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



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



Summary of CNI Fedora Leaders meeting and next stepsDavid

Drafting a 2017 Fedora annual report


Updates and announcements

Fedora 5 features, design, goals, caveatsStefano

Previous Actions



1. Summary of CNI Fedora Leaders meeting and next steps

            a. context - this year there was more time devoted to big picture, less reporting out/transactional work.

            b. Meeting was described as productive, lots of work accomplished, discussion of what's happening with the work/questions that remain open.  Proposal that the Vision & Strategy group explore the work that remains outstanding, take on what is appropriate, and return the remaining questions/work to the larger steering committee.  Action item.

            c. JD question: Did the issue arise of Fedora's role in the larger context of tools (e.g. Samvara, Islandora) and whether better alignment with those efforts is possible?  Yes, this was discussed.  No clear outcome or plan was agreed upon.  Possible Action item?

            d. TC question: Based upon a post-meeting reading of the vision document, should we understand that there is a clear and explicit move to commit the work of Fedora toward "preservation?"  Yes, but there was not unambiguous and unanimous support for this at the meeting.

            e. SC question: How do first timers feel about the meeting?  Helpful to have f2f, productive day, ended somewhat in ambiguity.  Nice balance of the practical and the philosophical.  Interesting question about how the technical folks/committers and leadership are aligned.

            f. AW question: Do leaders have enough of an understanding of the technical work being done by committers? [1] Often yes, through touching base with staff doing the work. [2] Not necessarily. Checks in. [3] SC: the work would be better served with more bi-directional communication between the two groups with perhaps some filtering and translation helping with context.  Trust and understanding and clear communication will be helpful to all concerned.  Action item.

            g. Further discussion: More leaders more committed to deep and frank conversations than in past years.  This is a healthy sign.

2. Drafting a 2017 Fedora annual report

            a.  DW has a draft document up, and has opened for comment and editing.  David solicits general feedback and contributions of content.  Action item: Leaders asked to help.

            b.  DW likes the professional and engaging look of the Hydra Community annual report.  Indications that Penn State may be a source for help in polishing the document.

            c.  Discussion of alignment of the annual report with membership drive.  Discussion of alignment of the annual report with vision and strategy and Fedora 5.  Report should be out in Q1.  Will take into account both of these ideas.

3. Updates and announcements

            a. Fedora Camp in Washington, DC

                        scheduled for 05-07/16/2018 at Goddard

            b. API specification and alternate implementations

                        AW: API coming along nicely, should be finalized soon.  There is a tension between specification and implementation(s).  We need at least two implementations to finalize the specification.  One will be current community implementation. AW: ask for a two week and a one week sprint to get that work done.  Looking at April timeframe to finish. SC asks if one of the existing efforts has been chosen as the official second implementation.  Several are mentioned.  Discussion follows related to articulating the benefits of moving from Fedora 4 to Fedora 5.  JW: The main benefit is from adopting and API model that provides abstraction.  It's also going to be the supported Fedora software. Action item: public summary of the benefits of Fedora 5.

            c. Oxford Common Filesystem Layout.

                        AW: Movement continues, maybe fulfilling a need for low level preservation storage.  Some idea of exposing through api.

            d. Fedora 5.0.0

                        AW: reminder that this is a semantic release.  Nothing like going from 3 to 4.


Other business: DW: will explore the idea of moving call to noon-1:00 Eastern. Action item.


  • Vision and Strategy group: debrief CNI meeting: identify work to be brought back to Leaders.
  • All: Explore how to bring better cross-effort alignment between Fedora and other repository efforts.
  • Andrew Woods: Poll to set up time between leaders and developers/committers.
  • All: contribute to generating content for, and formatting Fedora annual report.
  • DuraSpace staff/All: Generate and share articulation of benefits of moving to Fedora 5.
  • David Wilcox: Poll the group to explore half-hour shift forward in time of Leader calls.


  1. Fedora 5.0.0

    I am interested in passing around the question: which are the main limitations of F4 identified by the Fedora user community, and which of those will F5 resolve?

    1. We just had an (known) issue with Modeshape.  Had to handroll a version of it in order to do batch ingest in AWS (for our Avalon 6.3 upgrade).

  2. I won't be able to join today's meeting. I would like to add an item for the next meeting: How do we foster greater adoption of Fedora 4, particularly as it relates to the work of the Islandora CLAW community?