Attending
Time:12:00PM PDT/03:00PM EDT - 01:00PM PDT/04:00PM EDT
Zoom: https://princeton.zoom.us/j/397525264
Participants
Agenda
- Review the Maintenance Waffle Board
- Deprecating Outstanding Projects
- om
- jetty-wrapper
- hydra-jetty
- Deprecating Samvera Projects without Maintenance Plans
- Revisiting the Scheduling of Sprints
- Additional Agenda Items?
Notes
- Action Item:
- Provide permissions for other users to edit the Confluence Pages for Samvera
Maintenance Issues
- Which kind of issues should be made
- Botimer
- ActiveFedora
- License is there, Apache 2
- Copyright statement from 2011 for Stanford and MediaShelf
- Do we want to continue to update the dates on the copyrights?
- No proper legal entity to hold the IP
- One retains copyright to the code itself (not transferred with Apache for foundations)
- Community-distributed copyright is held by all new code
- Pendragon
- Create a ticket with the maintenance label
- Our responsibility is finished if product owner needs to determine if the license statement is accurate
- Botimer
- This group might be expected to resolve licensing questions
- Pendragon
- That may be more appropriate for Steering to determine
- Botimer
- Is it worth creating an issue in active_fedora?
- Pendragon
- Only go as far as asking the product owners if it is okay
- Armintor
- Samvera is not an organization which can hold rights
- Governance WG: Do CLAs have an obligation regarding rights statements?
- Are the licenses in line with the contributor CLAs?
- E-mailed Steering
- Gemnasium
- Does not exist anymore
- ActiveFedora has a badge for this service
- Should we explore GitLab auditing?
- Create an issue for that?
- Pendragon
- Created a ticket to remove it
- GitHub audits for free (it is no longer necessary)
- Create an issue to remove it
- Documentation links to Dive into Hydra
- Should suffice in place of installation instructions
- Documentation point 11
- Contributors...have they all signed the CLAs?
- Is this WG responsible for doing those checks?
- Pendragon
- Contributor list is public
- Always check the CLA...it's been socially enforced
- Botimer
- There is a CLA bot for GitHub
- Might be at the level of individual repositories
- Sadler had to leave at 03:17 EDT
- If someone did not have permission, we should contact that contributor privately
- We should still check it
- Discussion on the Channel
- Pendragon
- Three partners requirement
- Putting forward work to keep it working?
- Three partners are only required to use it
- Should we change that wording?
- If so, should we create tickets?
- Maintenance plan may or may not be our group
- But the CCMWG involves three partners
- Botimer
- We do care about it as a WG
- Are we using it? More difficult to determine
- Pendragon
- Do we want to change the wording on samvera.github.io?
- Armintor
- Contributions are required from three or more institutions
- Just usage alone isn't reasonable
- Pendragon
- Five institutions use a Gem
- One contributes by served on the CCMWG
- Does that fulfill the requirement?
- Armintor
- Support doesn't require code contributions
- Just consuming downstream...
- This WG alone isn't enough to support that
- Opened a ticket addressing this on samvera-labs/maintenance
- Botimer
- Project should be around for at least 6 months
- What does active use mean?
- Pendragon
- Confirms that "for at least" (more than) 6 months old
- What does active use mean?
- Botimer
- How do we track whether or not it has been used in the past 6 months
- Pendragon
- If it falls out of use, we should deprecate it
- Action Item: Documentation site Pull Request issued by Botimer
- Botimer
- Does not have permission to create labels on the active_fedora GitHub repositories
- Did sign a CLA
- Pendragon
- Ensured that repository permissions issues were resolved for everyone
Deprecating Projects
- om
- hydra-jetty
- jetty-wrapper
- None of these have Product Owners
- Pendragon
- Following the documentation
- One e-mail per project to the community
- Action Item: Pendragon sends three e-mails
- Botimer:
- One e-mail makes more sense for the first deprecation by this WG
Projects without Maintenance Plans
- Sufia and Curation Concerns
- Have active use in the past 6 months...but no maintenance plans
- "There has been a shift in community focus" is stated in the README
- Action Item: Pendragon will send a different e-mail for these discussions
- Botimer
- Does it go back to samvera-labs or samvera-deprecated?
- Consulting firms who use either Sufia or Curation Concerns (e. g. DCE) still have a stake in ensuring that these appear to be maintainable by knowledgable persons
- Might not be prudent to use the term "deprecated" in these situations
- Perhaps another more positive term
Scheduling Sprints
- Pendragon will fill out the form and send it to everybody
Additional Items
Todo Lists
- Botimer:
- Some of the outstanding todos can be easily converted to issues for projects
- But, does not want to provide issue cleaning for the CCMWG
- Can just as easily start resolving existing issues for maintenance
- Pendragon:
- Those new issues should receive the "maintenance" label
- We are the cleanup crew...
- Ask the product owner if that would be useful
Meeting adjourned at 03:45PM EDT