Difference between revisions of "Talk:Record retention policy"
James Hare (talk | contribs) m (moved Talk:Record Retention Policy to Talk:Record Retention and Document Destruction Policy: to reflect actual name) |
(→renumber V.4(e) to V.4(d): squeeze space) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Most importantly, who is the directive issued to? Is it issued as a company wide memorandum? Or to the body otherwise responsible for documents?--[[User:Kevin Chen|Kevin Chen]] 02:34, 17 August 2011 (EDT) |
Most importantly, who is the directive issued to? Is it issued as a company wide memorandum? Or to the body otherwise responsible for documents?--[[User:Kevin Chen|Kevin Chen]] 02:34, 17 August 2011 (EDT) |
||
| + | |||
| + | == renumber V.4(e) to V.4(d) == |
||
| + | |||
| + | There's a V.4c and V.4e but nothing between. We can correct this when we revise substantively some day. -- [[User:Econterms|Econterms]] 6 Aug 2017 18:41 |
||
Latest revision as of 18:42, 6 August 2017
Couple points
I'd rather the directive suspending otherwise regularly scheduled destruction be called a "legal hold" as it doesn't have any particular legal force at all, but is simply a specifically named internal order. The current structure suggests that any of the three named entities may issue the directive, and no other entity may override it, and it lasts in force indefinitely. Additionally, do you want to imply that the "legal hold" is the exclusive method of preserving documents that would otherwise be destroyed?
Most importantly, who is the directive issued to? Is it issued as a company wide memorandum? Or to the body otherwise responsible for documents?--Kevin Chen 02:34, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
renumber V.4(e) to V.4(d)
There's a V.4c and V.4e but nothing between. We can correct this when we revise substantively some day. -- Econterms 6 Aug 2017 18:41