CR029 - Content Review Panels

Suggestion:

Where content from Member Groups is still held within accessible systems, but not published, create a panel committee to review and support relevant/appropriate content to be retained and re-published.

Category on Map Diagram:
COLLABORATION

Instructions:
Please complete Add New Comment section fields as requested below:
 

FIELD REQUESTED INPUT
Your name:
WILL BE PUBLISHED		 With your name !
Email:
WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED		 With your email – this will not be made public
Homepage
WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED		 LEAVE BLANK
Subject
WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED		 LEAVE BLANK
Comment
WILL BE PUBLISHED		 Please type JUST ONE these three response options on the first line.AGREE
DISAGREE
REFER
REFER is to be used to either get more information, or if you like the principal, but have concerns about the implementation.
Then from the second line onwards please add any personal comments if you would like to.

Comments

REFER

Submitted by Julian Kunkel on

REFER
This is a bit unclear to me. What will it mean in practice? What content are you talking about?

REFER

Submitted by Mike Hurst on

REFER
Unclear to me. It seems to me there are three options: delete, retain unpublished, retain republish.
It is sad if records of historical interest are being deleted because of GDPR. This has happened in the case of our Branch.

Sorry not following this,

Submitted by Michael Warman on

Sorry not following this, perhaps because I'm a newbie.
Would the panel include the person that create or last updated the document, an 'expert', an editor, the current branch chair?
Would consent to publish or republish the document been needed, and from whom?
Would the editor reformat the document into a new template and be the config librarian for the document, so responsible for version control, obtaining feedback and updating the document?
If the document held personal data, could this be sanitized?
Will the new template be accessible, screen readers etc, use standard fonts, Calibri, and templates?
Will branding need to be applied, BCS and Branch?
Once published who would be responsible for maintaining the document, would they be trained?

REFER

Submitted by John Rendall on

REFER
what content are you referring to? I know Coventry Branch had extensive reports on our "old" website using the php templates originally provided, and that this content has not been migrated to our new website (but is still accessible if you know the path), is that the sort of content you are referring to? It would be sad to delete it all, as some of it is still relevant, and some has historical interest, but no-one on the Coventry Committee really has the time to reformat it all.

REFER

Submitted by Kylie Fowler on

REFER

I think MGs should be given the option of deciding what should be republished. However reviewing old content is a huge task and given how quickly technology moves, a lot of content will be out of date so I think my SG probably wouldn't bother apart from giving any available content a quick scan to see if there is something that jumps out at us as still being relevant.

Refer

Submitted by Claire MacManus on

No idea what this would entail. However, if it is to comply with GDPR, and there is a concern about loss of historical data, then at the very least we need to have some way of anonymising (?) records where necessary, or by request.