NDSA:Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - Revision history

Dlfadm: 8 revisions imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress

2016-02-11T19:19:19Z

8 revisions imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:19, 11 February 2016
(No difference)

Jbailey: /* Encryption Discussion and Storage Topics */

2012-03-07T13:39:58Z

Encryption Discussion and Storage Topics

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:39, 7 March 2012
Line 22:		Line 22:

	==Encryption Discussion and Storage Topics==		==Encryption Discussion and Storage Topics==
	*So far the conversations have been a success in ~~what~~ we are using the listserv more and gleaning key insights, however...		*So far the conversations have been a success in that we are using the listserv more and gleaning key insights, however...
	*2-3 weeks does seem to be the lifespan for these posts and more input/detail is needed before creating a summary document		*2-3 weeks does seem to be the lifespan for these posts and more input/detail is needed before creating a summary document
	*Ideas: There is an open question about if the email discussions are an end in and of themselves or if we want to try and glean insights from them to more broadly distribute and invite further discussion. Here are two ideas for how this might further develop.		*Ideas: There is an open question about if the email discussions are an end in and of themselves or if we want to try and glean insights from them to more broadly distribute and invite further discussion. Here are two ideas for how this might further develop.

Trow: /* Encryption Discussion and Storage Topics */

2012-03-07T13:05:12Z

Encryption Discussion and Storage Topics

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:05, 7 March 2012
Line 24:		Line 24:
	*So far the conversations have been a success in what we are using the listserv more and gleaning key insights, however...		*So far the conversations have been a success in what we are using the listserv more and gleaning key insights, however...
	*2-3 weeks does seem to be the lifespan for these posts and more input/detail is needed before creating a summary document		*2-3 weeks does seem to be the lifespan for these posts and more input/detail is needed before creating a summary document
	*Ideas:		*Ideas: There is an open question about if the email discussions are an end in and of themselves or if we want to try and glean insights from them to more broadly distribute and invite further discussion. Here are two ideas for how this might further develop.
	**Making these conversations public, such as on the NDSA blog		**Making these conversations public, such as on the NDSA blog: In this case, we could invite further discussion and share the ideas and principles we are working from.
	**Bringing in outside voices to comment, annotate our conversations (Scott Bradnor, David Rosenthal, Nancy McGovern, Bob Chaddock at NARA, archival and records mgmt community, banking and movie industry -- all mentioned)		**Bringing in outside voices to comment, annotate our conversations (Scott Bradnor, David Rosenthal, Nancy McGovern, Bob Chaddock at NARA, archival and records mgmt community, banking and movie industry -- all mentioned). Outside voices could help us see if we have missed identifying risks or strategies Value in taking it to the next level and having experts weigh in on it and have a forum for ongoing conversation.
	*Outside voices could help us see if we have missed identifying risks or strategies Value in taking it to the next level and having experts weigh in on it and have a forum for ongoing conversation.
	*Next topic: compression		*Next topic: compression
	*Priscilla will frame the question. Potential starting points:		*Priscilla will frame the question. Potential starting points:

Trow: /* OSS Conversation */

2012-03-07T13:02:22Z

OSS Conversation

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:02, 7 March 2012
Line 37:		Line 37:

	==OSS Conversation==		==OSS Conversation==
	~~Discussion:~~		It is clear that our group is not on the same page for what it is we want to do in and around open source software.
	*We still ~~need to define the~~ product ~~and the audience better for this topic~~. ~~Guidelines~~, best practices, or systematic decisions on build, buy, adopt decision around preservation structure infrastructure?
	*List out pros and cons of ~~certain approaches and the advantages & disadvantages~~ of ~~OSS.~~		*There were still questions about what our product should be. Do we want to produce guidelines, best practices, a list of considerations for systematic decisions on build, buy, adopt decision around preservation structure infrastructure? Do we want a checklist of a set of questions to ask when making decisions around open source software?
	*Do we want something summarizing common knowledge or something with more in-depth research and analysis?		*There were some good questions about scope: Do we want something summarizing common knowledge or something with more in-depth research and analysis? It was suggested that the former is really the only thing that is attainable, but it was also suggested that their may be something between the two.
	*~~Suggested that we send the short summary of~~ questions ~~from~~ the ~~wiki~~ to ~~Michelle Kimpton or McKenzie Smith for feedback~~.		*There were still some big questions related to the extent to which this should focus soley and directly on OSS vs. other kinds of systems.
	*Instead of a ~~generic list, a few key decisions might be~~ better ~~or creating a narrower checklist limited to environment of preservation~~
	*Do we loop in broader software evaluation decisions		After all of these questions the group decided that this needed to go out to a small group of members to hash out and better define and bring back to the group. Trevor volunteered to send a message out to the list to recruit for a small action team which could put together a proposal for how the group can proceed.
	*Perhaps we can tak FOSS4LIB and bring ~~it down~~ to a ~~lower, more granular level focused on preservation~~
	*Post to the ~~listserv~~ a ~~list of suggested criteria in evaluating OSS and we~~ can ~~work from there~~.

	==Action items==		==Action items==

Jbailey: /* Attending */

2012-03-05T15:42:14Z

Attending

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 5 March 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:
	*Aaron Trehub, Auburn University		*Aaron Trehub, Auburn University
	*Andrea Goethels, Harvard University		*Andrea Goethels, Harvard University
	*Nada ~~Yow~~, Columbia University		*Nada O'Neal, Columbia University
	*Priscilla Caplan, FCLA		*Priscilla Caplan, FCLA
	*Shawn Nicholson, Michigan State		*Shawn Nicholson, Michigan State

Jbailey at 15:37, 5 March 2012

2012-03-05T15:37:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:37, 5 March 2012
Line 36:		Line 36:
	**Compression also ties into format migration and vendor-neutral storage questions.		**Compression also ties into format migration and vendor-neutral storage questions.

	==OSS ~~Converstion~~==		==OSS Conversation==
	Discussion:		Discussion:
	*We still need to define the product and the audience better for this topic. Guidelines, best practices, or systematic decisions on build, buy, adopt decision around preservation structure infrastructure?		*We still need to define the product and the audience better for this topic. Guidelines, best practices, or systematic decisions on build, buy, adopt decision around preservation structure infrastructure?
Line 49:		Line 49:
	==Action items==		==Action items==
	*Jefferson to aggregate/summarize all encryption comments on the wiki (and will move all full-text emails into a google doc)		*Jefferson to aggregate/summarize all encryption comments on the wiki (and will move all full-text emails into a google doc)
	*Priscilla will formulate questions for the next conversation topic~~, revolving~~ around compression		*Priscilla will formulate questions for the next conversation topic which will revolve around compression
	*Trevor will send a note to the list to start formulating an OSS criteria for decision-making		*Trevor will send a note to the list to start formulating an OSS criteria for decision-making
	*Next call will be Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 2pm EST		*Next call will be Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 2pm EST

Jbailey at 15:36, 5 March 2012

2012-03-05T15:36:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:36, 5 March 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	*Nada Yow, Columbia University		*Nada Yow, Columbia University
	*Priscilla Caplan, FCLA		*Priscilla Caplan, FCLA
	*Shawn Nicholson		*Shawn Nicholson, Michigan State
	*Micah Altman, MIT		*Micah Altman, MIT
	*Linda Tadic, Audiovisual Archive Network		*Linda Tadic, Audiovisual Archive Network

Jbailey at 15:35, 5 March 2012

2012-03-05T15:35:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 5 March 2012
Line 46:		Line 46:
	*Perhaps we can tak FOSS4LIB and bring it down to a lower, more granular level focused on preservation		*Perhaps we can tak FOSS4LIB and bring it down to a lower, more granular level focused on preservation
	*Post to the listserv a list of suggested criteria in evaluating OSS and we can work from there.		*Post to the listserv a list of suggested criteria in evaluating OSS and we can work from there.

	~~'''Action Items'''~~

	==Action items==		==Action items==

Jbailey: Created page with 'Infrastructure Working Group Call, February 28, 2012, 2pm-3pm ==Attending== Trevor Owens, Library of Congress Karen Cariani, WGBH Jefferson Bailey, Library of Congress Dave…'

2012-03-05T15:34:58Z

Created page with 'Infrastructure Working Group Call, February 28, 2012, 2pm-3pm ==Attending== *Trevor Owens, Library of Congress *Karen Cariani, WGBH *Jefferson Bailey, Library of Congress *Dave…'

New page

Infrastructure Working Group Call, February 28, 2012, 2pm-3pm

==Attending==

*Trevor Owens, Library of Congress
*Karen Cariani, WGBH
*Jefferson Bailey, Library of Congress
*Dave MacCarn, WGBH
*Aaron Trehub, Auburn University
*Andrea Goethels, Harvard University
*Nada Yow, Columbia University
*Priscilla Caplan, FCLA
*Shawn Nicholson
*Micah Altman, MIT
*Linda Tadic, Audiovisual Archive Network
*Dean Farrell, UNC
*Corey Snavely, University of Michigan

==Agenda==
*Recap on the Encryption Discussion (and the storage topics conversation in general)
*Open Source conversations

==Encryption Discussion and Storage Topics==
*So far the conversations have been a success in what we are using the listserv more and gleaning key insights, however...
*2-3 weeks does seem to be the lifespan for these posts and more input/detail is needed before creating a summary document
*Ideas:
**Making these conversations public, such as on the NDSA blog
**Bringing in outside voices to comment, annotate our conversations (Scott Bradnor, David Rosenthal, Nancy McGovern, Bob Chaddock at NARA, archival and records mgmt community, banking and movie industry -- all mentioned)
*Outside voices could help us see if we have missed identifying risks or strategies Value in taking it to the next level and having experts weigh in on it and have a forum for ongoing conversation.
*Next topic: compression
*Priscilla will frame the question. Potential starting points:
**Is there an agreed-upon best practice for compression?
**When they "tar up" an API, it isn't compressed.
**Compression's impact on file structures as well as content.
**Compression can be internal to a format or can be a wrapper.
**Compression also ties into format migration and vendor-neutral storage questions.

==OSS Converstion==
Discussion:
*We still need to define the product and the audience better for this topic. Guidelines, best practices, or systematic decisions on build, buy, adopt decision around preservation structure infrastructure?
*List out pros and cons of certain approaches and the advantages & disadvantages of OSS.
*Do we want something summarizing common knowledge or something with more in-depth research and analysis?
*Suggested that we send the short summary of questions from the wiki to Michelle Kimpton or McKenzie Smith for feedback.
*Instead of a generic list, a few key decisions might be better or creating a narrower checklist limited to environment of preservation
*Do we loop in broader software evaluation decisions
*Perhaps we can tak FOSS4LIB and bring it down to a lower, more granular level focused on preservation
*Post to the listserv a list of suggested criteria in evaluating OSS and we can work from there.

'''Action Items'''

==Action items==
*Jefferson to aggregate/summarize all encryption comments on the wiki (and will move all full-text emails into a google doc)
*Priscilla will formulate questions for the next conversation topic, revolving around compression
*Trevor will send a note to the list to start formulating an OSS criteria for decision-making
*Next call will be Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 2pm EST