Page Comparison

...

• Retrospective on Sprint
• LICENSE discussion
• Planning for Sprint 2?

Notes

Retrospective

• Botimer
• Housekeeping tasks primarily
• Great job of grooming in advanced, very helpful
• Very accurate list of things being addressed
• Worked very well to have Pendragon addressing the templates
• Seemed to pretty good, anxious to address more technical issues
• Pendragon
• Generally went okay
• There were a couple of points of improvement
• Clearer for meeting time for standups...might not have been distributed
• Went through issues well...might need to go through repositories again
• Need to be up to date on documentation...some expectations built after issues were created
• Relevant product owners should have expected to have been pinged
• We ended up pinging more than expected
• Split everything up really well, got through more tickets than expected
• Griffin
• Review column for waffle
• Otherwise, success
• Armintor
• Pendragon
• How did Waffle go?
• Cross repository Waffle seemed to have worked
• Botimer
• "Done" column had issues disappear
• Once GitHub issues are closed, labels are removed (hence, removed from the cross-repository board)
• Pendragon
• Might try adjusting the labels in order to try and provide an alternative solution for this
• Botimer
• In the browser there were also some performance issues for updates
• Pendragon
• At times, there would be issues which would occasionally be issues which were rendered in the inbox
• Pendragon
• How were standups?
• Botimer:
• Seemed fine

...

Follow-Up Tasks

• Pendragon:
• We need to validate the Google Sheet for the core components
• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IICaXpwzxSFPB_G7k4jzUiPMTmT5OulUQKtF0jSYqvM/edit#gid=0
• Should just take the projects we had before, and ensure that "FALSE" issues which are still "FALSE" should have an issue
• Will insert a "has_templates" column for the Spreadsheet
• Next Sprint Planning
• 09/17 - 09/21
• Pendragon
• Some time between now and then, should review the issues on the Waffle board
• But, this should be addressed
• Call for participation and contact product owners
• Action item for next week to issue a CFP

Licensing

• Botimer
• Armintor and Botimer discussed this earlier on Slack
• Looking into details for ASF...operating and treating documentation of copyright
• Operate similarly to how Samvera does
• CLA's was borrowed heavily with a preamble specific to Samvera
• We do not assign copyright
• Authors to code retain copyright
• Group retains the composite
• Combination itself is a work in its own right
• ASF: One copyright statement for derivative work (combined thing)
• There is an open question...can we make a copyright statement for the collective work
• There are examples would lead us to believe that "Samvera Community" would be okay with a separate list of authors
• There is a challenge with existing practices...commit log uses an e-mail address
• Might resolve cleanly in terms of GitHub...good tracking for CLAs and their employers
• Contributions are work-for-hire
• But, still not clear
• There are two courses
• Check with Michael Klein as product owner who is in the copyright statement for MIT on BE
• Change to ASF
• Theoretically could change the licenses without including MIT, but best to include the MIT license and specify that this exclusively covers previous releases
• Ensure that this is consistent with other Gems in Samvera
• Other action
• Concise summary of what we are seeing...and work we are seeing to get to a simple practice towards evaluating projects as following guidelines
• Ensuring that file contents (e. g. the top portion of a notice document is the same line)
• List of institutions who want specific adjustments for the notice file (e. g. Trustees of...)
• This way the guidelines are simple, can be readily checked
• Provide a single file where additional copyright holders are specified
• Pendragon:
• How are we all over the board now?
• Botimer:
• Nobody has challenged the current copyright statement
• Headers in certain files might still have copyright ownership information (e. g. jQuery plugin files with this information)
• Would like to have one formula...for structuring this content and placing it within specific files
• We should have one descriptive file...without consulting an external source (e. g. the git history)
• Notes that the tarball won't have that
• Get BE over to Apache license
• Summarize the inconsistency, make a proposal for better consistency to vet amongst ourselves and take to the Partners
• Pendragon
• More immediately, finish this document for the proposal, submit it to the WG for review, then prepare it for submission to Partners
• Botimer and Armintor will finish this, highlighting the problems regarding the maintenance of the documentation within those repositories
• Feels that some significant changes might require input from attorneys
• Botimer
• Still feels that the current state of affairs would cause institutions to hesitate before contributing to the software (if reviewed by their attorneys)

Pendragon

...

Code of Conduct

• • Link out to shared code of conduct

• • Proposed by Mark Bussey
  • Botimer
  • Goal is consistency...likes the concept
  • It really doesn't matter...if we have a script which applies the template
  • The other content is boilerplate
  • Does not have a strong stance
  • This is an interaction outside of the source code...so it might not be best that its in the source code
  • If the body of the Code of Conduct can be readily integrated...then that is fine
  • Pendragon
  • Linking out is more efficient, but checkmark from GitHub is best for metrics
  • Should try out having it out in individual repositories, and if it becomes a problem, then address it
  • Has the CoC changed in the past four years?
  • Added to the Wiki, and then just updated with the name Samvera

Meeting adjourned at 15:31EDT