Talk:Digital Library Workgroup

From WEFT Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Just to clarify, the main page, Digital Library Workgroup is not the place for discussion, opinions, and the like. We should let it contain the "executive summary" (hopefully embodied by the "Overview") and the exact proposal—the things we want the wider WEFT world to see. The rest happens behind the scenes, here. If your sentence begins with "I think" or contains the word "probably", I think it probably belongs on this page! —HorsePunchKid→龜 08:12, 4 January 2007 (PST)

Contents

Yannis's draft proposal

Hi all,

I'm adding my draft for a proposal/ideas of the project that I posted on various lists to make people aware of the project. Since I believe we should get as broad of ideas and input as possible I will also post the WIKI link to the same people I forwarded the draft to stir discussion.

Steve's initial WIKI is probably the best starting point since it lays out the framework to discuss technical details which I guess falls under Phase 0 of the proposal I submitted.

Yannis

Proposal to create digital audio archives of WEFTs audio collection

Motivation:

  • Technology pushes music industry towards digital/online media for music and audio products relevant to radio.
  • Technology also pushes for more advanced, efficient and automated ways of distributing audio products to the airwaves (i.e laptops, ipods, automated satellite receivers etc etc) creating playlists, browsing music content putting together music shows and podcasting them.
  • Our available building and shelving space at the WEFT building is limited and will continue to shrink fast with the continuous influx of CDs.

The Project:

Motivated by the above the Music Committee wishes to undertake the task of archiving digitally the music library at WEFT consisting mainly of our music CD collection. But it could possibly extend possibly to archiving our shows with immediate effect in our ability to podcast on the internet and as recently discussed archive meetings and functions and activities at WEFT. These last two extensions of the project would involve of course the Programming Committee and the Webgroup committee. By default this project involves the Building and Engineering committee and the Board of directors to coordinate funding, purchasing and installation of equipment to archive and access the content of our online digital music/audio library.

Implementation/phases of the project.

  • Phase 0: consists of crafting out a proposal on how to proceed with the archiving and how to organize it. This means deciding what equipment we will need, what budget and then how many human hours per week would be needed to put the project in effect. This proposal should also elaborate on the collaborations with other committees at WEFT ( i.e webgroup, building/engineering, PC) so that this project will entail so as to maximize its usefulness to WEFT.
  • Phase 1: Will consist of starting to archive new music at WEFT.
  • Phase 2: Will consist with starting to archive already shelved or culled music. Phase 2 will after a certain point will be done concurrently with phase 1.

Timeline

Phase 0 should be completed and by completed I mean a complete proposal will be submitted to the Board before the next Board meeting scheduled for Monday January 8, 2007. In more detail:

By December 25, 2007 all possible parties involved will have been notified by email and/or in person by the chair of this subcommittee (i.e Yannis) about this project and asked to give their input, suppor, criticism and ideas towards it. These parties involve but not limited to the following:
  1. Board of Directors (funding, legal issues)
  2. Station Manager (coordinate all possible people, processes involved and affected)
  3. Building and engineering Committee (purchasing/installation, front studio renovation)
  4. Webgroup (coordination of database with website)
  5. Programming Committee (playlists, archiving shows, podcasting)
  6. WEFTA (involve all the Associates and those not on committees or on the Board)
  7. WEFT WIKI (start of an online forum to discuss publicly all the aspects of this project)
By January 8, 2007: A preliminary proposal addressing all the issues will be given to the Board of Directors.

Phase 1 can start immediately as soon as we have our initial equipment ready. this consists of getting our first storage device connected with the WEFT computer. And then new music on the shelves will start getting archived, while new CDs coming to the Station will be getting archived weekly or as soon as the genre directors and their assistants will get their hands on them. —2006-12-25 19:36:30 User:Yannis

I haven't had time to read this all, so please don't consider this a response to the content of your proposal. You need to make an effort to incorporate these thoughts into the actual page, though. Feel free to add/edit/delete to your heart's content; that's just how the wiki is supposed to work! By having this here, on the talk page, instead of on the main DLW page, you've basically forked the project, and we don't need two parallel discussions at this point.
I'll try to read through this and make sure that your ideas here are also on the main page, but please take some time yourself to work on that, too! Using the wiki is easy, and always remember that you won't do any damage that can't be undone (if you're playing around with formatting and that kind of thing).
Lastly, when you're "talking" on talk pages like this, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. That lets us keep track of who's saying what. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:04, 25 December 2006 (PST)

Organization of this page

I agree that a lot of the above is content for the wiki topic rather than discussion about the content for this talk page. I also have some confusion about the topic itself -- are we discussing the workgroup, the workgroup's work, or the end result of the work? For example, my initial thought was "Aha, we're going to catalog our current collection, say by using Delicious Library. But the proposal seems to be about converting the content to different storage media. The base page could use some concise statements of goals. Feldman 08:20, 26 December 2006 (PST)

Thanks for chiming in. I was worried, too, that it would not be clear if this page was about the workgroup or the actual proposal. When I get a chance (later today?), I'll try to split them out, and this page will link to the actual proposal, leaving just our broad goals here. —HorsePunchKid→龜 10:11, 26 December 2006 (PST)

The proposal process

As a subcommittee of the Music Committee, the DLW is tasked with discussing needs and goals, long term and short term, and to report back to the MC with draft language of a possible plan to meet those needs and goals. That language will be reviewed, given feedback, and refined before any appropriate MC project continues. That can mean "we want to have all of our music collection on a computer accessible to the studio" or it can mean "we want an index to help search for music out in the library". The question "what do we need?" is part of the task. The intent is for the Workgroup to discuss those things and come up with a reasonable forward-looking plan. --Jay 15:24, 26 December 2006 (PST)

By no means did I intend to split the discussion.
I put up this proposal up to have it as beginning for our deliberations. Later I came accross Steve's draft on the WIKI he created as you can see both proposals have similar approach (as to the staging of the project) but Steve's touches more technical and detailed issues since mine was more meant as a communications tools to notify all possibly interested people of what we have started so I could not be very technical without making my initial document too hard to read.
Please from now on refer to the first WIKI post by Steve Severinghaus for deliberations on this matter. Later we might incorporate language from the two documents (which are very identical in content and spirit according to me) to finalize our proposal.
A final thing. I would like to ask Jay as Chair of the MC and Steve as the main collaborator in this project and everyone else involved in this project for permission to give a 1 minute presentation to the Board next Week at their meeting just to let them know of what has been going on in our mind and get an initial reaction from them. I would give rough numbers as to how much money each phase would include, how many human hours needed and how much time to digitize the Music content of our library. I will also try to send an email to the weftm list but I will first check in a couple of days if anyone has posted on the WIKI first, to minimize email traffic. --Yanni Chill 16:07, 2 January 2007 (PST)
I feel that it is ineffective (or even counter-effective) to go to the BoD with rough numbers and an idea that is still under-developed. While Yannis did comment on some of the questions raised on the DLW page there is still a lack of concrete answers for those questions. It is much easier to talk about the details in general terms, but ultimately the details will have to be fleshed out before any funds are allocated. Another reason why I would not make a presentation on this to the BoD at this point is that the same questions will be raised there, and you will not have the answers. Why not take the time to think it through and take it to the second January meeting and be prepared to answer in-depth questions? Z-francophiliac 19:09, 2 January 2007 (PST)
I have responded under sense of urgency below. —HorsePunchKid→龜 09:30, 4 January 2007 (PST)
By the way, a "1 minute presentation"? At a normal rate of about 150 words per minute, that comprises a paragraph about the size of Zhenya's above. I cannot imagine that being at all useful to the Board. —HorsePunchKid→龜 11:12, 4 January 2007 (PST)
As Steve mentions below, and as Zhenya mentions above, I do feel that it will be counter-effective to approach the Board at this point in time. At the moment the "plan" (so to speak) is simply "buy a hard drive and start ripping music". There are dozens of questions that go along with that notion that haven't even been asked, much less addressed. The entire point of a subcommittee is to figure out what those questions are so that they can be addressed succinctly and in advance. To do otherwise is a waste of both the Board's and the subcommittee's time.--Jay 09:47, 4 January 2007 (PST)

I disagree and here is why. As with every project you don't get to optimize what's the best way go go about things until you get it started. The bulk of work of this project is the digitization process. How this will be done is already set. Computer digitizes to a hard drive. IT IS CRUCIAL TO FIGURE OUT what are the dynamics of this digitizing process before talking about networks, databases etc etc. We cannot have specifics if we don't start digitizing. Since it is SO inexpensive to get it started I think we should make that request ASAP. In the meanwhile we will have 1,2 months to flesh out other details. BY THE WAY BOTH JAY AND ZHENYA CLAIM THERE ARE UNDEALT QUESTIONS and for the reason we shouldn't go early to the Board, yet neither of them raises any issues... other than try to impede my enthusiasm and sense of swiftness about this project.

And a final note. Jay take recuorse to the minutes, John Wasson alread seconded in his email that the Committee and you personally agreed that I act as coordinator of the committee. You also said you don't want to be involved at least when I asked who wants to be in the subcommittee you didn't express interest, while John, Amir and Steve (and me by default) and NOONE else has expressed interest, even though all of them people on the MC. We have a discussion forum but chosing communication rules, fora etc, name etc was not decided by the subcommittee either... yet it seems that you want a priori to set some rules and limitations even though you are not on the subcommittee... This looks strange to me.

I am coordinating the subcommittee as we speak and while I'm coordinating things will move fast. If you want to have one meeting to say we will form a subcommittee, another meeting to decide who is going to be in it another meeting to decide on rules, another meeting to discuss the rules, another meeting to bring a preliminary proposal... etc etc... no wonder it's been 5 years this issue has not been dealt with and no wonder it might take another 5 years to resolve it.

We have acquired a good momentum so far... despite some initial friction, please contribute to that momentum don't try to impede the process. Ok?

I would greatly appreciate it. Also... since I'm coordinating the subcommittee if you take any steps to communicate people about the project pelase be courteous enough to carbon copy me. I will be much obliged.

Now back to the issue at steak... —2007-01-08 16:31:22 Yannis

Yannis, I have asked you before; please sign your comments in the manner that everyone else here is, by typing ~~~~ at the end. I know we're all learning here, but this is not hard! :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:49, 8 January 2007 (PST)

(YC) First of all I start all my comments with my initials i.e (YC) and end them with the automatic sign button that the WIKI editor provides... I will try the code you provide but I have not seen it anywhere. --Yanni Chill 22:43, 9 January 2007 (PST) Let me try it ~~~~

(YC) I guess sometimes the signature works, sometime not. More accurately one time it didn't. I pressed the same button Now let's continue...--Yanni Chill 23:35, 9 January 2007 (PST)

There are a number of serious and very misleading factual errors in your statements above, Yannis. Please take the time to read over the discussion on this page again if it will help avoid such mistakes in the future.
  1. You claim the digitization process is already "set". There are obvious gaps in the description of Phase 1: What software do we rip with? Who does the ripping? How does music get into the library? How do we ensure quality (rip and metadata)? This just off the top of my head.

(YC) As for software, I guess we will be working within Linux so if we want to do it in two stages ripperX, cdparanoia do the encoding of a CD to wav format and then using lame -parameters you can encode it to mp3 with any quality you want. There is also software i.e Cd2mp3 that does it in one step. But according to me the best way would be to install VMware and run windows virtually on top of Linux so people think they are running Windows (so you can do the ripping with windows media player on top of linux. I have no idea how much would a single license of VMware would cost but I know how to get a copy for free. The quality issue is not of phase 1. We are supposed to encode both 192 kbps and 128 kbps and test it on the airwaves to see if it makes any difference. We can consult the radio station that broadcasts at 94.5 since they are digital radio and see what they have to advise us. As for the library... we can create a directory structure which initially will only be accessed by the Workgroup. In phase 1 we won't spend too much time ripping many CDs. We will test the entire process and all the parameters. Without the Hardware we can do NOTHING! This is what I meant that the setup is set. The hardware setup. After we have the hardware we have many options about software which we will have to experiment with to find the optimal solution. Please make an effort to synchronize with me and understand what I'm saying. Don't try to constantly be antagonistic. --Yanni Chill 23:35, 9 January 2007 (PST)

  1. You claim that Jay and Zhenya have not raised any specific issues that haven't been dealt with. This is clearly untrue. For example, Jay has commented on a number of the Phase 1 issues, none of which have been resolved: compression quality, filesystem versus database, protection of the mp3s from willy-nilly copying. I have gotten essentially no feedback on the brainstormed proposal I made, so it would be irresponsible to consider any of those issues resolved.

(YC): Once more you misunderstand and misquote me. I claimed we are set to start phase 1. I never said all those issues have been dealt with. Without jumping into phase 1 we won't know the answers. I think it's more than clear that if we could figure out the details without trial and error, we would already have the proposal. My effort is to get us in a position where we can work on resolving those questions. So my goal is to secure we have the equipment to start experimenting as soon as possible. I don't care about personality issues or authority issues. I only care about the project. I care to get it under way in a swift manner. Also I'm not at all willing to compromise rigor and attention to detail for the sake of speedy completion, but to start talking concrete and not just theories WE NEED THE HARDWARE TO JUMPSTART PHASE 1. PHASE 1 involves only the DLW. nobody else. As far as crafting phase 2,3 we need to involed more people. In the meantime as John Anderson has pointed out we need to stay in sync with the front studio renovation people to make sure the potential needs of the Digital Library project do get some consideration in the planning and implementation. --Yanni Chill 23:35, 9 January 2007 (PST)

  1. You refer to the minutes just sent out. The minutes—proposed, not official—were flawed in their coverage of the issues that you referred to (organization of the subcommittee); I have sent out proposed corrections and clarifications.

(YC) Gee I don't know Steve, in the minutes, I, John, Tish and not only us understood that (and Jay did not contradict) that I will coordinate the subcommittee. As you can see so far I have taken no authority decisions excpet to direct communications. So I really don't see how I'm violating anybody's rules by taking voluntary initiatives which the committee acknoweldged me taking. Sure when we get to sit down all of us (we don't know who is in the subcommittee and who isn't officially...) my email to the WEFTM solicitng people got stopped at Jay's email account... Come on! At least spare me the bullshit "rules" and "authority" talk and focus to the task at hand. Not just you, all of us. I've heard more things trying to dictate me how to talk, or who to talk to other than the important details of the project. I've heard more rhetoric on why we shouldn't talk to the Board because there are unresolved "issues" rather than specifics on what the issues are and to what phase of the project are they relevant to. As I said the issues Jay has pointed out are not relevant for phase 1. So claiming that based on those we will stall our request to get the initial hardware to do our research is not an efficient way of going about our business. --Yanni Chill 23:35, 9 January 2007 (PST)


  1. You claim that Jay personally agreed that you coordinate the committee, which is contrary to everything I have heard and read outside your own claims. For example, Jay says right here on this page:
"I will repeat what I have told you twice now. You are not coordiating the subcommittee. The proposal was for the creation of a subcommittee, and you offered to coordinate. Offering and being granted the authority are two seperate issues." (emphasis in original)

(YC): I know we are volunteer committee and volunteer organization in general. There is a subcommittee formed and I am the only one volunteering to direct it. The Chair agrees and accepts my volunteer offer... I don't know what else to say to you. A posteriori, Jay tried (even though he is not part of the subcommittee) to jump into the subcommittee's business and try to dictate rules... even though he claims we haven't set any yet!!!!!!! --Yanni Chill 23:35, 9 January 2007 (PST)

  1. You claim that Jay is not a member of the subcommittee. Jay has repeatedly participated in discussion (as you acknowledge, and a quick glance at the history of these pages suggests he's participated more frequently than you!), and membership is open to any MC member interested in participating. Jay may not wish to participate any further at this point (I don't know), but it seems unreasonable to not consider him a member until he declares it himself.

(YC) Discussion is open to everyone. The subcommittee is based on voluntary participation. I think that differentiates the two. Jay's input is very welcome and he is a savvy person about these issues and I want him to contribute. But I don't want him to waste his time, my time and our time trying to be the Dictator of the DLW, just because he is the MC chair. The MC chair should act conducively to the subcommittee's work and not create problems where there are none. --Yanni Chill 23:35, 9 January 2007 (PST)

You make a number of other dubious or at least debatable statements that are more subjective in nature (e.g. the great speed with which we're making progress

(YC): I never said we make progress at great speed. This is your misinterpretation of my statements. I said so far we've done good work laying many issues out and giving answers to many crucial questions, structuring the phases of the project, so early on even during holiday season. This is encouraging. I didn't imply anything more. Don't become the one with the dubious statemets Steve. --Yanni Chill 23:35, 9 January 2007 (PST)

under your supposed leadership), but given the simple lack of accuracy in your objective claims, I don't see any point in addressing them. Can we get back on topic and try to make some progress? —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:54, 8 January 2007 (PST)

(YC) I said from the beginning to me there is no issue of leadership nor did I ever claim I am to be credited for the contributions already made to the project. I want some things to move swiftly especially communications with relevant parties, advocating the project to funding agents (Treasurer, Station, Manager, BoD). Given the fire I've received so far for trying to advance the project I should have done none of that. On the contrary I've refrained from answeting many flame emails on weftm and trying to keep silent at many of the attacks. I'm trying to do the job I volunteered for as quietly as possible and as efficiently as possible. I don't think I've stepped on anybody's toes yet except to defend myself against these unreasonable and repeated attacks that I receive in orchestration from some of you, while you act as laweyers of the others in rounds. I repeat again, power games and authority controls, is not my interest. I hope we will soon get over these and focus only on the task at hand. I would appreciate if people addressed the issues they raise and not try to advocate or be lawyers on behalf of others. This way the discussion will be more efficient. Let's make an effort to read beyond the lines (because not everything can be relayed fully in email or on the WIKI) let's just be good willed, help each other and treat each other cordially. Even though I don't feel I have been treated that way these first 3 weeks on the project, I do not want to waste time and energy dwelling over it. I would really appreciate it if we just focus our energy in unison to thr task at hand.

Do we agree we need to get the initial hardware as soon as possible so we can set up our laboratory to figure out what is the optimal way to resolve all the important issues (software, implementation, ripping time, filesystem, security) we have laid out so far? I think if we don't we will keep contemplating and theorising without achieving anything. Each issue may have 2 or 3 ways it can be approached. We need to have a basis to try different solutions before we come up with the optimal. That's why I insist we need to request and obtain the funds to start Phase 1 ASAP. Do we agree?--Yanni Chill 23:35, 9 January 2007 (PST)

(JW) To me - and I'll reiterate this at the Music Committee meeting - what we think we understood at last month's MC meeting about subcommittee structure and leadership isn't nearly as important as what those who are actually active on the subcommittee are comfortable with. I would absolutely HATE to see this discussion degenerate into an argument about who is "in charge". --Jbw292002 02:09, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Sense of urgency

A separate comment on the sense of urgency I'm seeing in Yannis comments. I don't feel that any urgency exists or that any time would be gained by bringing an incomplete proposal to the board. They have plenty of things to discuss and work on and one more topic that is not ready for their review will only take away time from other tasks at hand... Z-francophiliac 19:16, 2 January 2007 (PST)

I agree. Jay has voiced his concern on this, too, though I'll let him speak to it here if he wishes. Yannis wants the proposal (for phase 1) more or less done, perhaps not polished, by Jan. 8 (four days from now). Given that most of what we have so far is discussion and opinions, I don't think it's realistic to expect a serious proposal by then. As Jay has also pointed out, I believe, there is simply no way to get onto the BoD's agenda at this point. They have other things to deal with right now; not so bad, perhaps, because that gives us time to flesh this out in more detail and give them something that we know we've put our best efforts into.
While I think Yannis has very good ideas, I'm absolutely against him or anyone else making a report as a representative of this workgroup to the BoD during the meeting. You can certainly voice your own thoughts during the BoD meeting in whatever way their format allows, but you (whoever "you" might be) must make it clear that you do not speak for the workgroup. —HorsePunchKid→龜 09:21, 4 January 2007 (PST)

(YC): Guys do not misunderstand me. I'm not going to bring a proposal to the Board on Monday. I want to relay the ideas we've been deliberating about and informing them about the project. I will do it personally and not as part of the MC if it bothers people, but seriously I cannot see why keep it secret. I also do not see why people (as Jay suggested) are getting pissed off at my messages on the various lists. It seems to me people have personal issues with me (if that is indeed the case) rather than problem with my messages which refer to a VERY important project at WEFT. I think Engineering, Station Manager and the Board need to know ASAP of what is going on in our heads. And yes if it is ok with them fund us the necessary couple hundred bucks to get started. Mick has been encouraging to invest in any equipment and I think this kind of money is readily available. We don't need to wait until all the other important details are being discussed. --Yanni Chill 14:51, 5 January 2007 (PST)

Yannis, this project is not secret: we've given the Associates the link to this page and it is on the wiki where anyone in the world could read it. I think it is OK to tell the Board we're working on the project, but from what I've seen of your contributions in terms of concrete information/calculations/etc. I can't see how you could answer specific questions with anything but vague answers. --Z-francophiliac 15:22, 5 January 2007 (PST)

(YC) Where people are involved there is always a way. At least I will try to get some time on the audience comments section --Yanni Chill 14:51, 5 January 2007 (PST)

(YC) I clarified I do not intent to make any appearence as having authority or representing the MC or the subcommittee, even though I will mention that I am coordinating the subcommittee. Also can someone please bring John Anderson on board the WIKI discussion? I don't want to have to email WEFTM to reach him.--Yanni Chill 14:51, 5 January 2007 (PST)

I will repeat what I have told you twice now. You are not coordiating the subcommittee. The proposal was for the creation of a subcommittee, and you offered to coordinate. Offering and being granted the authority are two seperate issues. No meeting of the subcommittee has occurred in which a decision on self-organizing could be made, much less a wiki- or email-based conversation to the same effect. As you have explicitly ignored my previous comments on this issue, it will be directly dealt with at the next MC meeting. --Jay 10:59, 7 January 2007 (PST)
Additionally, the board is well aware of the project. Not only have you already sent it out to all WEFT mailing lists, but I have notified the board as to it's existence in my monthly report. I have personally discussed it with four board members, and a fifth was at the MC meeting wherein the subcommittee was created.
Also, I have indeed invited John to participate, however he has thus far declined. While I hope that he will choose to do so in the future, I am personally not inclined to pressure him. --Jay 15:25, 7 January 2007 (PST)
(JW) To me - and I'll reiterate this at the Music Committee meeting - what we think we understood at last month's MC meeting about subcommittee structure and leadership isn't nearly as important as what those who are actually active on the subcommittee are comfortable with. I would absolutely HATE to see this discussion degenerate into an argument about who is "in charge".
I would expect that the Chair of the Music Committee, would automatically be an ex officio member of the Digital Library Workgroup subcommittee. At the same time, that wouldn't give him the right to dictate procedure and policies. The members of the subcommittee will absolutely have to work together as mature adults to devise a structure or manner of operating that they are mutually comfortable with. --Jbw292002 02:13, 15 January 2007 (PST)

(YC) I write this in some kind of urgency more comments will follow on other issues --Yanni Chill 14:51, 5 January 2007 (PST)

Name of the workgroup

I would be more inclined to name the Workgroup as Digital Archives so it might expand to something more than a Library of CDs... We start of course with digitizing our music library which consists mainly of CDs, but we might need to integrate it with other material, such as audio recordings, video recordings of events, meetings, shows (i know it's early for that but we should be looking ahead) etc, material that's not necessarily for broadcast. But this is a minor issue at this point, but it's good to make a concensus for our name. My opinion would be to use as broad of a name as possible, hence I propose the Digital Archives Workgroup. —2007-01-02 15:03:17 Yannis

First, let me say I didn't intend Digital Library Workgroup to be a final name, so I'm glad you didn't get the impression I was setting that in stone! But to address your point, I didn't intend "Library" to imply "just the CD library". It's a "library" in exactly the general sense that you also understand, a library of incoming and outgoing media, music and voice, audio and video, past and future—whatever we want to throw at it.
I feel like all changing to "Archive" would do, semantically, is imply that media are sent to the "archives" to become static, to be forever and immutable. I realize that isn't the denotation of the word, but it's certainly how it sounds to me in this context. I'll vote to stick with DLW, though I'm open to other ideas. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:53, 4 January 2007 (PST)
Anything outside of the music library is expressly beyond the Music Committee's purview. Recording and scheduling playback of WEFT shows is a programming issue and expressly in the hands of the PC. Recordings of Associate's meetings is expressly in the hands of the Associates. For an MC-sponsored project to presume to take action on the tasks of separate elected bodies at WEFT is both inappropriate and dismissive of the capacities and efforts of those bodies.
If a time comes wherein those bodies request such functionality to be included in the project, should it go forward, that's great. Until then I feel that any focus on these tasks, however small that focus may be, is detrimental to the advancement of the project as it will galvanize some portion of those bodies against seeing it move forward.
All that said, I really don't care what the name is.--Jay 09:58, 4 January 2007 (PST)
I like "Digital Library Workgroup" because I feel the word "Library" is very flexible and can encompass music and other types of media and content. "Archives" sounds like storage intended for reference but not regular use. --Z-francophiliac 09:04, 5 January 2007 (PST)

Phase 1 discussion

See: /Phase 1 discussion

I have moved the discussion off to a subpage to keep it separate from the other discussion going on here. —HorsePunchKid→龜 16:45, 9 January 2007 (PST)

Phase 2 discussion

Yes I agree, according to the rough numbers I provided above we can count on storing on the average about 30,000 CDs per year at a cost of 1000$ just for storing plus extra infractructure such as a network hub, PCs, software we might need to set up the network etc. But this shouldn't add more than 1000$ to the whole project. How many CDs do we currently have at WEFT? —2007-01-02 15:03:17 Yannis

Discussion on the Phase I arrived at an estimate of 50,000. --Z-francophiliac 20:38, 15 January 2007 (PST)

Phase 3 discussion

This is exactly how I think. We can already start some of those features as we speak. I.e connect a computer (securely locked) which can playback during dead hours... and interface a database with a playlist document so people can drag and drop titles to their playlists, which should be put online on the website for people to access and Genre directors to do their charting off of. —2007-01-02 15:03:17 Yannis

Retrieved from "http://wiki.weft.org/Talk:Digital_Library_Workgroup"