CCMWG - 08/20/18

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
- Addressed 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 people than expected
- Split everything up really well, got through more tickets than expected
Griffin
- Proposed a review column for waffle
- Otherwise, felt that this was a great success
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 delivered to the GitHub Inbox
Pendragon
- How were standups?
Botimer:
- Seemed fine

Follow-Up Tasks and Sprint 2

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, Spreadsheet should be addressed more immediately
  - 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 Apache Software Foundation (ASF) practices...their treatment of documenting copyright
- They 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 issues 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, this is still not clear
Actions to be taken
- Check with Michael Klein as product owner who is in the copyright statement for MIT on browse-everything
  - Should be able to change to an Apache license from MIT
  - Theoretically could change the licenses without including MIT at all, 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
- Propose Consistency Guidelines for Copyright to Partners
- 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 are identical (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 Institution X)
  - This way the guidelines are simple, can be readily checked
    - Provides a single file where additional copyright holders are specified
Pendragon:
- Where are we inconsistent currently?
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 distribution won't have that
We need to 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
Pendragon also agrees with Armintor and feels that some significant changes to existing copyright statements 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)

Code of Conduct

- Should we link out to shared code of conduct?
  - Proposed by Mark Bussey
- 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
    - Notes that this relates to interaction outside of the source code...so it might not be best that its in the source code
    - But, iff the body of the Code of Conduct can be readily integrated into the code base...then that is fine
- 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?
    - Not really, it has just been added to the Wiki, and then just updated with the name Samvera

Meeting adjourned at 15:31EDT