Notes from Megameeting 17th May 2010


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


Following last week's discussion, it was decided to make the "Requirements for Bodies" document compliant with ISO 17021 - this entails removing the text permitting varying of the recertification schedule.


  • David Giaretta to send around a version with the superfluous text taken out, as a candidate final document.
  • David Giaretta to circulate draft Memorandum of Understanding.

Transcript of chat

Much of the discussion took place orally, so the chat transcript is not a complete record.

David  >> (All): The only point where we "override" 17021 is the re-
certification schedule
David  >> (All): Otherwise we just "add"
TerryLongstreth >> (All): So, to summarize our discussion to this point: The 
powers and duties of the TAB are described in the Glossary
David  >> (All): Yes, that collects the info together about the TAB
TerryLongstreth >> (All): -- The 17021 shedule is folllowed strictly
David  >> (All): If we remove the ability of the TAB to vary the re-
certification schedule then we would be completely 17021 compliant
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, I think that is true
TerryLongstreth >> (All): and perhaps establish liaison with 17021 committee to 
get the schedule items relaxed
RobertDowns >> (All): Putting in an exception could help to initiate change
David  >> (All): So what's the decision?
David  >> (All): DO we keep 17021 schedule or allow a variance?
Mark Conrad >> (All): 17021 First edition was issued in 2006-09
David  >> (All): Of course in the review others could object one way or another
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Keep 17021
JohnGarrett >> (All): My preference is to follow the 17021 schedule, but if the 
rest of group wants a different schedule, I wouldn't object.
David  >> (All): I would prefer 17021 schedule but we may get comments in the 
review saying we should vary it - in which case we will have to deal with those 
Mark Conrad >> (All): If there is much demand for certification we will need 
quite a few auditors ASAP.
TerryLongstreth >> (All): If we offer a new schedule, it should at least be 
coupled to a change/exception request to the 17021 committee
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes, anyone could object in the review process, but we can 
review those comments and accept or reject them based on our consensus.
David  >> (All): Yes we can request a liaison with 17021 committee and 
especially if we get RIDS we can use that as the basis for a change request
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think it would be great to get a lot of response from 
people wanting audits.  I hope we could develop auditors and get them 
Mark Conrad >> (All): I have no objections to maintaining the 17021 schedule. I 
just believe it will be onerous for the auditors and the auditees
RobertDowns >> (All): The concern with the schedule could be addressed by making 
it less onerous
TerryLongstreth >> (All): I agree completely with Mark, which I hope will give 
us some leverage to make exceptions to 17021
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK, decision then is to stick with 17021 schedule
David  >> (All): OK
Mark Conrad >> (All): If that is the case, 17021 should be under review as we 
Mark Conrad >> (All): That would be good.
RobertDowns >> (All): Sounds fine with me, too.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Sounds good to me
David  >> (All): ACTION: DG: send around a version with the superfluous text 
taken out - as candidate final doc.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do we need to discuss the MetaArchive developments?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Can you type the number, please?
David  >> (All): 16363
David  >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): Thanks for the number. Do you want me to send a message to 
the Archives and Archivists listserv?
David  >> (All): Yes, but point to the Wiki page rather than ISO
David  >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): OK
RobertDowns >> (All): Is there a tentative timetable on the review.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Will do!
David  >> (All): query the iso site
RobertDowns >> (All):
SimonLambert >> (All): Sounds good!
RobertDowns >> (All): Would we provide a bronze certificate?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): Could be a TAB function to review and approve Bronze 
RobertDowns >> (All): How about a letter acknowledging self-audit?
TerryLongstreth >> (All): and with the Bronze letter, guidance on moving to 
Silver or Gold
Mark Conrad >> (All): Sounds good.
JohnGarrett >> (All): See you next week, bye.

-- SimonLambert - 17 May 2010

Topic revision: r1 - 2010-05-17 - 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