 |
 |
That doesn't sound like an easy answer at all! Given that we all try to play nice with institutional funding, all you've said is that in an ideal world some other group will have a similar mandate. It doesn't get us (in all seriousness) anywhere. Hopefully our institutions have higher preservation goals! "collections policy" doesn't help at all--and may take us backward. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:39 PM, stuart yeates <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > On 18/05/13 01:51, Tim McGeary wrote: > >> There is no easy answer for this, so I'm looking for discussion. >> >> - Should we begin considering a cooperative project that focuses on >> emulation, where we could archive projects that emulate the system >> environment they were built? >> - Do we set policy that these types of projects last for as long as >> they >> can, and once they break they are pulled down? >> - Do we set policy that supports these projects for a certain period >> of >> time and then deliver the application, files, and databases to the >> faculty >> member to find their own support? >> - Do we look for a solution like the Way Back Machine of the Internet >> Archive to try to present some static / flat presentation of these >> project? >> > > Actually, there is an easy answer to this. > > Make sure that the collection is aligned with broader institutional > priorities to ensure that if/when staff and funding priorities move > elsewhere that there is some group / community with a clear interest and/or > mandate in keeping the collection at least on life support, if not thriving. > > Google "collections policy" for what written statements of this might look > like. > > cheers > stuart > -- > Stuart Yeates > Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/**library/<http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/> >