Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
- Time: 1:00pm Eastern Time US
- Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7035
- Update on formalization of editorial process
- Andrew: An editorial group is being appointed by Fedora Steering on behalf of leaders, will start next week after publication of charter.
- Andrew: The editors will be Ben, Esme, Danny, Simeon, and Andrew.
- Andrew: Only editors will have commit rights, but input will be considered from all sides.
- Andrew: Because the meeting falls into grey area, perhaps diving into issues is premature.
- Jared: Some issues near end of discussion should be decided and resolved.
- Before starting perhaps the editors should agree to what the role of editors should be.
- Andrew: Value is being placed on compromise where consensus cannot be reached.
- Simeon: Given the timeline, weekly meetings will probably be necessary.
- Andrew: In order to avoid the conflict API-X, a new Doodle poll will be circulated. http://doodle.com/poll/pqvt6d2zd88p54nq
- Ben: What is the threshold for committing changes? How do you deal with a lack of consensus?
- Andrew: Some of the key concepts defined by the leaders in the API Spec charter: (1) Define interaction; (2) make it testable; (3) strive to minimize barriers to interoperability.
- Andrew: Opposition by one person is sufficient grounds to search for compromise amongst the five editors.
- Esmé: Hope to be able to build consensus on many issues; at the same time, it might be nice to have the ability to express ambivalence without imposing a veto.
- Simeon: Having some wait time before commits allows for all voices to be heard, even where agreement may not be reached.
- Andrew: 72 hours will be the minimum wait time, but if everyone indicates assent things can go faster.
- Andrew: Labels in Github can be used to mark the start of the waiting period; another to flag when more time for discussion is needed.
- Esmé: Maybe a way to view this is 5 votes to merge immediately, 3 votes to merge after 72 hours.
- Andrew: How should the meeting time be used? Github issues, or something else?
- Esmé: Github issue discussion seems like a good way to use the meeting; also it would be good to get up to speed on the new issues so perhaps triage of issues could also be undertaken during meetings.
- Simeon: To make the calls more effective, it would be good to have members identify which tickets are getting near to be ready for discussion and resolution.
- Andrew: Perhaps one way to decrease whitespace on the call would be to rotate facilitator.
- Andrew: Will create a Doodle poll for the new meeting time. http://doodle.com/poll/pqvt6d2zd88p54nq
- Andrew: Would someone be willing to take responsibility for specific issues to review and summarize them for the group? Add the summary to the agenda page.
- Esmé: I can do 81.
- Ben: message external body and proxy(?)
- Andrew: 43 appears ripe to be adopted, summarized, and possibly resolved.
- Esmé: 90 is resolved.