Time: 9am - 3pm Eastern Standard Time US (UTC-5)
Place: Congressional B room, Omni Shoreham Hotel
URL: https://duraspace.zoom.us/my/fedora
Or iPhone one-tap :
Or Telephone:
Meeting ID: 812 835 3771
International numbers available: https://duraspace.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=dLuIIwXLUv5-UK4kIXYkkH9mryRETY08
|
Interest in discussing why people leaving Fedora in the afternoon part of the meeting.
Loaded terminology around preservation - what do we mean about this from a product position standpoint, ie, what are the preservation expectations? Means different things to different people.
Highlight important areas the groups need input on
Articulating current governance process
Reorganized Wiki pages
Will review and make sure all information is accurate
Metrics will become the NOW
Michele (very draft) report - analysis of current membership and users and recommendations for structure moving forward.
Internationalize board, change governance to bring in more international voices into the conversations. 46 members in US and a whole lot elsewhere not represented in governance. Fedora is very North American-centric right now.
How do we adapt as we become more global, change strategically?
How to let voices who can’t spend as much money be part of the conversation and how does that look?
All membership growth happened outside of US and most outside of North America in $500-$5000 range.
How to engage? Teaching people about how we are governed, also bringing in other voices. Internationalization as a priority is something we have to agree on…
How good is our data on institutions? (registry data needs some clean up).
Unlinking fiduciary and governance from strategic governance - a distributed network model might be helpful for this.
European involvement in reorganization of Fedora - issues with language around invoices needed changing. Sponsorship vs. Membership. We want to be international.
Repository work outside of North America has a different model - might need to think geographically about where touchpoints are to get engagement. Mic has done a lot with consortial memberships. Consortial models are more fiscally stable, shock tolerant.
EYEBALLS 👁- things worth following, dependencies, further clarity on this to follow
API Spec 1.0 finalized! - done
Validate test kit against Modeshape - not sure about others yet. (move soon into NOW)
Release 5.0 to API spec - finished this month
Community supported Fedora impl - replace Modeshape - some work on this, draft doc tech team is creating, not a full report yet. Good priority to focus on next year.
Long-term preservation and access - investigate and support OCFL spec, soon is protoyping OCFL compliant Fedora. Is OCFL the appropriate spec to focus on to make Fedora more a preservation solution. Dovetail with product position conversation.
Persistence layer - already captured in other categories, move this to a hidden section/offstage to hide from view.
Support and stability - not yet fully documented on the Wiki - just a little more to do.
Ease of installation - gaps in documentation, challenging concepts identified - talking to Mark J, about someone who had run a documentation sprint, setting up doc sprint
Ease of hosting as an installation - Service providers possibility to lead charge on this? CANARIE funding from UPEI to help with this (Mark will reach out to them about this)? Reach out to the grant about this. VTech running Fedora in cloud based environments. PASS in container in AWS. Hosted solutions for PASS, not sure about multitenancy. Need real world use cases for this. UMich data repository - share code base but distribute storage. Would Avalon or Hybox be interested in this?? Need a champion for this perhaps who is actively tryng to do this? Cloud storage is more and more happening in campus communities - this is more near term than multi-tenancy. As we consider modeshape alternative this is a principle we want to be thinking about. How many service providers to we want to encourage/expand, and would this make it more attractive? What can we do now, and what do we need to do to make it function the way we want? Hack meeting to gather developers to explore, whether specifically this topic or additional/other priorities.
Maurice resets spreadsheet for next period. Fresh template.
Syncing calendars presented challenges based on time zones. Este managed this by doing one-on-ones.
Call for new members
Worked on a document, sees strong relationships with other work (e.g. membership)
Potential for document sprint? Other ways for folks to engage?
EP: discussion topic...How to recognize/celebrate membership?
How do we engage with folks who may be leaving? Get and trap feedback.
RM: Proposes an idea of doing a leaders membership analysis. Both to understand and support moves to improve diversity on Leaders.
RR: Discussion of meritocracy? How to highlight contributions.
KE: Product position used as a way to identify ways to contribute?
MY: we are tracking conferences, but have no information on impact. Looking for intentionality.
KE...how doe we know what defines success? Great question.
DW: Has a sense of high v low value for some of this.
JD: We should connect events to community.
RR: When a community reinvents itself...do we explore new/alternative communities to engage with? How do we become active? Character of the community. MY: DLF for example...look at their mission and show up relevant to that.
EW: sidebar: LITL (Library IT Leadership group). New community. See this website.
Transparancy should be part of this. Acknowleging potential shortalls...but also react to them in ways that are honest and accurate.
DS: Training. Gap analysis.
*DS (nlm). Improve web front end...add to marketing/strategy group.
RM: gives overview.
Going with a white paper approach for now. Still very mutable.
JD discusses “persistance layer”
Interesting discussion/breakdown of potential to recommend (toaster v. viking stove):
Fedora yourself: configurable, agnostic, needs resourcing (viking)
Fedora via a service: vendor? (restaurant)
Recommend DSpace (toaster)
MY: Discussion of Academy supported...should we start doing this?
See white paper for group editing outcomes…
RR: we need to maintain relationships with related communities.
KE: looking for a modular suite of tools. So that they can be swapped in and out. Committment is not to a version of a tool. But to the cause.
Good discussion about web as part of fedora.
Good discussion about models as part of fedora.
Long discussion about preservation and linked data and the future of Fedora and its relative position inside the ecosystem.
We may be able to use these results to identify features we may wish to include/support in the future.
Institutions can use this to help assess their own level, and how Fedora may help them increase their preservation infrastructure maturity
Also to take up the question of mapping to existing preservation frameworks of other communities (e.g. NDSA levels of preservation?) to see which make sense, which we could map to
Would be nice to see a Fedora that could:
This needs to be taken up with committers in conversation.
Would it be feasible to pool money to bring on contractors who could help make this happen? Penn State, Emory, Michigan, others may be able to bring money to this. But can we identify contractors who could accomplish it and make it a priority for next 6-12 months? Can we make it into a contractable thing?
Committers to come up with a design that uses commodity components--for how to implement OCFL. That then could be contracted out--
Group of funders brought together to join in the conversation of what that would cost, how to assemble the money, and how to get the contract out.
Identify the institution that will host the test bed implementation once the contractors get to work (Emory? JHU? Michigan?)