CCMWG - 06/18/18


Time:12:00PM PDT/03:00PM EDT - 01:00PM PDT/04:00PM EDT





  • 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'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
    • 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