...
- This meeting is an opportunity to align our thinking along the lines of fcrepo6, make sure we're on the same page, open the door to pivoting if needed
- Priority is getting Fedora 6 out the door
- Monthly sprints with focal points highly informed by state of application and item 1b: Progress towards f6
- Green checkmarks = validated/verified.
- Blue question marks: validated by developer
- Monthly sprints with focal points highly informed by state of application and item 1b: Progress towards f6
- There has been a small core of regular contributors to the sprint. For institutions that have not been able to contribute development effort: is there any reason/blockers?
- Q: Are you sending sprint progress reports to the tech list? May this help drum up grassroots support
- A: There are sprint summary videos that go out as appropriate. We want to show progress, but don't want to demo half-baked features, though.
- There are institutions that are fairly interested in fcrepo6, e.g. Northwestern University re: "Beyond the repository" interested in testing. Michigan State interested in doing migration from f3 to f6. Have eggs in f3 basket, but not a lot of resources. Penn State has general interest in testing when f6 nears a 1.0 state. Other institutions also interested when f6 near 1.0 as well.
- Brown in a similar state, but has staff member Ben Cail who has been actively involved in calls, technical decisions, testing. This has been quite valuable!
Action Items
- David Wilcox add Fedora 6 delivery timeline topic to Feb. 4 Steering meeting
- Andrew Woods Danny Bernstein make a list of Fedora 6 development priorities with estimates on resource requirements (ideally before Feb. 4 Steering meeting)