[LINK] TooManyWebsites.gov

[Webb, KerryA]

Jan wrote:
>
> At 08:25 AM 14/06/2011, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
>
> > > As the President points out in this video, our government doesn't
> > need a website dedicated to foresters who play the fiddle. We also
> > don't need multiple sites dealing with invasive plants (here and
> > here).  And I'm pretty sure the website dedicated to the Centennial
> > of Flight can come down... particularly since the Centennial was in
> 2003.
>
> This raises the issue of persistent information. If this site about
> an historic event were done on paper, it would be easily preserved at
> the Wright Brothers Museum or the Smithsonian. So where do these
> digital artifacts go when the US govt does an info-housecleaning?
>
> Part of me says this is a silly position to take (too many websites).
> Does that concept travel to 'too many books'? I don't get it.
>

I'm with Jan on this.

I think it's a matter of the decision makers not thinking things though.  Is there really that much cost to leaving such an information-rich site up?

On the other hand, perhaps the business case for all such sites should include a proposed life span and a planned migration to some archival site.

Kerry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------