I appreciate the opportunity Bruce and will let you know 
if I think of anything.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): Metrics are independent but sub-metrics provide extra 
things to look at – more explicit than just the “Evidence” 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, are you comfortable with a metric and a few 
submetrics listed before any supporting information?  B2 is structured that way.
Marie >> (All): Hi All, Sorry to be late
RobertDowns >> (All): Hi
KatiaThomaz >> (All): No, I am not. I think it looks confusing...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Marie, please read my note above requesting input for a 
discussion on grant funding with NEH.  Input is most welcome.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I prefer inserting those things in support text of the 
metric..
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes but some always appeared that way and others appear 
to be subpoints we wanted to bring attention to that might get lost in 
supporting text.  I think there would be a lot of redundant text but that still 
might be more consistent.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): sure
RobertDowns >> (All): I have made the change to section B5, kindly suggested by 
Bruce, and would appreciate any other suggestions for improvement.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): are radical changes possible?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): where?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): in the document
KatiaThomaz >> (All): you could reestructure all the text, removing redundancy
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I suppose anything is possible if there is good reason.  
But after the face to face and the consensus developed I think there must be a 
strong argument about soemthing that was not discussed.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi Marie
BruceAmbacher >> (All): That said, anything that brings clariry to the document 
could be discussed.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): If there is no discussion of the finished sections I 
will sign off.  I will take another look at B2 with an eye to the clarity Katia 
suggests.  Till next week.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): david have just sent a message.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): he will not participate
KatiaThomaz >> (All): bruce, i remember there are some suggestions about costs 
in the other document
KatiaThomaz >> (All): requirements for bodies providing audit and 
certification...
KatiaThomaz >> (All): no more points for me
KatiaThomaz >> (All): I will sign off too. bye and have a good week.
RobertDowns >> (All): If you get a chance, please look at B5 and let me know if 
you have any suggestions for improvement.
Marie >> (All): Will do.

-- SimonLambert - 23 Mar 2009