2016-10-13 Meeting notes - Hydra Plugins Working Group

Owned by Bill Branan
Jun 16, 2017
2 min read

When: 2pm Eastern, 11am Pacific

Where: Google Hangouts

Moderator: Andrew Myers (WGBH)

Notetaker: Jenn (Cornell)

Attendees:

Agenda:

  1. Confirm >= 3 partners. Done
  2. Get a notetaker. Done
  3. Agree on a name.
    1. Agreed on "Hydra Plugins Working Group". The term "plugin" can be loaded, so a good definition should be settled on, and stated in the charter.
  4. Agree on definitions of "plugin" vs. "optional feature".
    1. A "plugin" in this context implies a technical separation between software that provides base functionality (e.g. CurationConcerns) and optionally installable software that adds additional functionality.
    2. Other "optional features" may include features that ship with the core product, and can optionally be "turned-on" via configuration, but do not have to be installed.
  5. Agree on the scope:
    1. Should we deal with both "plugin" and "optional features", or limit the scope to one of the two?
      1. No. This WG is going to focus only on "plugins" as defined above. There is already an emerging convention in Sufia for providing a way to enable/disable optional features.
    2. Are we coming up with formal specs, or less formal guidelines?
      1. We are going to start with establishing guidelines, but stop short of committing to writing formal specs.
      2. Guidelines will come in the form of documentation, examples, tutorials, etc that outline best practices and expectations for developing plugins, as well as software interfaces and integration points to code against.
    3. Are we focused on implementation, or just defining expectations? See above.
    4. Confirm that the narrative covers:
      1. the overall domain into which the discussion falls? Done.
      2. shared needs and requirements within that domain? Done.
      3. use cases that demonstrate these needs and requirements? Added as action item.
  6. Agree on deliverables:
    1. Documentation (either formal specs, or informal guidelines).
      1. Where should it live?
        1. TBD. Does not need to be decided right now. But should be sufficiently discoverable.
      2. Plan for community acceptance?
        1. Tabled.
    2. Working code?
      1. Yes, we should end up with some working code
      2. A feature from Sufia that has been made optional? N/A.
      3. A plugin from Sufia that can be optionally installed into CurationConcerns?
        1. Possibly. We'll come up with a list of candidates later, and decide which to work toward.
        2. GeoConcerns is also a good candidate, as are features from Indiana/WGBH project Hydradam.
  7. Agree on timeframe
    1. Consider the holiday season.
    2. Consider works in progress by partner institutions.
    3. Agreed on Feb 14 (Valentine's Day!) 2017.
  8. Where should working documents for drafting guidelines live?
    1. TBD, but Michael Joseph Giarlo suggests using Google Docs for "working docs", and when it's time to disseminate, move to the Wiki
  9. Action Items
    1. Establish initial working documents for drafts of guidelines in location decided upon. (Andrew Myers)
    2. Create use cases from the charter narrative. (Andrew Myers)
    3. Post finalized draft charter to the duraspace wiki, and link from home page. (Andrew Myers)
    4. Post notes, and link from WG page. (Jenn, Andrew Myers)
    5. Send message on Hydra-tech announcing formation of new WG, and deadline for sign-up. (Andrew Myers)
    6. Report on experience developing GeoConcerns, i.e. pain points, observations on integration points, etc. (Eliot Jordan)