Attending
Time:12:00PM PDT/03:00PM EDT - 01:00PM PDT/04:00PM EDT
Zoom: https://princeton.zoom.us/j/397525264
Participants
- Trey Pendragon (Princeton University Library)
- Benjamin Armintor (Columbia University Libraries)
- Noah Botimer (U. Michigan Library)
- James Griffin (Princeton University Library)
Agenda
- 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
Future 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
Mark Bussey
Link out to shared code of conduct
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...
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