Versions Compared

Old Version 13

changes.mady.by.user Jim Tuttle

Saved on

compared with

New Version 14

changes.mady.by.user Steve Marks

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Advanced Tables - Table Plus
autoNumbertrue


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 OR conversation re: Valkyrie - backend to switch backend filestore/indexes easily. Provides Samvera community an opportunity to not be tied to specific components, e.g. Fedora

      • Meeting between Samvera community and Fedora API editors.

        • Next steps for Samvera: NEED FROM MIKE G

        • May be pressures from institutions to switch to different backends for performance reasons

    • How do things depend then? Some Samveras will depend on Fedora, some won’t.

      • MG: if there is widespread adoption of Valkyrie, then that is likely to happen. 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