Chapel Hill Technology Advisory Committee

[Evelyn Daniel <daniel AT ils.unc.edu>]

Terri and all,

The issues surrounding our email archive wherein we seem to have recently 
begun worrying about preservation and access to historical records are an 
immediate example for us of the much larger problem of preservation and 
access and records management generally for Chapel Hill -- and for all 
municipalities and businesses in general.

We backed into a really important issue.  Our own experience will help us 
understand the broader issue better.  If we can develop a workable solution 
for our small committee, it may have application to other groups.  There's 
a parallel here to our use of the listserv and the open meetings issue.

Evelyn

--On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 10:23 PM -0400 Terri Buckner 
<tbuckner AT ibiblio.org> wrote:

> To the group:
>
> Earlier today, Steve's first attempt to send the message below failed.
> Along with the correct address for posting to this list, I sent the
> following note:
>
> "FWIW, the technician (who is not part of this argument in any way and
> shall remain nameless), informed Joel and I yesterday that he was
> mistaken about the archives. It appears the deletion occurs through a
> two-step process; first the archives and then the full list. He has
> reinstated the list, I have verified membership and he is now working to
> recover the archives. No one there has done this before so we don't know
> how successful the effort will be, if at all."
>
> I find it very curious that none of this concern for the UNC list
> archives was raised when the decision to move the list to ibiblio was
> announced back in June. Had the question be raised then, I would have
> asked two questions. Should the archives be recovered, I think they
> still deserve discussion:
>
> 1. How long should we expect UNC to host these historical documents?
> 2. If our list communications are such valuable references, shouldn't
> the committee be urging the town IT staff to install its own email list
> application?
>
> Terri
>
>
> Steve Irving wrote:
>
> > Terri and all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I spent the weekend contemplating whether it would be productive to
> > respond to your latest salvo (Fri 8/26/2005 10:32 AM) in support of
> > deleting the supposedly non-existent UNC message archive dating back to
> > 2001. Although I’m still not convinced this will be productive by any
> > conceivable measure, the tipping point came when I went back to the UNC
> > listserv site and found that ch-tech-advisory no longer exists.

> > You stated (Fri 8/26/2005 10:32 AM):
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > According to the UNC technician assigned to the data recovery question,
> > "The ch-tech-advisory list is set to keep archives for only one day.
> > Since messages older than one day would automatically be purged each
> > night, there are no messages past that one day archive we'd have."
> >
> >
> >
> > This report is consistent with my own investigation of the UNC list
> > archiving capabilities ...
> >
> > ----------
> >
> >
> >
> > First, is this anonymous technician willing to come forward and discuss
> > the issue? I would like to know the basis for the “one day” comment, and
> > how this squares with the actual existence of an archive which far
> > exceeded one day. I would also like to know whether there is any
> > likelihood that the recovery will succeed and whether the recent
> > disappearance of our forum is a part of the recovery process or an
> > indication that the towel has been thrown in.
> >
> >
> >
> > Second, your own investigation of the UNC List archiving capabilities
> > does not appear to have been terribly thorough, or included the simple
> > steps provided in my earlier message (Thu 8/25/2005 8:36 PM), or made
> > use of your resources ? such as the Anonymous Technician ? at UNC.
> >
> >
> >
> > You go on to state (Fri 8/26/2005 10:32 AM):
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > If Steve found a full archive of the UNC list, I applaud his technical
> > skills and feel sure the UNC staff would be interested in knowing where
> > their archiving process is faulty.
> >
> > ----------
> >
> >
> >
> > No special technical skills were required (although I appreciate you
> > compliment and its thinly-veiled sarcasm), and I have not alleged any
> > fault in their archiving process, which seems to me to have worked just
> > fine until immediately after the messages were deleted.
> >
> >
> >
> > Last Wednesday evening, before the messages were deleted from the UNC
> > listserv, I took a snapshot of the cover page of the message archive.
> > This can now be viewed at
> > http://www.morgancreek.net/tc_unc_listserv/Messages.htm, and I hope it
> > will be useful in clearing up the misconceptions you and the Anonymous
> > Technician hold.
> >
> >
> >
> > My thanks to all for your forbearance, and apologies to any who find
> > this to be an unproductive rant.
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chtechcomm mailing list
> > Chtechcomm AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/chtechcomm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chtechcomm mailing list
> Chtechcomm AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/chtechcomm