I also think this is great. I have a few more suggestions to add to
Priscilla's.

Q9. This could be interpreted as applying to the organization's approach
to storage for anything, not just preservation storage. If we change
storage to preservation storage I think it would be clearer. (Unless it
was intended to ask about an organization's general approach to
storage).

Q20. I'm not sure what this one is asking. Many of our repositories are
both access and preservation repositories so services for both are
provided. Is this trying to ask if we provide separate storage systems
that provide access-only and preservation-only services? Or is it asking
if both access and preservation services are provided, or something
else?

Q21. I like Priscilla's idea of asking which services are provided
independently instead of lumping them together into sets. Can we also
strike the word minimal in the question? Maybe change to 'Which services
does your organization intend to provide for files in your preservation
storage?' or 'Which services does your organization currently provide
for files in your preservation storage?' if we want to see the current
picture.

Q23. I can interpret this question in 2 ways. Is it asking to prioritize
features/functions that we would want to be provided by a storage
solution? Or is it asking to prioritize these features/functions in
general for our preservation repositories? For example I would
prioritize having the ability to migrate file formats highly, but I
wouldn't necessarily expect that to be provided by a storage solution. 
Also if we can make it fit, it might reduce errors if we can add some
text above the 1 and 5 as a visual reminder of which end is the 'most
significant' value.

Thanks for putting this together Trevor.

Andrea

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The NDSA infrastructure working group list [mailto:NDSA-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Owens,
Trevor
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE] Draft NDSA Storage Survey for Comment
> 
> Hello Infrastructure Working Group Members,
> 
> Please take a few minutes before our call next week (Wednesday, Aug
> 24th, 1-2pm eastern) to take a look at the draft of the member storage
> survey I have put together.
> 
> As a reminder, the idea behind this survey is to take some of the
> preliminary themes and issues we found in the open ended questionnaire
> and workshop session and gather some simple descriptive statistics and
> numerical information about our storage systems to enhance the
document
> we have been drafting.
> 
> Consider sharing any reactions and feedback about the survey over the
> list before the meeting.
> 
> I imagine that this survey would be something we would distribute to
> NDSA Members who are responsible for preserving some set of content.
> 
> The following kinds of feedback would be particularly valuable:
> 1. Comments on any individual questions that are unclear.
> 2. Suggestions for ways to refine any of the questions to better focus
> any of the questions.
> 3. Suggestions for additional questions or questions that we should
add
> or remove.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Trevor Owens
> Digital Archivist
> National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program
> Office of Strategic Initiatives
> The Library of Congress
> 101 Independence Ave SE
> Washington DC 20540-1300
> 202.707.7217
> 
> 
> 
> ############################
> 
> To unsubscribe from the NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE list:
> write to: mailto:NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE-SIGNOFF-
> [log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
>
http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-
> INFRASTRUCTURE&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://list.digitalpreservation.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-DIGITAL.EXE?SUBED1=NDSA-INFRASTRUCTURE&A=1