Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 5
Next »
Participants
Agenda
- Additional Agenda Items?
- Identify priorities
- Analyze spreadsheet and order projects by importance.
- Scheduling of Sprints?
Notes
- Deliverables
- Scheduled for 2018
- Deprecate relevant projects from samvera to samvera-deprecated
- Ensure samvera Projects belong there
- Promote samvera-labs
- Respond to security alerts
- Review successes and failures (recharter if appropriate)
Prioritization
- How should we handle deprecation?
- Johnson: Reach out to product owners and discuss the possibility of scheduling sprints
- Product Owners should have a model for sprints which allows them to assign work
- Asking if we should deprecate
- Do we need to further identify projects which have a Product Owner but don't meet standards
- That's every Gem identified (i. e. none meet the requirements)
- Maybe some small percentage does (example: hydra-derivatives)
- Sprint Structure
- This group should decline to schedule sprints for projects which don't meet the minimum requirements
- Getting all of the projects classified as Core Components up to minimum requirements should be the highest priority
- Phase 2
- Pendragon:
- Understood Phase 2 to be less focused upon generating sprints and demand to product owner requests for features
- Instead, getting Core Components up to spec consistently
- Following this, then scheduling sprints for future features would be possible
- Johnson:
- Understood Phase 2 to be a more general call for availability for Core Component development sprints
- Has work ready on Active Fedora, but no mechanism to schedule a sprint using this Working Group
- Botimer:
- Where there is more ambiguity, push these off to gain more momentum later