12 May 2020

Attendees

Rob Kaufman

Goals

I'm not sure what to put here

Previous Action Items

Connect with Component Maintenance Group and find out a) if they are active, b) if someone else is willing to join (in Mark's place) Mark Bussey
Reschedule Hyrax Interest Group meeting and take the Hyrax PO role forwards Rob Kaufman

Agenda

Item	Who	Notes
Previous Action Items	All
Hyrax PO	RK	Small update post partners, things are moving forward
Component Maintenance Group member	MB	Update from last meeting
Task Review	All
Partner Meeting - recap	NJ
Roadmaps Survey / next Partner Call	JA	https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ksZrKJrTlBAKoBVwuW_IiGUH0rjKdB1TnDXZjJb9ZfM/edit

Action Items

Task report

Looking good, no incomplete tasks.

Notes

Call for additional items
- Julie
  - Resourcing and survey results
  - Presenting the survey results at a Partners call
- Nabeela
  - Perhaps we can discuss the Partner call
  - Marketing Working Group
    - Mention of some help from the Roadmap Council in updating the pages
    - Julie: Assigned certain pages from the last meeting
Agenda
- Hyrax WG meeting rescheduled
- There is potentially a new Hyrax Product Owner identified, but there are scheduling concerned
  - Julie Hardesty is looking to start this in July, hitting 20% stride by Connect 2020
    - Serve in this role for two years, with the second year involving the preparation for nominating the successor PO
  - This will be discussed with the community during Virtual Connect
    - There needs to be some clarification addressing that Julie cannot begin to ramp up focus until at least July
- Component Maintenance WG
  - James is going to serve as the representative for the WG
  - Mark could continue to be a Product Owner representative for the WG, with James serving as the developer representative
    - Prefer to keep Mark
  - James provided a history of the Core Component WG
    - (This will be drafted)
  - Roadmap Council is there to facilitate with community coordination from the WG
- Parter Meeting Recap
  - Three goals were shared with Partners
    - Survey
    - Asks put to Partners
    - Code reclamation
    - Some discussions regarding the reinterpretation of
      - For the ask, assumed that we were discussing the contribution model
      - Tom Cramer: Raised questions regarding the overall goals and objectives vs. the vision of the community
    - Roadmap
      - Are we actually working towards a roadmap?
        Are we building a roadmap?
  - We might need a massive change to the charter
    - Rename to the "Roadmaps Council"
    - There is this constant problem of assuming that this council is chartered to create a single roadmap for the entire community
      - This is not the chartered purpose of this group
    - This needs to be clearly stated
      - The community does not empower us to establish a single roadmap
      - There also isn't interest from the community in empowering us to do so
    - We are more of a clearing house, "air traffic control"
    - If Partners do not understand this, then the rest of the community likely does not understand any of this either
    - Renaming
      - "Samvera Roadmaps Coordination Committee"
      - "Roadmap Clearing House"
      - If we continue to keep the "roadmap" term in the name, we still are left with the assumption that we have a roadmap
    - If there is a contingency of partners who do want to define a roadmap, this will need to be clearly identified and this will need to be addressed
    - We need to start this process by reviewing the charter
      - Changing the name by itself may not solve the problem
      - If we routinely provide an artifact to the community, then this might prove to be more effective
      - However, it might also be the case that not many will read the revised charter; renaming, then, should be given a higher priority
        "Community Coordination Council"
    - For the next meeting, conduct a brainstorming exercise for renaming the group
      - Rob will lead this
    - The core anxiety which drove all of this is, what if I have my team invest my effort into Samvera solutions, but then the community takes an entirely unanticipated turn with new architecture
      - Can everyone feel secure that there is a stable framework that their institution has invested in
      - If we were more clear about the purpose of this group, community members would know where to check in
      - Do I adopt Hyrax 2? Wait for Hyrax 3? Use Valkyrie alone?
- Roadmaps Survey
  - Offer a matrix to identify where institutions are directing resources for customizations
    - This could be use to derive features which could be scoped for community sprints instead of being left to internal customizations
  - Found there to be a lack of energy and activity within the community at the moment
    - Rather than put out a document summarizing this survey, during Partners call, propose a resourcing discussion with members of this council
      - How can Hyrax and Samvera better serve community and institutional needs during trying economic times?
      - Resourcing the community requires time from other institutions, more than anything else
  - During the last Partners Meeting, the resourcing questions were not completely addressed
  - From the survey, we could try and make the point that there is more which could coordinated centrally
  - However, there are limitations when it comes to community coordination
    - Unfunded mandates are difficult to define and then enforce
    - Explicitly requesting FTE time for a set duration of time is much more helpful
  - The size of the meeting itself can be discouraging
    - Trying to reduce meeting sizes in order to try and find those who can readily contribute resources to a community sprint
  - We still need to present the survey results to Partners
  - There is something to the idea of hosting a meeting with the implicit directive "if you want to do this, please attend; if you do not, please do not"
    - Otherwise there is more time invested in discussions and resource planning for those without FTE resources to contribute
- Hyrax Development
  - Tom Johnson and Matt Critchlow have been investigating taking more time to addressing Wings support for Hyrax 3
  - There are concerns regarding the ActiveFedora dependencies in the stack
    - If this can be completed, Component Maintenance can serve to assist with deprecating ActiveFedora dependent components
  - Concern is that there might need to more involved in integration testing
    - Upgrading to Hyrax 3 is a process in itself to test
  - There need to be steps towards integrating community development efforts
    - Provide Partners with the survey results
    - More focus gathering which draws in community members with the resources to do it
    - Present "here are the next 3-4 objectives, how can I prioritize this?"
    - Rob and Jon will assist Julie with preparing for this
- Analytics
  - There may be some effort organized focused upon this
  - Remains to be determined
- Scheduling the Next Meeting
  - We will meet in two weeks
Meeting adjourned at 09:55 PDT/12:55 EDT

Browser not supported