CCMWG - 08/20/18

Owned by Trey Pendragon
Last updated: Aug 20, 2018 by James Griffin
4 min read

Attending

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

Zoom: https://princeton.zoom.us/j/397525264


Participants


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:
  • 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