Difference between revisions of "Talk:Record retention policy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (moved Talk:Record Retention and Document Destruction Policy to Talk:Record retention and document destruction policy: Normalizing page names) |
James Hare (talk | contribs) m (James Hare moved page Talk:Record retention and document destruction policy to Talk:Record retention policy: Policy renamed) |
Revision as of 21:45, 21 February 2016
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)