This meeting is a hybrid teleconference and slack chat. Anyone is welcome to join...here's the info:
- Jared Whiklo
- David Wilcox
- Ben Pennell
- Peter Eichman
- Bethany Seeger
- Aaron Birkland
- Yinlin Chen
- Doron Shalvi
- Debrief: Washington D.C. Area Fedora User Group Meeting and OCFL Hackathon: 7-8 May 2019
- Fedora 5.1.0 Release... manager?
- 5.1.0 Open (is triage complete for inclusion in 5.1.0?):
- 5.1.0 Closed
- 5.1.0 Open (need to re-evaluate for inclusion in 5.1.0):
- Fedora 6.0.0 Sprint planning
- What is the breakdown of tasks?
- Could we potentially contract any of it?
Please squash a bug!
Tickets resolved this week:
Tickets created this week:
- Vote at the Leadership level to approve the Fedora 6 design at a high level. So we are going to work on a more detailed layout to help identify resources that might be needed.
- DC Fedora Users Group
- Folks are wondering on the timeline for Fedora 6. Are we talking about 2 years? Are we talking about Fedora + all migration tooling. We need to document our plans and what we are going to create to help the community know what they are getting.
- A release in 2019 is probably not realistic at this point, but on some leader calls there is a notion that until we have our ducks in a row that there will be beta releases. Tying in to some things discussed at the FUG, there is a concern to commit to Fedora 6 without a level of comfort that it covers the needs and is supported and stable. If we are at the end of the year with a couple "pilots" to show some different use cases and scenarios that could be a good place.
- Get some good design and implementation feedback from some of these "pilot" partners. We can then produce some data modeling recommendations for the community.
- If we fire up Fedora 6 on top of OCFL, how does Fedora know what to do with it. Need a pilot partner that needs that to happen.
- There is a plan to secure pilots discussed with Leaders and yes there is a concern about building another island.
- Question of resources? Do we bring in contractors for partners who don't have the developer team to support. Perhaps working with the contractors for testing which requires less knowledge of the internals but would provide a lot of useful information.
- The Barriers to Migration survey has been completed with over 100 responses, so the hope is to collect this data and perhaps use that data to support some grant applications for funding.
- Could funds from Duraspace be put in to mini-grants to entice partners to look at and perhaps participate in a Fedora 6 pilot.
- Could we offer additional support from the technical team if the "pilot" organization doesn't have the internal resources.
- What is the next step in this pilot process? Should we clarify any of this with Leaders? We are largely on the same page as Leaders, but we do need to make some specific requests (this goes back to the detailing of the plan from above) for code sprints, funding, etc.
- 5.1.0 - Jared Whiklo has volunteered to be release manager. Hoping to get https://github.com/fcrepo4/fcrepo4/pull/1523 and https://github.com/fcrepo4/fcrepo4/pull/1520 merged next week with the release candidate put out on May 17. Then we have 3 weeks until Open Repositories. Bethany Seeger has volunteered to help with the release.
- Do we work on two proof of concept storage layers at the same time. Broader question of having a storage API, but what is it written in. Is this an externally accessible API? Do we stick with a Java implementation only for the community implementation. For now we just build a Java interface. Concern that people is too LDP heavy and is a web standard and so if you just want to store your data and don't care about the LDP stuff. Could there be a separate API at a lower level to avoid the LDP specification.
- How big of a need is not having to deal with the LDP interaction, it would be good to get the survey results from the the Barriers to Migration.
- Jared Whiklo is also hoping to fix FCREPO-2996 and FCREPO-2997
- Islandora 8 is using Fedora 5 when it is released.