Time/Place

Time: 11:00am Eastern Time (US)

Please see calendar invite for Zoom link.

Attendees

1. Raman Ganguly
2. Aaron Birkland
3. Rosalyn Metz
4. Mark Jordan
5. Melissa Anez
6. Jared Whiklo
7. Andrew Woods
8. Dan Coughlin
9. Jennifer Gilbert
10. weixuan
11. Ben Pennel
12. Tim Shearer
13. Bethany Seeger
14. Scott Prater
15. Tammy Wolf
16. Peter Winckles
17. Chris Awre

Agenda

1. State of Fedora 6 development
   1. Monthly sprints
   2. Progress towards F6 
   3. Community testing
2. Open development questions
   1. Fedora 6 and vanilla OCFL
      1. Do we value Fedora being able to run on top of vanilla OCFL? - in a read-only fashion? in a read/write fashion?
      2. Do we value a post-Fedora OCFL that is not peppered with Fedora-specific content?
      3. Example of Fedora-specific content
         1. Click here to expand...

            {"parent":"info:fedora/new",
            "id":"info:fedora/new/child",
            "interactionModel":"http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#BasicContainer",
            "createdDate":"2020-04-21T16:52:42.757566Z",
            "lastModifiedDate":"2020-04-21T16:52:42.757566Z",
            "stateToken":"A1FAFA3B80B37AD8C1B0CC519ABD30A2",
            "archivalGroup":false,
            "objectRoot":true}
            
            # binaries have additional extras:
            ...
            "filename":"notes.txt",
            "mimeType":"text/plain",
            "contentSize":282,
            "digests":[],
            ...

3. Leadership updates
   1. Product Technology Subgroup

Notes

State of Fedora 6 Development

• 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
• 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)