March 2017 Hydra Partner Meeting Agenda

Skipping introductions owing to familiarity of attendees

Agenda: Reviewing spaces available and logistics of the event in support of themes identified to date

Space & Time Available to Hydra Partners

• Bechtel Conference Center is the venue - don't go to Lathrop!

• Multiple rooms available:

  • A plenary/central room for reconnecting with Dev Congress

  • Oxenburg (3rd floor) as primary room for Partner's plenary (~60 people)

  • 3 Breakout rooms

    • Green room (10 people)

    • Encina 464 (28 people)

    • Encina West 202 (30 people)

    • Auxiliary Room set aside for food service

    • Spillover space available in Lathrop if multi-tracking requires

Social Calendar (Tom)

• Wednesday afternoon: Campus tours at break of LDCX

• Wednesday night: Hydra dinner?

• Thursday night: Something

  • Evviva: Are we thinking about a large restaurant reservation

  • Tom: Perhaps- could also have a reception, or an event at the library courtyard (which may be accompanied by working sessions)

  • Evviva: Can the courtyard have beer? (Tom: Yes) Then maybe a low key courtyard event?

    • Jeremy: +1

    • Evviva's jokes about Tony's retirement are well-received

    • Mike's jokes about Californian cold tolerance are well-received

    • This might have constituted consensus?

• When will the meeting break Friday?

  • Tom suggests scheduling an end time 3-4 hours later than you actually want people to stay; IE don't do wrap-up late in the afternoon

  • Evviva suggests wrap-p by 3

Mark notes space is reserved until 5 on all days

Agenda setting: Should we have a strawman?

• Tom: This group could decide for an unconference arrangement, but seems like there are actual agenda that must be considered

• Evviva: Should we frontload the firm agenda, and leave the more flexible topic selection to Friday

STRAW AGENDA drawn from topics id'd earlier

• Rebranding

  • Evviva suggests timeboxing this conversation, which will wander, and maybe moving off first day

  • Karen worried that there are enough contingencies that will need to be dealt with earlier

  • Richard observes that it will not be so open-ended, as some work will have been executed

  • Tom suggests topic/session organizers in advance of meeting, which appears to reach consensus

• 2017 Spending Plan in context of upcoming development
  
  

  • new website

• Hyku/Hyrax roadmap & resource commitment

• Partner admonition for lackadaisical contributions

• See also November Partner Meeting Notes

ADDITIONAL TOPICS

• Vendor ecosystem

• WG and WG Process Review

• Hyku Success disaster planning: What do we need to do if it is taken up? 

• Churn tolerance for projects

• Fedora/DSpace working relationship

Linda asks whether we aren't committed to identifying the new brand by 3/31?

• some disagreement, as there is a legal review that will not be done

• The attendees begin to demonstrate the phenomenon that Karen worried about, rather than identifying the topics to be coordinated for the next call

• Tom reviews some possible models for discussion of non-name choice rebranding conversations

What are the topics that should be coordinated for next call?

• call to nominate a SG member and a supplementary person with enthusiasm to prepare a more structured list of points about rebrand for next meeting

• new website: Richard hopes web presence WG will review work to date and HP will consider/review At the meeting

• Tom will frame spending plan, with recourse to a draft/blueprint from last year

  • extraordinary expenses: rebrand. was there a cost associated with the slack archiving?

  • Evviva: should this be the starting point the community contribution conversation broadly, especially the post-Hyku planning?

Rick raises a point about identifying the places at which HP should reconvene with the Dev Congress

Evviva: Revisiting partner contributions is a meaty topic, and should be on Thursday

Hyku road-mapping

• Mike: Hyrax represents an unprecedented convergence at solution level for the H Community, and requires a clearer vision as a product than we have had for Sufia

• Linda: Is there a reason to delineate Hyku and Hyrax roadmaps? (Mike worries that the distinction will draw the conversation unhelpfully into the weeds of implementation)

• Tom: H Comm and products are big enough that hopeful organic approach to product development will not work, would like to talk about this

  • many people agree

  • Linda: developers may need to self-organize around this

  • Mike: much of the work on the solution bundles has driven the stack maintenance as well- which makes Hyrax a consideration for non-adopters who use Hydra components

  • Many people are supportive of the broad topic of product roadmapping

  • People think this is a large topic, estimating 2-3 hours

Partner Roles

• cf DLF talk

• Evviva will lead this discussion; reiterates connection to spending plan

  • Richard will lead latter? 

• Tom: topic - differentiate HP and SG responsibilities

• Karen: topic - id outstanding organizational and documentation needs as vectors for new contributions

What "Additional" topics should be promoted to agenda?

• Richard nominates the churn tolerance topic

• Evviva characterizes vendor engagement as consonant with partner roles if viewed through lens of good citizenship

• Linda: roadmapping external integrations/composing a "big picture" of integration with services

  • Richard: and the regional considerations (NA, Europe, etc)

  • Mike mixes some metaphors in a caution that we might want this to be a WG, since there are participant requirements that may not align with attendees

  • Jeremy advocates using HP to identify good WG participants (Nabeela: or subsequent call agenda)

• Tom: some "slack" time should be reserved for organizing topics to be taken up over 2017 (should this be a breakout)

• Mike from chat: "Points of collaboration and common priority between Hydra and Fedora" -- may be able to slot into the roadmapping/code contributions conversation depending on how far we get. The key question: how and how much does/should the Hydra community invest in Fedora enhancements to achieve our roadmap?

• Nabeela: How do we continue conversations from HP meetings between meetings?

  • Karen: mission setting for the partner calls should be a topic we take up at the meeting (Tom +1 for this partner roles)

• Linda: We need to make sure we allocate time for report-backs

  • Richard: groups addressing the "big" topics should have framing questions

What do we need for next week?

• Tom: topic leaders should bring framing questions next week

  • Rebranding: Evviva and (Tom/Mike)

  • Website: Richard

    • Overview of the need for a new website - functionality, audience (with the advent of Hyku)

    • Description of work done by developer and Web Presence Working Group

    • Ask audience to review current draft - not to "nit-pick" but to validate the approach and identify any omissions

    • Work still to do on website before launch

    • Work needed on wiki (WG of seasoned Hydranauts with executive powers?) 

  • Partner Roles: Evviva/Richard

    • includes inter-meeting communication plans and the potential impact of Hyku

  • Spending plan: (Chris/Robin)

  • Hyku/Roadmapping: Tom/Mike/Karen/Jeremy

  • Draft annual report (Tom/Richard)

    • Overview of perceived need for annual report to attract/inform management of potential Hyku (and other) adopters

    • Description of work done by working group

    • Ask audience to review current draft and to suggest any significant possible improvements

• Other Topics to frame

  • Roadmapping external integrations/composing a "big picture" of integration with services (Rick: I did not see this in the list but pulled this list of framing items together quickly)
    
    

    • Potentially as smaller breakout

    • Describe intended focus: both national and international concerns as these vary across our partners

    • Form working group
      
      

    • Draft initial group expectations such as:

      • Explore critical types of services (to avoid bias to a particular geographic region) and which international communities/regions to consider initially

      • Identify key tool alignments to pursue within each community

      • Create process for initiating service/tool integration research, evaluation, implementation
        
        

    • Identify members of working group
      
      

• Tom: next week we should talk about slotting the schedule

•