Notes from Megameeting 25th January 2010

Attendees

BruceAmbacher UM
DavidGiaretta STFC
JohnGarrett GSFC
MarkConrad NARA
RobertDowns CIESIN, Columbia University
SimonLambert STFC
TerryLongstreth  

Summary

It was decided that future meetings would continue to be on Mondays at the same time.

It was agreed to replace "in addtion to" with "based on" in the first paragraph of section 1.2 SCOPE.

In 8.1.1 bullet (b), it was agreed to insert the phrase "with exceptions agreed with the initial audit committee".

Next week the discussion will start at the points flagged in the comments beginning in section 9 - in particulat 9.2.1.

Transcript of chat

David Giaretta >> (All): Should we wait for some more to join?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, Did I really vote for Tuesday or indicate I do 
not have a conflict?
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Mark
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Tuesday at theis time I have a class and or standing 
meeting for the next 4 months.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - you put a "P" against Tuesday - did you really mean "N"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes to N but if the day changes so be it. 
David Giaretta >> (All): bruce - if you did mean "N" then we should stick to 
Monday
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Tuesdays will be bad until late May.  And I hope we are 
not meeting each week then for the sake of the project
David Giaretta >> (All): I propose that we keep to Monday
Mark Conrad >> (All): I second the motion. :)
David Giaretta >> (All): It causes Katia a problem but looking at the time slots 
she has a clash then also!
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - Monday it is. Apologies to Katia
David Giaretta >> (All): Now where were we..
David Giaretta >> (All): I'm afraid I'm not running at 100%
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi,
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce sent comments which I put some responses to
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi John
JohnGarrett >> (All): Don't think I voted, Monday is better for me, but Tuesday 
would work
BruceAmbacher >> (All): One issue we still are wrangling about is the frequency 
of the cycle of audits and how we appear to be true to the audit standard but 
extend the cycle.
David Giaretta >> (All): John we decided to stick to Monday
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - yes - taht was a key issue
David Giaretta >> (All): ...I propose to give the initial audit cttee some 
flexibility
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, How?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, you and I discussed that last week can you expand 
on your thoughts
David Giaretta >> (All): ...i.e. that was the intention of the text I proposed
JohnGarrett >> (All): If we don't use the frequency in the ISO standard, we 
can't claim that we are conformant to it.  However, we need to have a frequency 
that will work for the archives, so I don't mind having a different one.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - in the text I proposed some wording to the 
effect that the cycle time is as normal ISO audits but can be varied on 
agreement with the initial audit cttee
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, What clause is this?
David Giaretta >> (All): Let me check
JohnGarrett >> (All): The frequency for the museum standard was 10 years, which 
seems too long especially since we've seen that technology cycle is 7 years for 
hardware devices.
David Giaretta >> (All): This is in http://wiki.digitalrepositoryauditandcertification.org/pub/Main/ReqtsForAuditors/AuditorGuidelines-CCSDS-format-1.doc
David Giaretta >> (All): clause 8.1.1 b)
David Giaretta >> (All): "b)   surveillance and recertification audits of a 
client organization's TDR in accordance with ISO 19011 and ISO/IEC 17021 on a 
periodic basis, with exceptions agreed with the initial audit committee "
David Giaretta >> (All): That would mean we can still argue about it - but while 
the std is going through ISO and also I hope we will have some more experience 
in audits and in seeing the demand
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, is there a sense how long the initial audit 
committeee will reign supreme?  Or is it the initial audit committee formed for 
a specific repository audit that sets the cycyle for that repository?
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - I guess we had said that when the std is up for 
review in 3 years time then this would be changed.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
David Giaretta >> (All): ....Or we could call it the "principal audit cttee"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I thought ISO stds were on a 5 year review cycle
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, I am not sure how you reconcile 8.1.1.b. with 1.2.
David Giaretta >> (All): Oh OK - 5 years. Or as I say we could change it to be a 
"principal audit cttee"
Mark Conrad >> (All): 1.2   SCOPEThis International Standard specifies 
requirements and provides guidance for bodies providing audit and certification 
of a trustworthy digital repository (TDR), in addition to the requirements 
contained within ISO/IEC 17021 and <ISO XXXXX - RAC Document>. It is primarily 
intended to support the accreditation of certification bodies providing TDR 
certification.
JohnGarrett >> (All): They've recently changed the ISO review cycle.  Now there 
is a 3 year cycle for the first review after it becomes a standard and after 
that it is every 5 years.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, That makes sense.
David Giaretta >> (All): Thanks John
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - section 1.2 I guess I read it more loosely than 
you seem to since clearly we are not taking 19011 or 17021 word for word since 
we are specifying which bits of those appy in each section
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, that seems vague enough to allow the proposed 
flexibility
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, The words that make me take the view that I do are 
"in addition".
David Giaretta >> (All): We should change those words then
David Giaretta >> (All): ...e.g. in addition to those sections we explicitly 
call out..."
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Once the audit body(ies) is/are certified wouldn't they 
then have authority to address the frequency of audit cycles repository by 
repository?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Not and maintain conformance with 17021
JohnGarrett >> (All): How about "in addition many of the requirements of ISO/IEC 
17021 are adopted as specified in the later sections of this document"
David Giaretta >> (All): John - sounds OK
JohnGarrett >> (All): David's words also work for me
BruceAmbacher >> (All): anyone for "derived from" rather than "in addition"?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): If the Initial/Principal committee were to seek 
accreditation from ANAB, would all of 17021 necessarily apply?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Mark is correct, we won't be totally conformant to 17021, 
but that is OK if that is the closest we can come.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - I like it
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Does anyone have experience/contacts with ANAB?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): or parallel bodies?
RobertDowns >> (All): I agree that replacing "in addition to" with "derived 
from" appears more in line with our discussions.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): but would it "fly" with ISO?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do you think the CCSDS and ISO will go along with such a 
change? I thought that was the stumbling block.
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - anyone could object to what is proposed but I 
think we can only propose what we think is reasonable and see if it flies
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Is there a value in talking with ISO?  John, can anyone 
in CCSDS  help on tis?
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - I think it would be a stumbling block if we said 
outright that we adopt a 5 or 10 year cycle - in fact I would strongly object to 
that
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't see any problems getting it through CCSDS.  We may 
or may not get objections from ISO Auditing folks although I suspect they won't 
notice.  Even if they do, we as an ISO working group can respond to their 
objections and say we think this is what works for archives.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, I'd just go for it
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bruce, who in ISO do you want to talk to?  The auditing 
folks?  If so, I wouldn't raise the issue with them.  I'm pretty sure that would 
just raise the issue with them and then they would be more likely to pay 
attention to it and object and then we would need to go through the motions of 
preparing a reply to their comments and reject them if we wanted to hold to a 
longer review cycle.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I thought that ISO was the roadblock. We have been 
discussing this issue for months and the conversation has always come around to 
ISO would never accept anything other than full compliance with their existing 
audit standard. Now I am hearing there is wiggle room? Has something changed?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): John, I understand
Mark Conrad >> (All): So are we saying to proceed with one or the other of these 
suggested changes? If so, which one?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't think anything has changed.  I and maybe others 
wanted to maintain compliance with 17021, but I've been saying all along that 
would could set some other frequency.  
Mark Conrad >> (All): So how do we proceed?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I still thing for the long term compliance with normal ISO 
auditing standards will help the standard be accepted across a wider part of the 
community, but I know others think the longer frequency will help that.  And I 
understand that.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark, my approach was that (1) we need to stick to 
17021/19011 cycle time (2) a flat 3-5 years cycle in any case is not acceptable 
to me (3) since people seem so set on a longer cycle for some archives then I 
suggest we try to cut ourselves some wiggle room and see if that works
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David,
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think we decide on an initial frequency and write that 
into the standard and maybe allow the priniciple committee to change it. 
David Giaretta >> (All): John - an the frequency that is most in line with ISO 
audits is that in 19011/17021
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I think the major difference is that you are thinking in 
terms of large data repositories created by a large space/science project and we 
are thinking of much smaller repositories that do not have access to large 
funded projects where the use of standards is an everyday occurrence
David Giaretta >> (All): Expanding on (2) if the argument is that archives 
cannot afford it then I probably would not trust them. 
David Giaretta >> (All): The point also is that we do not know the costs
David Giaretta >> (All): I keep trying to make the case that we need to give 
ourselves time to gain experience in costs/ timings etc
David Giaretta >> (All): We can only really do that once we get the draft into 
ISO
RobertDowns >> (All): The size of the archive should not be the deciding factor 
for certification.
JohnGarrett >> (All): And remember this audit frequency is strictly the 
frequency for audits of archives that want to have an external body certify them 
and that also want to continuously maintain that certification with external 
audits.  Anyone can do self-audits or audits with groups of outsiders they pick 
on whatever schedule they want.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): A simple onsite audit by three onsite auditors - and the 
prep time involved  from the repository and the auditors - would cost tens of 
thousands-
RobertDowns >> (All): Only allowing large archives to maintain certification 
widens the digital divide.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): And this book is rules for the accreditating agency, 
not the archives themselves.
David Giaretta >> (All): My wording allows us to decide that on the basis of 
experience.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): It also will tie up management and professional staff 
for extended time to assemble the background info
JohnGarrett >> (All): The prep time is the (mostly the same) prep time 
regardless of whether the audit is internal or external.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): -thats Auditor Accreditation, right?
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, Not without a modification to the text at 1.2.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - we can channge 1.2 - why not
David Giaretta >> (All): as long as we make it clear we are part of the 17021 
approach
David Giaretta >> (All): If pluck a number out of the air now like 3 or 5 years 
then we will have lost the link to ISO
JohnGarrett >> (All): The first one is always the hardest, most costly.  It was 
like that with ISO 9000 here at GSFC.  There was a lot of noise and work for the 
first round.  Now our recertifications go on without much notice or attention 
except for those directly tasked with it.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So which of the two proposed revisions to 1.2 do we adopt?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Aside from the national archives and a handfull of 
industrial repositories and science repositories, the balance of digital 
repositories are relativel small and would not support and audit process similar 
to the ISO 9000 game.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - Bruce has something like "derived from 17021"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): If "derived from" would get noticed perhaps we coulkd 
use "based on"
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - how many organisations are  ISO 9000 certified 
David Giaretta >> (All): I guess I am assuming that most organisations have 
archives
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, Most archives are 1 or 2 person shops.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I am not aware of any digital repositories.  If any have 
it, it is derived from a corporate-wide ISO 9000 and/or 9003 process
BruceAmbacher >> (All): oops 9004
RobertDowns >> (All): Bruce's suggeston of "based on" to replace "in addition 
to" also works.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - but a lot of businesses rely on those archives 
for their intellectual and legal position!
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't think the very small archives will ever pay 
anything to be audited by outside organizations.  In that case they just use our 
metrics standard and self-certifiy themselves.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): or 'extends ISO 17021 into the realm of digital 
archive management?
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - I was not asking about archives with ISO 9000 - 
just organisations
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, That does not translate into adequate funding.
David Giaretta >> (All): John - good point - the only people who could force 
small arcives to be externally audited are their funders - and they are the ones 
who pay
TerryLongstreth >> (All): or maybe "...extends ISO 17021 into the realm of 
accreditation of digital archive management systems"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, John, I have gotten the Society of American 
Archivists to make the audit and certification standard one of the top three 
technology initiatives over the next 3 years.  A lot of small reporitories will 
know about it.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Can we pick a phrase for 1.2. and move on?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): or (3) "...extends ISO 17021 into the realm of 
accreditation of digital archive certification management systems"?
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - unless the 1-2 peopel are very very poorly paid 
then the audits would still be a small pewrcentage - also depends on the agreed 
scope
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I recommend Terry's phrasing but I am not sure I want to 
appear to limit it to magagement systems
David Giaretta >> (All): Terry - probably something short and sweet
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In the OAIS sense management is outside the archives
RobertDowns >> (All): That is why "based on" might be the simplest change.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): and I'm still confused over who this book is 
targeting: 1) the archive 2) the auditors or 3) the audit accreditation bodies?
David Giaretta >> (All): Robert - good point - "extends" could be read as 
another way of saying we take it all and extend it
TerryLongstreth >> (All): and 17021 is stricly about management systems
Mark Conrad >> (All): Terry, All three. Unfortunately it is often difficult to 
determine what applies to which.
David Giaretta >> (All): Terry - the book is targetted at the body which 
provides audits
David Giaretta >> (All): ...but is of interest to the other two groups also
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, The document has requirements for all three groups.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - but it is "Requirements on Bodies providing 
audit and certification..."
JohnGarrett >> (All): This standard is the standard for "accrediting" the 
organizations that perform external audits for and provide "certification" of 
DRs
Mark Conrad >> (All): The standard has requirements for all three bodies.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Then the frequency applies to how often the 
accrediting organizations are reviewed?
David Giaretta >> (All): John - so in a real sense it is for the level above the 
bodies which provide...
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - why do you say it has requirements on all 3?
JohnGarrett >> (All): No, the frequency applies ot how often the auditing body 
needs to re-audit the TDR to continue to grant the certification
RobertDowns >> (All): Should we see if we have consensus on replacing "in 
addtion to" with "based on" in the first paragraph of section 1.2 SCOPE.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): And we inspect certified auditors to ensure They, in 
turn, are revisiting the Archives with the prescribed periodicity?
Mark Conrad >> (All): There are requirements for the archives in preparing for 
the audit (among other things.) There are requirements for the external 
organizations that carry out the audits (qualifications, etc). There are 
requirements for the body that certifies the external auditing organizations 
(qualifications, etc.)
David Giaretta >> (All): Robert - I vote for "based on"
JohnGarrett >> (All): We wouldn't inspect the certified auditors.  They would 
normally be accredited by a national organization "ANAB", I think in the US.  
That national organization would "audit the auditors" to see that they are doing 
there job.
RobertDowns >> (All): I also vote for "based on".
Mark Conrad >> (All): me too
JohnGarrett >> (All): But then that assumes that there are any auditing 
organizations that want to be accredited to do this.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): me too
JohnGarrett >> (All): "based on" is acceptable to me.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): So the book we're producing is guidance for ANAB?
David Giaretta >> (All): John - I assume we will have the "initial audit cttee" 
i.e. us to begin with
David Giaretta >> (All): ...then we would create national equivalents once we 
have built up the number of auditors
David Giaretta >> (All): ...then those bodies would be accredited by the 
national accreditation bodies
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I expect there will be an initial audit committee.  
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes as you say.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The fact that we have been at this for months and we don't 
have consensus on the purpose of the document or the target audience is...
David Giaretta >> (All): The "initla audit cttee" would be accredited by some 
international forum
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - I don't think that's fair!
Mark Conrad >> (All): Why?
David Giaretta >> (All): ...we have been following a well tried route that other 
ISO stds have followed
David Giaretta >> (All): ..and they have managed to set up appropriate bodies
Mark Conrad >> (All): This chat suggests we are not all on the same page as to 
what it is we are putting together.
David Giaretta >> (All): The Metrics doc could be attacked in the same way - who 
is it for?
David Giaretta >> (All): The point is that there is a process/processes and 
certain organisations have to be accredited to show where trust derives from. 
These standards lay out the criteria for that.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The Metrics document lays out requirements for running a 
TDR.
David Giaretta >> (All): The docs have a primary purpose - but of course others 
will be interested.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - the metrics doc is for the auditors
David Giaretta >> (All): ...but is of interest to archive managers
David Giaretta >> (All): #...so were we confused?
David Giaretta >> (All): .....I don't think so
JohnGarrett >> (All): It is disappointing that all the individuals participating 
don't have the same view.  But it is often the case that the words used 
sometimes are read differently by different people.  It's not that unusual, but 
it does need to be an effort to get us on the same track.
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - it is always possible to spend years onm these 
things
BruceAmbacher >> (All): The metrics are what ISO approves as the items to aspire 
for as a digital repository..  Those repositories that choose to be audited will 
be measured against the metrics on the basis of procedures established in the 
auditor's handbook.  Both are "open" for all parties to understand what the 
metrics are and how they will be audited for compliance.
JohnGarrett >> (All): The scope says that it "provides guidance for bodies 
providing audit and certification of TDRs"
David Giaretta >> (All): My approach was to get thios into ISO - get other 
people's views and also get some practical experience
RobertDowns >> (All): Attaining agreement on the scope is important and it 
appears that we have agreement to replace "in addition to" with "based on" in 
the first paragraph of 1.2 SCOPE. Does anybody disagree?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): The bodies providing Audit and Certification must 
follow 17021, as amended by these guidelines...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Does anyone know if other disciplines have discipline-
specific auditors or rely on generic auditors trained to measure conformity to a 
metric?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I prefer "based on" rather than "as amended by"
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Does Terry's language make reviewers think "what ahs 
been amended?  How far have they strayed?
David Giaretta >> (All): Terry - we have specified which bits of 17021 apply - 
not sure which pieces have been missed.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I vote for based on
David Giaretta >> (All): What about 8.1.1 b) wording?
JohnGarrett >> (All): It does for me.  It also gives me the impression that a 
lot was changed when in most cases we completely adopted the 17021 requirement.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): I assume that the term derives from financial  and 
business accounting practices.  There are nationalsand international large and 
complex bodies of rules for auditing resources of all types.  But ISO 9000 and 
its descendants, including 17021, appear to place much more emphasis on 
management practices, and less on resources and inventory accounting correctness
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, I do not see a 8.1.1b
David Giaretta >> (All): which term?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): That was in reponse to Bruce's question about other 
disciplines
David Giaretta >> (All): Bruce - bullet point b) in secton 8.1.1
TerryLongstreth >> (All): sorry, tryihng to keep up; "audit"
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, b)   surveillance and recertification audits of a 
client organization's TDR in accordance with ISO 19011 and ISO/IEC 17021 on a 
periodic basis, with exceptions agreed with the initial audit committee for 
continuing conformity with relevant requirements and for verifying and recording 
that a client organization takes corrective action on a timely basis to correct 
all nonconformities.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Terry, our audits may be rigorous but will probably not 
sue many of the same criteria and terms and methods of those bodies
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David, this is the language of what you sent us to:
BruceAmbacher >> (All): 8.1.1 The certification body shall maintain and make 
publicly accessible, or provide upon request, information describing its audit
processes and certification processes for granting, maintaining, extending, 
renewing, reducing, suspending or withdrawing certification, and about the 
certification activities, types of management systems and geographical areas in 
which it operates.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): There is no a or b in this document.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Bruce, It that the same document that David gave the URL 
for earlier in this chat?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes.  I copies, pasted into my search engine and got 
this
Mark Conrad >> (All): Look below the box.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Draft CCSDS Recommende Practice for"
David Giaretta >> (All): The text in the box is from 17021
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ah, well that is a real numbering issue two 8.1.1
David Giaretta >> (All): the text below the box is ours
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - unfortunately
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Ah so the box will disappear but can we have the smae 
number of should our numbers start after the standard's numbers?
David Giaretta >> (All): I think that would cause great confusion
TerryLongstreth >> (All): which?
JohnGarrett >> (All): The text in the boxes with the 17021 will not be in the 
final standard.  It will only be referred to from our standard.  I added the 
text in boxes to make it easy for us to review what the total requirements were.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Greater than the confusion caused when someone compares 
the ISO doc with our doc?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think our numbers should be as they are.  I think you 
will see that they make sense if the box is not there.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): In other sections don't we say ISO n.n.n through n.n.n 
apply than start with the next number?
David Giaretta >> (All): I guess the way we have it allows ISO 17021 to add say 
8.1.5 without affecting us
BruceAmbacher >> (All): See for example 7.4
JohnGarrett >> (All): Also it would be a formatting/editing nightmare if we 
changed our requirement numbering in ever issue of our document based on minor 
changes in underlying documents.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): all numbers would be linked to a specific issue date of 
17021
David Giaretta >> (All): 7.4 is consistent with 8.1
David Giaretta >> (All): Remember the original idea was that we copied text from 
another std to make our lives easy.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Right, but if on our review we wanted to update to the 
next 17021 issue, we might need to renumber our added requirements.
David Giaretta >> (All): Should have said 7.4 is consistent with 8.1 in terms of 
how the numbering is handled
David Giaretta >> (All): ANyway, what about 8.1.1 bullet (b) - I claim it is a 
minimal change, should cause no ripples yet allows us some wiggle room
Mark Conrad >> (All): In tandem with the change to 1.2. I have no problem with 
it.
David Giaretta >> (All): Excellent
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK
RobertDowns >> (All): I also agree that in 8.1, the clause, ", with exceptions 
agreed with the initial audit committee" offers us a way to move forward as long 
we change 1.2 to "based on".
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Where do we start next week?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): David, that's fine with me.  Do we have an explicit  
(chartering)  description fo r the Initial Audit Committee ? (I do think it 
should be in caps)
David Giaretta >> (All): Terry - there is some text proposed near the beginning 
of the doc
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I must sign off now.
David Giaretta >> (All): Next week - Monday - we could jump to the points 
flagged in the comemnts beginning in section 9 - in particulat 9.2.1
TerryLongstreth >> (All): David - IAC is only listed in the glossary.. 
David Giaretta >> (All): Looks to be the case
David Giaretta >> (All): DO we need it elsewhere?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): It's taken on some weight. I'd recommend describing 
it's role more fully somewhere, but I wouldn't hold up publication for it.
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK, I'll type at you next Monday.  Everybody have a good 
week. Bye.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): I'll sign of f now, too
David Giaretta >> (All): Terry - let's give it some thought
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye all
RobertDowns >> (All): bye

-- SimonLambert - 25 Jan 2010

Topic revision: r1 - 2010-01-25 - SimonLambert
 
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