Well, I sure didn't expect to create a firestorm but I'm glad to see so much interest an issue that affects fellow Records Managers. Maybe I should clarify my query. Perhaps it's part of the same, but the question should of mentioned software license KEYS as well, which are in hard copy and soft copy form, depending on how the vendor provided it. I assume the same potential disposition rule would apply. At my level, I can suggest a retention period on the SF115, but there are far more smarter people at NARA that might have a different perspective and they will apply the disposition rule that they think is best.
Some folks made a great point that I didn't even think of and that is in regard to records created with software that might become obsolete/outdated, how would those records be accessed later? I'm not actually asking for an answer there, just making a point that my original question brought up some other interesting points.
Thanks everyone for some interesting dialog. I'm glad I found this forum and am learning a lot from you folks.
Dawn Cooper
Program Assistant
National CMOP IT Program Office
3675 E. Britannia Dr.
Tucson AZ 85706
520-209-3009
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jesse Wilkins
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question on retention of software licenses
Again, not a US federal records manager, but at least that portion cited
does not to me relate very well to a software license, which describes the
contractual obligations of the customer to the software vendor and which in
many cases does not obligate the vendor to any of the listed items except in
the broadest terms, e.g. "Warranty for this product is limited to
replacement value of the product."
Let me also play a bit of devil's advocate here - isn't "attempt to apply
the closest description" either a) the first step down the road to "big
buckets" (which I tend to agree with) or simply laziness? If licenses should
be a record, and I think that's a reasonable assertion, it should be covered
in a GRS. If it isn't, I don't think we should try to file the corners off
the square peg to fit it in that round hole - because hte next person will
file it differently to fit in a different hole, thereby defeating the
purpose, no?
Finally, I agree with Steve's point to the extent that NARA should be asked,
but I read the initial question as NARA's having been asked and not having a
better answer. I think the question that was asked was for this group to
weigh in on a) current practices and b) the reasoning behind them, in part
to inform that very decision. So with all respect, Steve, I think the
snarking is not really called for. You are of course correct in your
approach, but I see the list as just as defensible in the sense that you'd
tell the judge, "This is not simply what I think, but instead reflects RIM
standard/best/basic/defensible practices, across jurisdictions and
industries." Happy to go into court with the list behind me, given that all
of our responses were so close together (and many of them cited as well).
Regards,
Jesse Wilkins
[log in to unmask]
blog: http://informata.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jessewilkins
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
