Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Time/Place

  • Time: 11:30am Eastern Daylight Time US (UTC-4)
  • Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7035

Attendees

  • Chris Awre 
  • Doug Blair
  • Ginny Boyer
  • Robert Cartolano
  • Aaron Choate
  • Sayeed Choudhury
  • Stefano Cossu
  • Tom Cramer
  • Joanna DiPasquale 
  • Jon Dunn
  • Karen Estlund
  • Declan Fleming
  • Maude Francis
  • Mike Giarlo
  • Neil Jefferies
  • Debra Kurtz
  • Susan Lafferty 
  • Steve Marks (star)
  • Rosalyn Metz
  • Tom Murphy
  • Este Pope
  • Nick Ruest
  • Robin Ruggaber
  • Tim Shearer
  • Jon Stroop
  • Jennifer Vinopal
  • Evviva Weinraub
  • Jared Whiklo
  • David Wilcox
  • Andrew Woods
  • Maurice York
  • Jim Tuttle

Agenda

Topic

Lead

Strategic plan draft

  1. Finalize list of stakeholders
  2. Gather feedback so far
  3. Decide whether to have a separate vision and strategic plan or both in the same document
Stefano

Code of Conduct, suggestions for moving forward:

  1. the Fedora Project adopt the DuraSpace COC, almost verbatim, and 
    1. the one change being sending notifications to a Fedora-specific CoC 
  2. that Fedora establish a CoC committee to field such issues, including
    1. membership & rotation 
    2. incident response procedures
    3. alternative paths for handling issues if a member of the CoC committee is implicated in an incident

4.7 as long-term-support (LTS) release

Andrew
Samvera / Fedora technical alignment discussions

Michael J. Giarlo (or Andrew, if Giarlo is out)

Successful Texas/Oklahoma Fedora User Group meeting last weekNo discussion needed

Fedora at the IFLA WLIC last week

David and Evviva


RoundtableAll

Previous Actions

 

Minutes

  • Stefano due to take over as chair September 1.

  • 1) Strategic Plan

    • Draft is https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Nu5mFFqltrUg5J4MpuNzTVtqaVwEApqfQVQ0y3SxRw/edit#

    • Came from a discussion at OR about long-term vision for Fedora

    • Goals today: finalize list of stakeholders, discuss structure/content of document as it stands

    • One struggle has always been defining the need that Fedora meets. Need a concise statement of the niche FC fills.

      • SC: does Inward Facing | Target Audience address this?

      • Maybe, but it doesn’t help answer questions about concrete decisions in development direction.

    • Would be really useful for this to be the canonical version of the Fedora Elevator Speech

    • Could we discuss this fruitfully at CNI, with an eye toward presenting it at the next CNI?

    • How much is this a Strategic Directions document vs. a Strategic Plan?

    • Stefano will send out a Doodle poll to schedule a meeting of the stakeholders group.

  • 2) Code of Conduct

    • Recap: General support for Duraspace CoC but changing notification to Fedora specific group. Some policy documentation - e.g. membership, process, issue handling paths - needed..

    • Need to formalize this group before the latter work can begin.

    • Folks who are interested in participating should contact Rosalyn.

  • 3) 4.7 as LTS release

    • Is there agreement that selecting certain versions of Fedora as LTS releases is a good thing?

      • Does this include upstream developments - e.g. new versions of Modeshape?

        • AW: There’s a bit of discussion to be had here. Another example of this issue is Java version.

      • Important that the statement of what the LTS provides is API stability.

    • Do we have an idea of the adoption rate?

      • refer to Fedora 4 deployments page on the wiki

    • What are the implications for other non-LTS versions of Fedora?

      • There exists a policy of support for major releases, incl. critical bug fixes.

        • not release more than 1 major release/year

        • critical fixes to latest major release

    • Does the creation of LTS carry certain expectations about ease of migration?

    • Why 4.7 as candidate for LTS?

      • two upcoming dev sprints to align core functionality with API specs

    • Concern to address: if developments in upstream applications necessitate premature (i.e. less than 3 years) change to the LTS

    • General support for this idea, if taking into account the above issues.

    • AW will bring back to LG before this goes more public.

  • 4) Samvera/Fedora technical alignment discussions

    • Discussion spawned by OR2017 conversation re: Valkyrie - a new, proof-of-concept component that will allow Samvera-basd applications to more easily swap out persistence back-ends for metadata and files. Provides Samvera community flexibility, so folks can use the back-end that best fits their needs in a way that does not preclude a shared UI. In the Fedora Leadership context, this means that Samvera applications could be based on a back-end other than Fedora.

      • Held two calls between Samvera community, Fedora API editors, and Islandora Tech Lead two weeks ago and ultimately decided on the following next steps

        • Begin specifying query requirements in a sidecar Fedora API Specification

        • Put cycles towards Modeshape implementing the Fedora API Specification

        • Put cycles towards Cavendish implementing the Fedora API Specification, and other bits Samvera would need from Cavendish

        • Continue Valkyrizing Hyrax

        • Create Valkyrie adapter that relies on the Fedora API Specification (including the query sidecar)

      • There are pressures from institutions to switch to different backends for performance reasons, even if it's a short-term change while work on performance in Fedora implementations continues.

    • How do things depend then? 

      • Hard to say now because it's early days. It seems reasonable to say that some Samvera applications will depend on Fedora and some won’t.

      • Note that much upcoming Samvera work is Fedora-centric, so this is a commitment to Fedora but allows Samvera users flexibility in how to persist their backend data stores.

    • General agreement that this conversation should continue here.

      • Will be a continuing topic for next call.

  • 5 & 6) Everything went great!


Adjourned at 12:31pm.

Actions




2 Comments

  1. Hello - Could someone provide some clarification on this line in the notes:  "Put cycles towards Modeshape implementing the Fedora API Specification".  Is this referring to the current implementation of Fedora 4 that uses Modeshape, or is this something totally separate? Thanks!

    1. The comment is referring to the existing Fedora/Modeshape implementation coming into alignment with the Fedora API Specification. Specifically, in the short term: