Leadership Group Members
- Tal Ayalon, World Bank Group
- Pascal-Nicolas Becker, The Library Code*
- Allan Bell, The University of British Columbia
- Kimberly Chapman, University of Arizona Libraries
Susanne Chase, Georgetown University- Lieven Droogmans, Atmire*
- Scott Hanrath, University of Kansas*
- Barbara Hirschmann, ETH Zurich
- Kirsty Lingstadt, University of Edinburgh
- Jyrki Ilva, National Library of Finland
- Andrew McLean, Imperial College London
- Paolo Mangiafico, Duke University
- Lautaro Matas, LA Referencia
- Agustina Martínez-García, University of Cambridge*
Andrés Melgar, Concytec- Robert Miller, LYRASIS
- Erik Moore, University of Minnesota
- Susanna Mornati, 4Science*
- Jere Odell, IUPUI*
- Kristi Park, Texas Digital Library* (Chair)
- Beate Rajski, DSpace-Konsortium Deutschland
Gail Steinhart, Cornell University Library- Maureen Walsh, The Ohio State University Libraries* (Vice Chair)
- Wei Xuan, University of Manitoba
LYRASIS attendees
- Laurie Arp
- Michele Mennielli
- Tim Donohue
- Jenn Bielewski
The represents who will be taking notes for a given meeting. It rotates after each meeting to the next person in the attendee list.
*Members of DSpace Steering Group
Meeting time: 4PM-6PM UTC
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://lyrasis.zoom.us/j/5025273040?pwd=RTk4QUhISnhPRi9YenVrTFJKbDllQT09
Meeting ID: 502 527 3040
Passcode: dspace
One tap mobile
+13126266799,,5025273040#,,,,,,0#,,995571# US (Chicago)
+13017158592,,5025273040#,,,,,,0#,,995571# US (Washington D.C)
Meeting ID: 502 527 3040
Passcode: 995571
Find your local number: https://lyrasis.zoom.us/u/aoVg8CoUw
Agenda
# | Time | Item | Information | Who |
|---|
| 1 | 5 min | Welcome | - Welcome to new Leadership Group members
| Kristi Park |
| 2 | 25 min | DSpace 7.0 - Final beta
- Testathon
- 7.0 release
| Update on the current status of DSpace 7 development and the forthcoming beta versions. | Tim Donohue Maureen Walsh |
| 3 | 15 min | Working and Interest Group Reports | Brief updates/Q&A from Working and Interest Group representatives.
| Kristi Park (chair, Governance Working Group) Scott Hanrath (chair, Product Visioning Working Group) Jenn Bielewski (chair, Marketing Interest Group) |
| 4 | 5 min | Quarterly Financial Report
| Quarterly financial report distributed via listserv. Reflects info as of 3/31/21 Variances - Positive: membership, salaries/benefits, contract (dev) labor, travel, IDC, other
- Negative: fundraising, consultants
3/31 report does not include 7.0 beta 5 development costs as those are not yet invoiced. Approximately $74,000 to be billed soon. 7.0 Development Costs
- Estimated: $ 300,000
- Raised: $ 153,227
- Allocated: $ 284,000 (includes pending invoices for Beta 5)
- Not yet using line of credit
| Laurie Arp |
| 5 | 15 min | DSpace-LYRASIS MOU | DSpace Steering recommends adoption of a revised MOU developed by the Governance Working Group. Clean copy of MOU: DSpaceLYRASISMOU20210217-cleancopy.doc Version of MOU showing all changes: DSpaceLYRASISMOU all changes 20210222rev.doc | Kristi Park |
| 6 | 10 min | DSpace 7.1 and 7.2 feature prioritization | Review results of prioritization survey, which asked Leadership members to select features remaining in the backlog after 7.0 that they feel are most essential to prioritize for version 7.1. Survey results: Open time for questions from Leadership about the survey and results. | Kristi Park |
| 7 | 40 min | Breakout discussions: Prioritization of features for DSpace 7.1 | Leaders will break into 4-5 randomly assigned groups to further discuss the prioritization of features for DSpace 7.1. We will take 25 minutes for breakout discussions and then return for 15 minutes to report out and discuss with the whole group. Guide for breakout discussions: - If needed, conduct a brief round of introductions. Record group members in the notes document.
- Identify reporter to report highlights of the discussion out to the larger group.
- Questions for discussion:
- What criteria did you use for voting and ranking features?
- Which results surprised you? Are there features you would argue should be higher (or lower) on the list?
- What else should Steering and the DSpace 7 Working Group consider when prioritizing features for development in DSpace 7.1 not reflected in these results? (E.g. Can you identify dependencies for high-priority features that should be considered?)
You can take notes in a Google doc that matches your Breakout Room number, linked to here:
| Kristi Park, all |
| 6 | 5 min | Any other business | - DSpace Anwendertreffen (Annual meeting for the German-speaking DSpace community organized and sponsored by The Library Code) will be held virtually April 15-16, 2021. Free registration at https://www.dspace-anwendertreffen.de/.
|
|
Notes:
Welcome
- Kristi thanks everybody for taking the survey re. feedback about the last Leadership meeting
- Another survey will be sent out after this meeting
- Two new members to Leadership Group:
- Lautaro Matas from la Referencia
- Cesar Olivares left the group because he left his current position, Andrés Melgar replaces him
- Sarah Swantz has left her position as well, it is still open who will replace her
DSpace 7
- Time gives an update on the current status of DSpace 7 development and the forthcoming beta versions
- Dev team currently working on release of beta 5, should be released tomorrow, testathon starts next week
- Beta 5 is feature-complete. Timing for final release (7.0) depends on feedback/bug reports from testathon. Maybe one or two month after the testathon.
- Still looking for volunteers for security testing. Looking for 1-2 institutions to do an external audit to give a different perspective to what the dev team has already done in this area. See Security Testing
- Third party (deque) will do an accessibility audit during the testathon. Co-funded by Lyrasis and TDL
- Kristi: Congratulations to the dev team on the progress.
- Maureen gives an introduction to the testathon:
- Testathon begins Monday. Everyone is encouraged to participate.
- Please watch the videos on the information page. People can also add test definitions. See test plan. There are instructions on how to use the different test status on the “Summary” tab of the test plan. User personas are also described in the summary. Every feature needs to be tested, even those that have already been tested by Bram in March/April.
- Maureen does a demo of doing a test: Open demo repository via link, do the testing, report the result.
- If a test has already been done, the next tester should overwrite the last test result, no matter what the status of the previous test was. There will be small improvements during the testathon, so it makes sense to retest tests that had reported bugs previously.
- Lieven ask whether there is deadline/date for the release of 7.0? Community members have mentioned to him that it is a problem that there is not even a target date. What does the rest of the group think?
- Tim: No target date because it depends on output of testathon
- Susanna: The date depends more on the number of bugs that are found (unknow number), than on the dev resources (known number). Prefers to wait after the testathon before communicating a date for DSpace 7.0.
Pascal: Of course everybody is waiting for a date. Should be ok to wait until after the testathon before communicating a date. Date should be before OR 2021. It could happen that we find a major bug when testing, it is not a good idea to communicate a date now.
Tal: A target date could help institutions in budget planning
Lieven: We need a target date to push work forward.
Kristi: Move this discussion to breakout groups, DSpace 7 WG and Steering Group.
Working and Interest Group Reports
Marketing Interest Group (Jennifer)
- Welcome letter created, Google doc on how to share your DSpace story, working on testathon messaging, work on website starting soon
Product Visioning Working Group (Scott)
- In the “getting started” phase, good initial conversations, get a high level sense of things beyond DSpace 7
Governance Working Group (Kristi)
- Apart from MOU topic (see below), questions re. timing of governance year were discussed, will be discussed with Steering and brought to leadership group
Questions:
- Robert: Are there any targets for how to migrate users to DSpace 7?
- Kristi: There is no plan, but it is an important topic. Need to help users migrate has been discussed, including getting support and funding.
- Jyrki: Next Leadership meeting is in July, which group will meet?
- Kristi; In practice, it’s never the new group that meets in July, but the one from the previous governance year. We should probably move the governance year to start in late September / early October.
Quarterly financial report
Laurie comments on the financial report:
- distributed via listserv.
- Reflects info as of 3/31/21
Variances
- Positive: membership, salaries/benefits, contract (dev) labor, travel, IDC, other
- Negative: fundraising, consultants
Overall: better than on track
3/31 report does not include 7.0 beta 5 development costs as those are not yet invoiced. Approximately $74,000 to be billed soon.
7.0 Development Costs
- Estimated: $ 300,000
- Raised: $ 153,227
- Allocated: $ 284,000 (includes pending invoices for Beta 5)
- Not yet using line of credit
Discussion:
- Kristi: Steering authorized funded development through 7.1. Have to make decisions on how to manage that.
- Jyrki: Will there be another round of fundraising this year? There might be institutions willing to contribute again.
- Kristi: End of fiscal year is coming in US, if there are funds that could go to DSpace 7.1 development, please consider doing so.
- Robert: Are people more optimistic going into the next budget cycle? Mixed answers from the group.
DSpace-LYRASIS MOU
Kristi: The goals of the MOU update were
- to streamline the content of the MOU
- to make it more “evergreen” so that we don’t need to revise it too often
Changes:
- Most changes are the result of combining responsibilities (streamlining and cleaning up)
- Changes to how we work as Governance
- No end date, but recommendation to revise every 3 years
- Fees moved to appendix
DSpace Steering recommends adoption of a revised MOU developed by the Governance Working Group.
Vote: The MOU passes with no objections.
DSpace 7.1 and 7.2 feature prioritization
Kristi:
- The goal of the survey sent out to LG members was to have a fresh look at the backlog to help prioritizes features for 7.1 and determine which funding we need for it
- Kristi presents slides with the survey results (Link to slides)
Questions/discussion:
- Tal: URL structure changes, bitstream URLs also have a new format. This could be a problem because bitstream URLs do not redirect.
- Tim: Please report this as a bug during testathon, it might simply have been overlooked
- Lieven: How was the ranking done exactly?
- Kristi: Data have not really been ranked. Topics were only sorted according to number of votes. Mean vote is not a good indicator.
- Lieven reports he tried to do some weighted ranking, results were quite different to what Kristi has presented.
- Kristi: Ranking is probably not so important, rather consider which features were included in the top 10.
- Lieven: Weighted ranking does make a big difference, consider for example Sherpa/Romeo.
- Lieven will further work on an weighted ranking analysis and share with the group
- JSPUI features did not move up in the ranking, this might be because there are only two JSPUI users in LG.
Breakout discussions: Prioritization of features for DSpace 7.1
- What criteria did you use for voting and ranking features?
- Which results surprised you?
- What else should be considered when prioritizing features?
Breakout 1 (Maureen)
- Emphasis on Angular UI, pulling things into the UI that can be done via the command line
- Surprise: how high the exporting search results was in the list, batch import from ZIP file
- Consider bundling things, e.g. entities features
Breakout 4 (Allan)
- Maybe survey results are not generizable due to diversity of organizations using DSpace, only 2 organizations using JSPUI, some organizations waiting for 7.2 anyway
- Bundle features that make sense from dev perspective
- Prioritize features for new Dspace users (basic workflows)
- How we approached the survey: Putting users in the center, removing things that are new (except for accessibility)
Breakout 2 (Pascal)
- Look into weighted ranking
- Take into account how much work a feature takes
- A lot of highly ranked features that are not deal breakers – not sure why
- Small group should work on interpreting the results
Breakout 3 (Tim)
- Lack of representation of JSPUI users in survey
- Focus on submitter based features when filling in the survey
- 1 and 7.2 are arbitrary buckets, there could be more buckets to push features out more rapidly
Kristi: Steering will discuss what to do next. Maybe include discussion in Dspace 7 WG or build another small group as suggested.
Lieven: It would be good to know which leaders answered on behalf of yarious users - Beate and Lieven himself seem to be the only ones
Lieven: what is the cut-off: How many out of the 10 features are really important to you? - LG members report numbers between 3 and 7 mostly
Any other business
Pascal:
- DSpace Anwendertreffen (Annual meeting for the German-speaking DSpace community organized and sponsored by The Library Code) will be held virtually April 15-16, 2021.
- Over 200 participants have signed up.
- Support from Atmire and 4Science.
- Meeting of German Consortium included.