[Moims-rac] Today's Meeting

[Mark Conrad]

Posted on behalf of Bruce Ambacher:
 
My additional thoughts on the B2 rewrite:
B2.4.1 rewrite to say (in part): "...been used, in whole or in part, in
creating. . ."
B2.4.2 rewrite to say (in part): " if, any portion of an SIP . . ."
B2.5.1.3 and B2.5.1.3: my question here is whether repository general
standard operating procedure/operations manuals are considered part of
each specific documentation for this requirement?
B2.9 my question here is whether it is necessary to show how to amend
processes if needed to get PDI?
 
Missing requirements:  I did not see a requirement to actually create
the AIP, something like: "The repository creates the AIP in accordance
with its established procedures."  I could this placed where B2.8 was or
before B2.13.

 
Mark Conrad
Electronic Records Archives (ERA)
NHER 
The National Archives and Records Administration
Building 494 Second Floor
310 State Route 956
Rocket Center, WV  26726
 
Phone: 304-726-7820
Fax: 304-726-7815
Email: mark.conrad at nara.gov 
ERA Website: http://www.archives.gov/era/

>>> mark.conrad at nara.gov 6/23/2008 12:08 PM >>>

Simon,

Could you please post the chat and action items from today's meeting?

The chat from today's meeting is listed at the bottom of this message.
The majority of today's meeting was conducted via chat. We were having
problems with the audio. So the chat is a fairly complete record of
today's discussion. As you will see we made little progress today.

The action items for next time are to complete the action items that
were supposed to be completed for this meeting (23 June). Bruce and I
will do a conceptual walk-through of an AIP creation to see if B.2.
contains all of the mandatory requirements for AIP creation. In
addition, everyone is to post their comments for B.3.4 and all of B.4
by
next Saturday - 28 June. Katia has also requested that you re-poll
everyone for preferred day of the week, preferred start time, and
preferred length (60 or 90 minutes) for future meetings. For next time
we will meet at the same day and time for a 90 minute session.

Thank you very much for your help.

Mark

Marie >> (All): Hello
BruceAmbacher >> (All): hello
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): hello all
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello, Katia.
Bruce Ambacher >> (All): I got bumped off and have returned.
Marie >> (All): Yes I can
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Thanks.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Should we get started?
Bruce Ambacher >> (All): Where - B3?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, Did you say something? I could not hear
you?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): can you hear me?
Bruce Ambacher >> (All): no
Mark Conrad >> (All): No.
Marie >> (All): I can't either Katia
Marie >> (All): I do hear static
Katia Thomaz >> (All): sorr. i don t know why...
Katia Thomaz >> (All): but i can hee very well, ok?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): hear
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok
Katia Thomaz >> (All): yes
Marie >> (All): I haven't, it went to my junk mail (sigh)
Bruce Ambacher >> (All): Mark, I lost your voice.  I will reconnect
a3rd
time.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do you think it makes sense to replace section
B.2. with the text from the B2Rewrite.doc?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes
Marie >> (All): yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): and yes to section replacement.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Marie and Katia what do you think about the
section replacement?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i didn t understand de numbers B2.3.1, B2.3.2
and
so on. why?
Mark Conrad >> (All): These numbers were to signify that there was a
hierarchy of requirements and sub-requirements.
Marie >> (All): I didn't get the changes Mark, did you email them?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I e-mailed them. They are also posted with the
minutes of the last meeting.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): every section in a standard must be numbered
to
show its position and place within the hierarchy of that standard.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): in this level are they necessary? they made me
confused...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We should number them now and let a technical
editor bring it into compliance.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Agreed.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): are they subrequirements?
Mark Conrad >> (All): They are a breakdown of the requirement into its
component parts.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): They would appear to be now but may be raised
to
requirements by the technical editor
Katia Thomaz >> (All): this way we need to discuss and give examples
for
each one
Mark Conrad >> (All): Can you say more about that, Katia? I think that
the subrequirements are fairly self-explanatory. If they listed as
separate requirements, then I agree we would need examples for each
one.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): in my opinion, the document must present the
same
structure. so, if they are subrequirements, each one must be discussed
separetely. this way you don t know the references about the
discussion
and exemples...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Consistency also could have examples only for
a
requirement and all of its sub-requirements but with no examples for
each sub-requirement.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Katia, Does this mean you would prefer to keep
the
text of B.2. as it is presently written?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): look for example B2.3. we have only one
subdivison...
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mega-meeting is acting flaky for me today. 
Maybe vecause neither David or Simon are here.?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): yes, i prefer as it is presently written.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi,
Marie >> (All): Hi John
Katia Thomaz >> (All): hi john
Mark Conrad >> (All): That's one vote for replacing the text with
B.2Rewrite.doc and one for retaining the current text. John and Marie,
what do you think?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I"ve been having trouble connecting today.  Are
we
using audio?  I don't hear anything.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Good morning, John.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We have not been using audio because it keeps
dropping out.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Is this the B2 rewrite we discussed last week?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): according to availability matrix, david and
simon
would appear today...
Mark Conrad >> (All): John, It is with the changes that we discussed
last week.
Marie >> (All): I think David said he was going to be out at the last
meeting.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): David announced last week he would be in a
review and not be here.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I don't have a strong preference either way as
long as we are consistent throughout the document.
Marie >> (All): Yes, I agree with John, it says the same thing, though
I
do agree with katia that having only one subcriteria is kind of weak.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can we park the issue of adding examples until
we work through the document and see whether we establish any
sub-requirements in other sections?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): I have begun an initial analysis of B.1. and I
believe there will be sub requirements for at least some of the
requirements there.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Did anyone go through B2Rewrite.doc to see if it
had all of the mandatory requirements for AIP creation?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i think it had all the mandatory requirements
for
AIP creation
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Such an embarrassing question.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We talked about having volunteers do a
walk-through of an AIP to see if everything was there.
Mark Conrad >> (All): AIP creation.
Marie >> (All): I think we need a volunteer
Mark Conrad >> (All): Did anyone complete any of the action items from
the last meeting?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will be right back.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I'm back.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Did anyone complete any of the action items from
the last meeting? If not, do we want to continue with B.3.? At some
point I would like to get consensus on whether or not we should redo
other sections in the style of B2Rewrite.doc.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Its clear we are not prepared today.  Should
we
go back to Mark's email and do the assignments and reconvene next
Monday?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would like to know if we think we will move
faster or slower with a rewrite.  I vote for whichever can be
completed
the quickest.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do you want speed or do you want quality?
JohnGarrett >> (All): We have a commitment to have a new version of
this
document for our Group by October and the completed standard by next
March.  I don't see us hitting those dates.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, I sensed a concurrence last week.  The
re-read of B2 wa to confirm that and also to see if anything was
missing
from the ingest steps.
JohnGarrett >> (All): I want good enough quality to have a standard. 
It
doesn't need to be perfect.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): This all shows the desparate need for a
face-to-face multi-day meeting
JohnGarrett >> (All): The effort to get a certification standard
started
back in 2004 for TRAC to provide us a starting document.  And we've
been
trying to get something going in CCSDS since mid 2005 as a followon to
TRAC.  So we've been waiting 5 years for this already.  At our current
rate of looking at this, I would expect at least another 3 years
before
we get a standard out.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I prepared the rewrite to see the trees and the
forest. I also found what I believed to be missing (sub) requirements.
So far we have only completed one pass  through B.1.and two through
B.2.
If we adopt the style of the rewrite document going forward it won't
be
a rewrite.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Can 2 people volunteer to examine B2 fof
ingest
steps completeness from the perspective of their repository, with at
least one being an archives?
Mark Conrad >> (All): I can do a hypothetical walk-through. I am too
many years away from the Center for Electronic Records to know all of
their current procedures.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We set assihnments last week but there were no
designees for each assignment so they did not get done.  I am no
longer
at a repository so I can't do the ingest steps review either.
Mark Conrad >> (All): The action items other than the walk-through
were
for everybody.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I agree with Bruce that a multi-day face-to-face
meeting would be very helpful.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Is it worth it for me to do an initial rewrite
of
B.1. for next time?
JohnGarrett >> (All): If we expect to go the subrequirement route, it
is
worth it to do the rewrite.  But it might be better to do rewrite
first
on B3 and go forward.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We have not even discussed C have we?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): no
JohnGarrett >> (All): No we haven't.  We stopped before C when we did
our first rewrite into this form and started back at B1.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will do an initial analysis of B.3. for next
time.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): If we move forward, we may be able to
establish
a path and tone for a technical editor to see where sub-requirements
are
needed and/or to create them for our review.
Mark Conrad >> (All): John do you have suggestions for how we speed up
the process?
JohnGarrett >> (All): I would set a schedule for which items we review
each week.  Set a time limit on each item.  Say if we can't get done
in
45 minutes, we mark it as having issues and go on.  Only after we
finish
the document or only have we have specific recommendations for fixing
it
do we go back.
Marie >> (All): I like this. 
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I feel we must get into the other sections to
at
least know what mountains/mole hills await us.  Then we may be able to

assign sections for writing and review.  I second John's time limits
and/or topics for each webchat.
Mark Conrad >> (All): This presumes that everyone completes the action
items for the following wekk.
Mark Conrad >> (All): week
Katia Thomaz >> (All): i am prepared today.
Mark Conrad >> (All): How do we want to proceed today? or do we?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I don't sense a mood to continue, so lets
terminate the chat.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): what about returning to one hour meeting. for
me
UK 3:30 pm has been very difficult...
Mark Conrad >> (All): We went to 90 minute sessions to try and speed
up
the process. Do we want to cut back to 60 minutes? What do others say?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Will we be able to accomplish enough in 60
minutes when so many are so late signing on whether we start at :00 or
:30?
Marie >> (All): An hour and a half is fine with me, but would we get
more people if it was shorter or even at a different time?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Did we go over B3 already.?   Looks like we
already did and then went back to B2 again.
Mark Conrad >> (All): We have not completed B.3.4.
Mark Conrad >> (All): What time are we meeting next week? What are the
action items?
JohnGarrett >> (All): So we should be prepared with B3.4 and B4 next
time.
Mark Conrad >> (All): And the action items that were supposed to be
done
by this week?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): ok
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok
Marie >> (All): ok
JohnGarrett >> (All): Let's go ahead and keep 90 minutes at least for
next week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Who will volunteer to do a walk-through of AIP
creation for next time?
Katia Thomaz >> (All): and we can call for another "choice of day of
meeting" matrix
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I can't.  I no longer have NARA's current
procedures.  I can give it a conceptual look.
Marie >> (All): CRL does not have a respository.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Katia, Monday was established after a poll of
preferences.  We can always re-poll.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok, bruce.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, can you get Simon to reset the matrix
and
re-poll us?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. Everyone posts their comments for B.3.4 and
B.4. by next Saturday. Every one completes the action items for this
week. 
Katia Thomaz >> (All): and reassign the time
Mark Conrad >> (All): I will check with Simon about re-polling.
Katia Thomaz >> (All): don t forget to change the time too.
Mark Conrad >> (All): So for next week at least we will meet on Monday
and at the same time.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): yes.goodbye
Katia Thomaz >> (All): ok.
Marie >> (All): bye
JohnGarrett >> (All): OK goodbye 
Katia Thomaz >> (All): have a nice week. bye.
Mark Conrad >> (All): See you next week.


Mark Conrad
Electronic Records Archives (ERA)
NHER 
The National Archives and Records Administration
Building 494 Second Floor
310 State Route 956
Rocket Center, WV  26726

Phone: 304-726-7820
Fax: 304-726-7815
Email: mark.conrad at nara.gov 
ERA Website: http://www.archives.gov/era/

_______________________________________________
Moims-rac mailing list
Moims-rac at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-rac


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-rac/attachments/20080630/7cb424ab/attachment-0001.html