Re: diglib: Meeting minutes

[Carol Hixson <chixson@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>]

Two minor corrections to the future agenda setting: the name of the author
whose article has been cited is "De Stefano". Also, I wrote down that we
added "follow-up" as a future agenda item, meaning that we formally keep
track of action items we've set for ourselves and report on our progress.

I also wrote down some points under "consensus" regarding the storage
options that I wonder if I got right and if they should be included.
(I've copied Travis in so that he can look it over, too.) They
are:

1. we're not asking for a high-performance file server; this is being
conceived primarily as the storage point for the "master copy" of our
digital projects
2. availability - 2 hours downtime a week, maximum (already mentioned
elsewhere as JQ's suggestion but I thought we reached consensus on it)
3. redundant power supply desirable
4. understand how fast it will grow and take that into account in planning
(thus Normandy's survey), with the group sense that what  Systems outlined
here is probably realistically a short-term proposal (2-6 months)
5. understand how fast the hardware will be obsolete (the consensus on
this hardware being that it will be USABLE for 4 years but it might stop
being the primary server some time before then)
6. document procedures regarding configuration, backup, refreshing, etc.
as we go along
7. centralize the "master copy" storage to maximize efficiency of space
and staffing, recognizing that additional storage options may be
distributed at service points for ready access to "service copies"

Carol



On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Robert Felsing wrote:

> Please let me know of omissions, corrections, etc.  -- my multi-tasking
> (meaning minutes-taking) tends to break down in the context of an
> interesting meeting.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bob Felsing
> 
> ******************************************
> 
> 
> Digital Library Group Meeting 
> 2/14/01 
> 
> Attendance : Bob Felsing; James Fox; Will Harmon; Nancy Slight-Gibney;
> Normandy Helmer; Carol Hixson; JQ Johnson; Travis Ritter; Mark Watson;
> Colleen Bell
> 
> Mark convened the meeting with note of the fact that Sara Brownmiller will
> be mounting, on Libweb, a "digitalography" of messages, citations, source
> materials, products, etc. that are generated by Diglib in the course of its
> discovery and deliberation.
> 
> Tom Stave was not prepared to talk on the Government Documents/MAPS projects
> and did not attend the meeting.
> 
> Mark raised the issue of agenda setting for future meetings; possibilities
> include:
> 
> · A discussion of local database needs
> · Content software (specifically mentioned the UW content software)
> · Map digitalization
> · The Stephano article as a platform for discussion leading to an
> examination of digital principles and infrastructure
> · The Normandy  Report as a regular feature of the meeting.
> 
>  The remainder of the meeting focused on the mass storage proposal coming
> from Sara and Systems.   Travis described the configuration options and
> pricing for a storage server.  The discussion ranged from possible hidden
> costs (CH) to performance issues (JQ).
> 
> Initial calculation of costs (based on the Harmon example of a 300 megabyte
> image resulting from the processing and archiving of a fragile glass plate),
> in terms of digital storage would be approximately $2  per image (based on
> an estimated cost of $8 per gigabyte).
> 
> Discussion ensued on the (large) issue of the potential amount of storage
> needed by ongoing or planned library digital projects.  NH raised the issue
> of limitations, both in terms of budget and personnel.
> 
> Travis estimated that the storage technology represented in the Systems
> proposal would remain viable for the next 4-5 years. 
> 
> JQ expressed a preference for 99% availability of the storage server
> (figuring a couple of hours of downtime/maintenance per week is workable).
> 
> Discussion on the storage (digital warehouse) issue will be back on the
> agenda at the first March meeting.  This discussion, however, triggered an
> action item:  Normandy will conduct a quick survey of digital storage needs.
> This is critical to any projection that we might do in terms of storage needs.
> 
> 
> Minutes taken by BF
> 
> 
>