Page Comparison

...

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

Notes

Retrospective

• Botimer

  ...

  • • Addressed 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 people than expected
    • Split everything up really well, got through more tickets than expected
  • Griffin

    ...

    • • Proposed a review column for waffle
      • Otherwise,

    ...

    • • felt that this was a great success
    • 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

    ...

    • • delivered to the GitHub Inbox
    • Pendragon
      • How were standups?
    • Botimer:
      • Seemed fine

    ...

    
    

    Follow-Up Tasks and Sprint 2

    • 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,

    ...

    • • Spreadsheet should be addressed more immediately
        • 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 Apache Software Foundation (ASF) practices...

    ...

    • • their treatment of documenting copyright

    ...

    • • They 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

    ...

    • • • issues 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, this is still not clear

    ...

    • Actions to be taken
      • Check with Michael Klein as product owner who is in the copyright statement for MIT on

    ...

    • • browse-everything
        
        • Should be able to change to an Apache license from MIT
        • Theoretically could change the licenses without including MIT at all, 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

    ...

    • • Propose Consistency Guidelines for Copyright to Partners
      • 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 are identical (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

    ...

    • • • • Institution X)
        • This way the guidelines are simple, can be readily checked

      ...

      • • • • Provides a single file where additional copyright holders are specified
      • Pendragon:

        ...

        • • Where are we

        ...

        • • inconsistent currently?
        • 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 distribution won't have that

        Get BE over to Apache license

        ...

        • We need to 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
        • Pendragon also agrees with Armintor and feels that some significant changes to existing copyright statements 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)

        
        

        Code of Conduct

        • • Should we 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
              • Notes that this relates to interaction outside of the source code...so it might not be best that its in the source code
              • But, iff the body of the Code of Conduct can be readily integrated into the code base...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?
              • Not really, it has just been added to the Wiki, and then just updated with the name Samvera

        Meeting adjourned at 15:31EDT