Time/Place

• Time: 9am-3pm Eastern Standard Time US (UTC-5)
• Place: Capital Hilton, California Room
• Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7035
  • Participant Code: 479307#
  • International numbers: Conference Call Information

Attendees

• Julie Allinson (will participate remotely for some of the meeting)
• Chris Awre
• Robert Cartolano
• Stefano Cossu
• Dan Coughlin (will participate remotely for some of the meeting)
• Tom Cramer
• Steve DiDomenico - Evviva Weinraub
• Jon Dunn
• Declan Fleming
• Janet Fletcher
• Michael J. Giarlo
• Michael Gonzales
• Ladd Hanson
• Wolfram Horstmann
• Neil Jefferies (may be able to participate remotely - let me know how)
• Debra Kurtz
• Susan Lafferty (may bey able to participate remotely - let me know how)
• Mark Leggott
• Jonathan Markow
• Steve Marks
• Tom Murphy
• Matthias Razum
• Glen Robson
• Robin Lindley Ruggaber 
• Dan Santamaria
• Tim Shearer
• Kelcy Shepherd Aaron Coburn (will participate remotely for some of the meeting)
• Thorny Staples
• Jim Tuttle
• Keith Webster
• David Wilcox
• Andrew Woods
• Maurice York
• Patrick Yott

Agenda

Previous Actions

Minutes

Agenda Review

1. The Year in Review -- 15 minutes (9:45)

2. Goals for 2016 -- 1 hour (10:00)

1. incl Developer Commitment

3. Membership drive & expansion — Strategy Discussion -- 30 min (11:30)

4. Meetings: what Fedora-related conferences and events will happen in 2016? -- 30 min (12:00)

5. Training: Assessment, next plans -- 20 min

6. Vendor strategy: how can we get service providers into the ecosystem -- 15 min

7. Budget Review -- 20 min

8. Feedback to DuraSpace on Membership Billing -- 10 min

9. Fedora Leaders: Building & Keeping Group Momentum -- 20 min

10. Fedora website -- 20 min

Parking Lot

1. Clarify Fedora’s relationship to other projects (that rely on it).  E.g. Hydra in a box includes Fedora. Implications for funding and marketing.

2. “Year of upgrations?”

3. Gap analysis with longitudinal visualization to show adoption over time?

4. Focus not on upgrations but rather on Fedora 4 new successes?

5. Is there a way to bring clarity to the “kinds” of reference implementations?  That focus could play out in several ways (development, marketing, use case matching).

2015 Year in Review

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ca-wtO2_2xc_h2oBLeRpc9pijHjjjWNfVhD0bYY2SIo/edit#slide=id.gd0c528b95_0_1

2014-> 2015

63 -> 76 members (15 new members, 2 lost members)

$525k -> $560k (includes $115k in new funding, $80k in lost revenue from previous members)

Mostly North American.

How do we get to 100 members?

 Market expansion (new geographic regions, new domains--like museums)

Need to emphasize breadth of members in communications

Have consciously tried to expand number of members at all levels; diversification of risk

2016 Project Plan

Adoption

• Migration involves more than just Fedora

• Content, front-end, data models, etc.

• Maybe we need a migration-focused workshop?

• Roadmap of maturity levels of dependencies (PCDM, Hydra, Islandora, etc.)

• Migrations tend to be multi-year projects

• Support for Hydra/Fedora 3 is fading

• Maybe migrating apps like Avalon to Fedora 4 jointly would help provide stepping stones

• We need to get more Fedora 4 into Hydra sprints (attending meetings, working on Fedora 4 tickets, etc.)

• Islandora/Fedora 4 integration has been tighter, in part due to greater participating with Andrew and other Fedora reps

Technical Goals

• Fedora is an architecture. Its main benefit is set of services rather than an implementation in code.

• Fedora provides 5 services aligned with broad community standards (e.g. W3C) as part of its API contract.

• CRUD, using LDP

• Authz, using WebAC

• Fixity (checking of…)

• Versioning (looking at convergence with Memento)

• Transactions (some debate about this one)

• Related issues...

• scalability

• performance

• preservation

Andrew asserts;

1. we have consensus on these 5 API functions, more or less

2. we should push the development to get these done sooner rather than later

3. we should invest in a set of tests of the API specs

Benefits:

• aligning with standards allows for potential increase in adoption -- future looking web standards

• this opens up Fedora to a much broader world of those who are interested in linked data, but not necessarily in the world of repositories.

• people who want an LDP store

• people who want versioning

• akin to IIIF (APIs, not software)

• allows for multiple implementations. isolates users from implementations.

this raises branding and identity issues

1. what is Fedora? a layer, not a repo

2. are these the right 5 services? and...

1. how does this relate to API-X effort

2. invoke services

3. modeling digital objects

4. storage & lower level implementations

5. what does this mean for digital preservation?

3. another reference implementation. can we find one.

Membership/Meetings

• Goal of 100 members

• ⅓ of new members are from new markets

• Suggestions

• Establish regional shepherds

• Northeast has not been fully explored

• Helpful to have an idea of what the ideal spread across membership levels

• Strategies

• matching funds for new members

• target new markets and sectors (museums, govt, Europe, South America, Africa, ...)

• Europe

• Events:

• PASIG - Neil J. F4 presentation

• IDCC - Neil J. and Aaron C. F4 workshop

• OR2016

• Digital Humanities -

• F4 leaders-driven meeting focused on European expansion

• D.C.

• Events: what are the best events?

• DC FUG - can inform strategy for getting sector engagement

• Museums

Developer Commitments

• We have feature and maintenance sprints

• Most people aren’t interested in fixing bugs

• Some of the bugs are trickier and take a lot of skill and understanding of Fedora to tackle

• We need consistent involvement - bugs in the queue should be tackled within a reasonable amount of time

• Possible solutions

• Schedule a big developer sprint with lots of buy-in

• Make bug-fixing a part of the developer training

Actions