- Meeting with Steering to review the purpose and objectives of the Roadmap Council
|Roadmap Council purpose and goals||Nabeela|
|Group Name discussion and suggestions||Rob|
|Q & A|
- Goal is to talk a bit about two topics
- The recurring theme of Roadmap Council - what it is expected to do vs. what it is really chartered to address
- If the council is doing what it is chartered to do, then how do we communicate this to the community?
- Charter is not to create a single roadmap for the community, but instead to try and align various efforts within the community
Roadmap Council Purpose and Goals
- When the Council started, this was chartered to bring together representatives for service providers, representatives from interest groups, and working groups to align project goals
- Coordinating and communicating regarding community sprints was also a significant undertaking of this group
- Every IG and WG defined their documents differently - the Roadmap Council first saw to try and standardize this by offering templating
- Beyond this, there was a whitepaper published addressing the state of the technology in the community
- Roadmap Council meets every two weeks
- Project Management and Community Sprints
- This Council was chartered to assist with managing and aligning these
- 2020 saw an entire year of activity, along with a retrospective
- Three Goals:
- Analysis of roadmaps and planning cycles
- The results of this will be presented during the next Partner Call
- Facilitating to get code back into core
- Communicating with the community at large
- When we discuss facilitating contributing to core, is this murky or problematic?
- If so, what are the obstacles?
- It comes with challenges given the size of the community, and it will never be trivial
- There have, however, been real successes
- User management pieces in Hyku were extracted into a Gem and shared with Hyku and Avalon
- Who contributed to this?
- Avalon Team contracted with Notch8, Northwestern paid for the feature with grant funding
- Roadmap Council makes these efforts known, and interested parties could request involvement and contribute funding or resources
- The Roadmap Council identified the requirements for work in this case
- Another Feature: DataCite Integration
- All community members with this requirement produced a solution for this independently
- Some assumed that the Roadmap Council is to coordinate rather than create a roadmap
- To what extent should the Roadmap Council invest in aligning IG/WG roadmaps and project roadmaps?
- What of individual institutions and their roadmaps for custom Samvera repositories or local Samvera projects?
- Community Manager is supposed to be a member of the Roadmap Council
- They are responsible for representing the interests of individual institutions and their roadmaps
- Community Manager clarifies that there might be similar functional requirements for different Samvera projects undertaken by different institutions
- If we wish to expand the charter of the Council to address institutional roadmaps, this might be helpful, as this objective is not quite clear in the current charter
- Roadmap Council could contribute some of the user stories (in terms of documentation and in order to exhibit the work which was achieved)
- This would also be useful for the induction of the Community Manager
- DataCite Integration
- There are currently 7 implementations
- Is there an activity for identifying which of these are being considered for inclusion into Samvera core?
- After looking at multiple implementations, Notch8 has found that the implementations are extremely similar in structure
- For the next institution which need this, perhaps they can work with the community instead
- Also, it might also be helpful to have seasoned contributors work in order to "reclaim" projects into Samvera core
- Avoiding duplication for future adopters would be very valuable
- Gain an understanding and better communicate where the core code base is going
- Additionally, indicating how this might affect other core components?
- Example: Fedora 4 and Valkyrie
- No one on Steering understood this Council to be chartered to create a single community Roadmap
- However, where are the boundaries for this? Alignment definitely approaches this type of undertaking between core components and solution bundles
- Community members are very receptive to polite suggestions
- Undertaking major solution bundles (Hyku and Avalon), implementers are knowledgeable of Valkyrie
- There isn't much more coordination required beyond this point
- The effort is still being directed, and the Hyrax Tech. Lead is engaging with other community developers to remain in alignment with these efforts
- There may still be a communication opportunity for somehow discussing the alignment of the roadmaps between different projects
- This would really be valuable if the Council could make the Valkyrie work for Hyrax much more visible to the community
- Path for Avalon is to move to Hyrax, hence, the path to Valkyrie is to move to Hyrax on Valkyrie
- Avalon still has functionality which Hyrax doesn't, and this still needs to be reconciled in such a way that is compatible with widespread community adoption
- Roadmap Council is chartered to coordinate and support "asks"
- Council cannot be responsible for proactively identifying who needs an ask, but representatives should be coming to the Council for support
- How do we encourage representatives to engage with the Council?
- Perhaps this is a Community Manager responsibility, but what should the path be before we have this role filled?
- Past "asks" have not gone through the Roadmap Council
- Steering could help by reiterating that the Roadmap Council is a contact point for support if your project requires resources and support
- Agreed, that would be a good first step
- General agreement about what the Roadmap Council is
- Alignment between community project roadmaps
- Coordinating between various institutions in order to reduce redundancy where possible
- Once a Community Manager role is filled, Roadmap Council would support and assist the Manager
- Branding Change
- Council sounds a bit authoritative
- "Roadmap" in the singular implies that there is a single Roadmap for the community
- Currently, one proposed alternative is "Roadmaps Alignment Group"
- Also, perhaps we may charter this as a phased Working Group
- Perhaps we also state explicitly in the charter that we are not responsible for a single roadmap
- Working Group might not be the ideal structure, as Interest Groups and Working Groups do eventually come to an end
- The Core Component Maintenance WG is a recurring WG which recharters on an annual basis using different phases
- We expect that the Component Maintenance WG will always continue, just with updated charters and new phases
- Still, down the line, one could technically choose to close the Working Group in the distant future
- Originally, Interest Groups were meant for loosely-organized discussions, where Working Groups were meant to be project-specific
- This could be envisioned as an Executive Council, as this still holds more administrative authority
- Roadmap Council can still revisit the charter and see about borrowing certain aspects of the Core Component Maintenance WG
- Perhaps adopting the policy of rotation of leadership from other IGs or WGs can be explored
- There is still going to be a subtext where some members may ask for a single community Roadmap, even if there is a branding change and update to the charter
- Roadmap Council needs to understand how they can help the Community Manager
- Community Manager should also have an explicit understanding of what is expected of them (with regards to the Roadmap Council)
- Perhaps a small description of this dynamic could be helpful for advertising this role
- Because this is a distributed job, it is going to be a challenge to meet with and explore the needs of each IG, WG, and institutional member
- Should the Council rebrand?
- Just changing the name might not address all of the problems encountered by the Roadmap Council
- Perhaps another internal Roadmap Council meeting is first needed before the next steps are determined
- Though there has never been a reserved seat for the Roadmap Council on Steering, have a liaison or common member has always been of extreme assistance
- This can be evaluated after the elections, as the candidates themselves need to be assessed
- Agreed, this was extremely valuable
- How should Steering discuss the role of the Roadmap Council with Partners during the next call?
- Further, how should resource concerns and questions be addressed?
- Two items have been prioritized
- What is the Roadmap Council/where is the roadmap?
- Resourcing is important, but this wasn't addressed due to time constraints
- There was a survey issued by the Roadmap Council to identify where resources are needed
- This is a separate issue from what is intended to be discussed during the July Partners call
- Intention is to review the survey results, and to identify the next steps to be taken
- Less for resourcing, and more concerned with institutional roadmaps, and how alignment can be achieved
- Some felt that this is exactly the right order, as this information is needed before resource allocation can be approached
- It would still be useful to consider discussing resourcing concerns for the July Partners call
- Hyrax community work may require further resources as it continues
- All of these "asks" do happen on their own, and we should please try to consider requesting that interested parties try to attend Roadmap Council meetings
- (All agreed with this)
Meeting adjourned at 10:02PDT/13:02EDT