Page tree

Versions Compared


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


Meeting ID: 812 835 3771
International numbers available:


  • Chris Awre (star)
  • Danny Bernstein 
  • Robert Cartolano Cartolano 
  • Aaron Choate
  • Sayeed Choudhury
  • Stefano Cossu
  • Tom Cramer
  • Jon Dunn apologies, conflicting meeting
  • Karen Estlund
  • Maude Frances
  • Neil Jefferies
  • Mark Jordan
  • Danny Lamb
  • Steve Marks
  • Rosalyn Metz 
  • Este Pope 
  • Robin Ruggaber 
  • Doron Shalvi 
  • Tim Shearer
  • Dustin Slater
  • Erin Tripp
  • Jennifer Vinopal
  • Ben Wallberg
  • Evviva Weinraub (Carolyn standing in)
  • Jared Whiklo
  • David Wilcox
  • Andrew Woods 
  • Patrick Yott 
  • Maurice York (star)York 


Advanced Tables - Table Plus



Fedora 6.0 design and development

  • Vote on design plan
  • Next steps: stakeholder commitments, resourcing, community sprints, etc.
  • Request: Please join the Fedora Tech calls as stakeholders
David & Andrew

Product position white paper

  • Resolving outstanding issues
  • Sharing with the broader community
Rosalyn & Robin

Vision and Strategy sub-groups

  • Expanding group membership to continue the work



  •  All: Raise the topic of how to get better data on who is installing/using what versions of Fedora with the Communication and Community strategy groups.
  •  Governance Group - Review subgroups and organization.
  •  Maurice York and Robin Lindley Ruggaber to ask their teams how things are currently structured on disk to compare against the OCFL spec.


Fedora 6.0 design and development

  • The vote on the design plan had been circulated, and would close on Wednesday May 8th.
  • The focus of attention in this discussion was on next steps (assuming that the design plan is accepted).
  • The work to implement the Fedora 6.0 design plan will need resourcing, and input is welcome on the options to explore.  Standard approaches are:
    • Community sprints - following the pattern used by recent developments
    • Partnership with vendors - focusing on how Fedora can be a product they can market
    • Community contributions - specific one-time requests for funds to support a specific initiative (some of which have already been received for Fedora 6.0)
      • A variation on this could be a temporary step-up in membership level.
  • There is keen interest in broader stakeholder buy-in - getting the community together to support the shift and bringing everyone with it.  This would be important for Fedora 6.0 and its effort to help move sites from Fedora 3.  Getting stakeholders involved throughout the process will help with understanding of the work.
    • This could involve opening up the tech calls to non-committers and broaden the conversation., or getting others involved in the broader calls.
    • It would be good to get the tech leads for Samvera (Hyrax) and Islandora involved as part of this (noting that there is some connection already).
  • Assuming regular suspects for the community sprints, it would be great to expand this pool of contributions.
  • Noting that some additional funding has been made available already, how should this be used?
    • Work with vendors, those with a vested interest in the work?
    • Use of contractors, without a vested interest, with a focus on professional inout for specific tasks (e.g., performance testing).
  • OCFL aspects of Fedora 6.0 may be addressed separately through engaged partners in that initiative (e..g, Oxford, Johns Hopkins).
  • Tim made a call for more involvement in calls of middle managers, as it can be a mixture of developers and senior managers, leaving a gap in implementation planning/discussion.
  • Initial work in the community, e.g., the sanity-checking implementations of the Fedora API and OCFL at Cornell, will provide useful input to the work overall.
  • (Este) An RFP approach might be useful as a way of brining together requirements.
  • (Dustin) Linking the work to the ability to migrate from Fedora 3 will be helpful in generating interest and participation.
  • What input/impact will the merger with Lyrasis have?  Some internal funding options are being explored.
  • David and Andrew will compile an initial plan for proceeding.

Product Position White Paper

  • Rosalyn, Robin and David had reviewed feedback on this paper, and resolved a number of the queries.
  • The discussion addressed some of the outstanding queries.
    • The two sections on interoperability will be merged.
    • The definition of Fedora as a repository will be highlighted more.
    • Feedback on the proposed community paragraph is invited.
    • Further clarity on the section re: preservation and its link to how to get the data out may be useful.
  • A final pass will be shared in due course prior to wider circulation to the community.

Vision and Strategy sub-groups

  • A call-out to get others involved in these sub-groups, whether on Fedora Leaders or not. 


Training survey

  • Dustin will circulate the training survey draft for comment shortly.
  • The survey will be scheduled for a period following the completion of the migration survey currently out (for which there have been >100 responses to date).
  • The training survey can learn from the structure (aimed at quick responses) and response success of the migration survey.
  • The training survey will be pushed out for a 3 week period, based on previous experience.


Action Items 

  •  Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date