This archived site likely doesn't have any further content edits but should be maintained for security updates.
This site may be an "archive" but its primarily treated as a live site. It has its own hosting costs and development support associated with it.
Archived Stored Site: These sites don't need to be publicly accessible.
These sites are likely sites that we have moved the content over to SF.gov. It's good practice to keep the old site as a backup for 1-2 years in case we need to access it for content or audit purposes.
We would create a .tar file of these sites and have DT store them. There may be a storage cost, but the cost would be minimal since they are zipped up into a single file. If in the future we needed to access these sites we’d need IT to spin the site up.
Archived Development Sites: These sites don't need to be publically accessible but do need to be accessed by SF.gov staff.
These sites should be maintained for security updates but should also be secured behind a password-protected login and not be crawled by search engines.
These sites would be migrated over to D9, but not http://sf.gov .
These should only be maintained as a short-term solution and eventually should be spun down and stored like #2.
@Christina Lutz-Hatfield will prioritize the new ADA review epic and we’ll try to get to most impactful ones first. She mentioned that the Inclusion Standard will be published at the end of the year and it would ideal to be compliant before we publish those standards.
@Rick Johnson (Unlicensed) to work with Ant to put the drupal login screen & landing page into a test environment for a few editors to look at for feedback before it goes live.
@Persis Howe to write communication content for editors for the new login & landing page.