- steve van tuyl (oregon state university)
- LaRita Robinson (Notre Dame)
- Jim Coble (Duke)
- Collin Brittle (Emory)
- Carrick Rogers (Northwestern)
- Justin Coyne (Stanford)
- Michael J. Giarlo (Stanford)
- Aaron Collier (Stanford)
- Steven Ng (Temple)
- Michael B. Klein (Northwestern)
- Julie Allinson (University of London)
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)
- Notetaker and moderator for next time
- After call, this week's notetaker should create the agenda for the next call.
2.a. Call for new agenda items
- Request was made for update on collections extensions work if someone could provide that. LaRita Robinson noted that her nested collections work had been merged to the collections branch but that there was an issue uncovered on Nurax that needed clarification. LaRita Robinson also created issues for the remaining nested collections pieces.
2.b. Hyrax IIIF implementation question
- Michael J. Giarlo noted that work is underway to put the IIIF implementation work done in Hyku into Hyrax. This involves the IIIF presentation API and image API. He has a WIP PR on which he would like review and discussion – https://github.com/samvera/hyrax/pull/2311 . He would prefer to pull in just the presentation layer first but currently there are some dependencies between the presentation layer and the image server implementation (RIIIF).
- Justin Coyne noted that he thinks it is suboptimal to have RIIIF as a dependency in Hyrax; rather, an implementor should be able to use an image server of their choice. Okay to have a dependency on an image server, just not on a particular image server. Discussion ensued about ways to get around having a hard dependency on RIIIF in Hyrax. No decision was made but review and comment on the PR referenced above would be useful.
2.c. Hyrax 2.1 release plan update
- steve van tuyl noted that there has been follow-on discussion from last week's agenda item on this topic (whether to do a non-collections-extension 2.1 release and include collections extensions in 2.2 or stick with the plan to hold 2.1 until collections extensions was merged). His take that was that the conversation was trending toward the original plan (hold 2.1 for collections extensions), primarily due to minor release testing considerations.
- Justin Coyne spoke in favor of small, low risk releases even if they are are not as well tested. Aaron Collier noted that some of the non-collections-extensions work that has been merged has been long-awaited.
- Discussion ensued about the tradeoffs between the velocity of getting new work out in minor releases and having confidence in those releases as a result of thorough testing. steve van tuyl and Michael J. Giarlo noted that the testing process is still relatively new and there there should be opportunity to try out some different models during the coming year.
- No decision was made and conversation will continue.