How to connect: https://psu.zoom.us/j/613720745 (link will launch Zoom client – if you do not have Zoom, expand the instructions below)
Meeting ID: 613 720 745
+1 646 876 9923 (US Toll)
+1 669 900 6833 (US Toll)
+1 408 638 0968 (US Toll)
International numbers available: https://psu.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=UZ_PRwQ56TNX1pDIsdDInAu8XPVqzlX3
Meeting ID: 613 720 745
22.214.171.124 (US West)
126.96.36.199 (US East)
188.8.131.52 (Hong Kong)
Time: 9:00am PDT / Noon EDT
Moderator: Tom Johnson
Notetaker: Jennifer Lindner
- Collin Brittle (Emory)
- Chris Colvard (Indiana University)
- Kevin Musiorski (AIC)
- Steven Ng (Temple University)
- Brian McBride (University of Utah)
- Julie Allinson (CoSector, University of London)
- Jennifer Lindner (DCE)
- Anna Headley (Princeton)
- Trey Pendragon (Princeton)
Roll call by timezone per following order - ensure notetaker is present (moderator)
folks outside North and South America
folks who were missed or who dialed in during roll call
- Welcome all newcomers!
- Agenda (moderator)
- Call for new agenda items (moderator)
- add agenda item here
- Hyrax 2.1 / 3.0 SemVer Discussion
- Continued from last week / Background reading
- Notetaker and moderator for next time
- After call, this week's notetaker should create the agenda for the next call.
Hyrax 2.1 update - from Tom J - one PR that's blocking the 2.1 rc4, that should get fixed today and we should be able to cut the release and do our general error checking and hopefully we'll be ready to cut final release early next week, contingent on testing.
If you can help, we can use you - documentation, code, testing.
The Agenda item is continuation of discussion from last week, but we don't have a lot of the interested parties, but for Hyrax in particular, semver is something Steve and tom have talked about continuing the discussion with the sighar group.
Jennifer - we need to define the attendant issues with sustainability that go with the semver discussion -- backwards compatibility practices.
Trey is wondering if these two things are as tightly coupled as that?
Is the proposal that we do semver with what's on the roadmap?
Tom J: No, a lot of the anxieties about semver are about the difficulties caused by lack of backwards compatibility/ease of upgrades, what kind of dev practices should we have to provide the stability we want is a good question.
Trey is concerned we'll end up feeling that we can't do it so we won't do it. He wants restriction in place so we feel the pressure to use semver and is worried we'll put ourselves off if we add too much with it. Consensus might not be there on what things will ease the pressure, but Tom J feels like we're moving in that direction. Whether the mandate about one release per year is less of a problem if we're managing our code better.
Trey - don't know where the right place to make decisions as a community is anyway - where is that?
Anna - is glad to hear Tom J is concerned that there are not enough voices in this conversation. We need a survey because some voices are louder than others, some new attempt to find out what people would like would be a good idea on these things.
Anna - In order to answer question of does semver mean more releases, we need to ask the question of the community -- enough people are saying slightly different things so it's tough to get idea of what consensus is.
Tom J - Yes, I've noticed this too, but it can be tough to tease apart the differences from the similarities in what people are saying so we'd need to be careful about how we pose any survey questions.
Tom J - I'm going to propose that roadmap IG take on this question head on for Hyrax in particular, will strongly suggest to that group that we do a survey and get a feel for what's happening on the ground and not just the people who join the tech call.
Tom J - Is there more work in order to align with semver that would need to be done for core components?
Trey - easier for the core components, usually problems are in AF, but if we can get some answers from the survey it could help guide the CC - will create pressure on them and they might want to adopt it --
Anna - it's also worth noting that Hyrax is the most visible project of this community and so bears some responsibility in that respect; not sure how to account for that in the context of moving the discussion to the Hyrax roadmapping group.
Tom J - sounds like there's some anxiety about moving this discussion to sighar.
Tom J had been hoping that moving the discussion to sighar might narrow it helpfully but inverse effect is true too, it might feel too closed, and it's also Hyrax specific. He and Steve will talk and see what they can do.