DCAT members present liked the idea and thought it would be a helpful addition to the Bulk Metadata Editing feature -- which soon will need a new name, since it's no longer just "metadata editing"
A few were concerned about deleting objects via the CSV file accidentally by writing the word 'delete' in the wrong row and since the delete is permanent it could very detrimental - others liked the power to delete things in bulk. To address this a few members suggested that the bulk deletion would be able to be turned on/off (based on local policies and needs) in the config. Withdraw, on the other hand, could always remain on, since you can easily undo withdrawa by reinstating the object.
There was some additional discussion on terminology -- using 'expunge' vs. 'delete' -- which may help prevent deletion errors. DCAT members also liked that by using 'expunge' it would be consistent with the rest of DSpace and sounds more permanent than 'delete'. Further research indicates that DSpace current references the following --> which shows some current inconsistency/both terms used interchangeably:
A few members thought more status msgs would also be a good improvement -- these msgs would be generated once the upload operation is completed -- reporting feedback on what was completed -- something like "X rows uploaded, X changes completed" or "no changes were detected". Not sure how challenging this would be -- but everyone seemed to agree that marking "withdraw" on a withdrawn item should do nothing, but that it should report that "no changes were detected" if possible.
GSoC project - do away with item-submission.xml and input-forms.xml and instead create an Admin UI that allows repo managers reorganize the submission UI
XMLUI interface is not as useful as JSPUI for news config, Bram proposed to have a more flexible front page
Do we have a DCAT consensus? If so, does it still make sense to hold a community-wide discussion for both feedback and developer resource identification?