Timestamps are in GMT/BST.
[0:00] * stuartlewis (n=stuartle@gendig21.lbr.auckland.ac.nz) Quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[7:26] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207-172-69-79.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com) has joined #duraspace
[7:35] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207-172-69-79.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com) Quit ()
[7:37] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207.172.69.79) has joined #duraspace
[8:33] * mhwood (i=mwood@mhw.ulib.iupui.edu) has joined #duraspace
[8:34] * awoods (n=awoods@pool-71-178-169-217.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #duraspace
[10:21] * michaeldb (n=michaeld@CPE002436a25b34-CM000a739b087e.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) has joined #duraspace
[10:37] * michaeldb (n=michaeld@CPE002436a25b34-CM000a739b087e.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) Quit ()
[10:41] * michaeldb (n=michaeld@99.254.62.125) has joined #duraspace
[12:19] * cwilper (n=cwilper@74-44-155-90.dsl1-erie.roch.ny.frontiernet.net) has joined #duraspace
[12:27] * ksclarke (n=kevin@adsl-162-15-133.clt.bellsouth.net) Quit ("Leaving.")
[12:29] * ksclarke (n=kevin@adsl-162-15-133.clt.bellsouth.net) has joined #duraspace
[12:43] * ksclarke (n=kevin@adsl-162-15-133.clt.bellsouth.net) Quit ("Leaving.")
[12:46] * ksclarke (n=kevin@adsl-162-15-133.clt.bellsouth.net) has joined #duraspace
[12:48] * ksclarke (n=kevin@adsl-162-15-133.clt.bellsouth.net) Quit (Remote closed the connection)
[12:49] * ksclarke (n=kevin@adsl-162-15-133.clt.bellsouth.net) has joined #duraspace
[13:33] * cwilper (n=cwilper@74-44-155-90.dsl1-erie.roch.ny.frontiernet.net) Quit ()
[13:34] * cwilper (n=cwilper@74.44.155.90) has joined #duraspace
[14:06] * cwilper (n=cwilper@74.44.155.90) Quit ()
[14:06] * cwilper (n=cwilper@74-44-155-90.dsl1-erie.roch.ny.frontiernet.net) has joined #duraspace
[15:53] * tdonohue (i=80ae241d@gateway/web/freenode/x-oyaxqgaztlnhrfym) has joined #duraspace
[15:57] * bollini (n=chatzill@host127-23-dynamic.10-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) has joined #duraspace
[15:58] <bollini> hi all, am I in time for the meeting?
[15:58] * stuartlewis (n=stuartle@gendig21.lbr.auckland.ac.nz) has joined #duraspace
[15:58] <stuartlewis> Yes - I think so
[15:59] <bollini> Hi Stuart, please check your mailbox I have just send you a message
[15:59] <stuartlewis> Yes - just reading it. Sounds like you've been doing some interesting work.
[16:00] <stuartlewis> Would be a powerful set of features to add.
[16:00] <stuartlewis> My only worry is the same as yours - lack of consensus on the way it should all work - but ultimately we'll have to choose one solution and roll with it.
[16:00] <bradmc> Hi folks, let's get started in a few minutes. Topics?
[16:01] <bollini> authority control ;-)
[16:01] <bollini> 1.6 roadmap
[16:01] <bradmc> (Foundation is now ready with admin support for walking through back bugs, so maybe we can discuss that process)
[16:01] <bollini> community admin
[16:02] <stuartlewis> Yep - talk about the JIRA triage would be good.
[16:03] * ben_atmire (n=ben_atmi@62.235.129.4) has joined #duraspace
[16:04] * rrodgers (n=rrodgers@dhcp-18-111-15-222.dyn.mit.edu) has joined #duraspace
[16:05] <bradmc> I think we should lump together 1.6 status, roadmap, Jira triage; shall we do authority control, then comm admin first, then the 1.6 block, then progress?
[16:05] <stuartlewis> Sounds good
[16:05] <bradmc> Authority control then: Andrea?
[16:06] <bollini> we have a proposal from Larry
[16:06] <bollini> I'm working on it and it sounds really good
[16:06] <bollini> I have almost completed the JSPUI/postgres porting
[16:07] <bollini> we have received many comments from Dupriez and documentation about a different approach
[16:08] <bollini> but we have not received any codes and (as far as I know) the Dupriez code works on an old dspace 1.4 or less
[16:09] <bollini> with the Larry model and few changes that I have made we can cover the functional requirements of Dupriez
[16:10] <stuartlewis> Excellent - sounds good. Are you going to liaise with Christophe to check that his functional requirements are met?
[16:10] <bollini> the only think that remains out is the out-of-box SKOS "integration" of the Dupriez model
[16:10] <bollini> no Stuart, I haven't
[16:11] <bollini> I have check it by myself because there are the same requirements that I need for an us customer
[16:11] <stuartlewis> Do you think it can all be integrated in time for 1.6? (would be another great feature to be able to have)
[16:12] <bollini> I can prepare a patch for the 14th September
[16:13] <stuartlewis> Excellent :)
[16:13] <bollini> we need to test it and make some changes also to the xmlui
[16:13] <bollini> I'm working only on JSPUI and postgres
[16:13] <stuartlewis> And Larry is working on Oracle and xmlui?
[16:13] <bollini> yes
[16:14] <bradmc> Anyone disagree with that path?
[16:15] <bradmc> All of that sounds good; are we ready to move on to community admin?
[16:15] <bollini> I'm expect some comments after that the IRC transcription will be post to the list
[16:16] <bollini> about community admin: I have planned to complete the http://jira.dspace.org/jira/browse/DS-270 before the 21th September
[16:17] <bollini> I will appreciate if anyone can confirm the functionality list to make configurable
[16:17] <tdonohue> the authority control patch sounds fine to me...and hopefully it can be stable for 1.6
[16:17] <tdonohue> wow...bollini, you've got a lot on your plate :)
[16:17] <bollini> :-)
[16:18] <stuartlewis> Sounds great Andrea - thanks :)
[16:18] <bollini> I have also another big toast in progress... but I need comments by RichardR
[16:19] <rrodgers> the policy stuff?
[16:19] <bollini> I'm searching the jira number... is about thesis
[16:19] <bollini> yes
[16:19] <bollini> http://jira.dspace.org/jira/browse/DS-270
[16:20] <bollini> have you had the time to look to the patch?
[16:20] <rrodgers> Yes, I will add some commentary. But the short answer is that I have no issues with moving when the policy is first assigned, but am concerned about having submitters set policies...
[16:21] <rrodgers> It's not a technical issue, it's more about usability
[16:21] <bollini> the big deal is that if we go ahead with this patch we will require a lot of update sql to fire
[16:22] <bollini> for the submitter we can make the UI simple as possible
[16:22] <bollini> anyway, It is only another opportunities to use or not
[16:23] <rrodgers> I'd like to see a design for that submitter UI....
[16:24] <rrodgers> bollini: true, we do not have to immediately expose
[16:26] <bollini> ok, I will wait for your comments... anyway if we decide to include this in 1.6 we need a lot of test
[16:26] <bollini> especially using live installation
[16:26] <bradmc> Speaking of 1.6, shall we move towards 1.6 status / roadmap?
[16:27] <bollini> yes we are arriving to it
[16:27] <stuartlewis> OK - did everyone see my email with the proposed roadmap to an RC in October at the DSUG?
[16:28] <rrodgers> yes
[16:28] <bollini> yes
[16:28] <bradmc> yep
[16:28] <stuartlewis> Any thoughts about it?
[16:28] <mhwood> yes
[16:28] <stuartlewis> The two big things missing that we have promised to deliver are stats and embargoes.
[16:28] <stuartlewis> Can these be added in the next 5 weeks?
[16:29] <rrodgers> Emargo is coming along fairly well - I see no reason why not
[16:29] <stuartlewis> rrodgers: Great. Thanks.
[16:29] <mhwood> mdiggory is not here to comment on his stat. work
[16:29] <rrodgers> Also, do you want the OpenSearch stuff?
[16:29] <bradmc> mdiggory will be out this and next week.
[16:29] <stuartlewis> Nor unfortunately is Kim - I think he's tried out the solr stats.
[16:29] <mhwood> Yes please, OpenSearch.
[16:29] <bollini> what about the documentation?
[16:30] <rrodgers> mhwood: want to check it in? ;)
[16:30] <stuartlewis> Jeff has been doing brilliant work with documentation :) Keep firing updates to him, and in return I hope we're fulfilling his requests for clarification.
[16:31] <mhwood> I think I don't have current sources.
[16:31] <mhwood> Your test site looks good, to the (very limited) extent that I know how to test OpenSearch.
[16:31] <rrodgers> I can supply, but I was just ribbing you
[16:31] <mhwood> /\/\/\
[16:32] <rrodgers> yes, one can see it at dspace-test.mit.edu
[16:32] <stuartlewis> Ok - so as well as the 'big new features' we agreed a month or so ago to have a community JIRA cleanup meeting. We need to arrange that, and get it advertised.
[16:32] <bradmc> Yes, I'm happy to do that. Which day next week, and are we happy with the 6pm GMT proposed time?
[16:33] <bradmc> Tuesday?
[16:33] <stuartlewis> We agreed to dedicate 60 seconds per issue, and either discard it (to be done offline by a committer or DSpace intern), keep it, and if we keep it, decide if anyone has the effort to address if for 1.6.
[16:33] <stuartlewis> It will give us a work plan for 1.6 that will give us an indication of our progress over time.
[16:34] <bollini> Tuesday is fine for me.. better if 8pm GMT (as today)
[16:34] <rrodgers> I can do Tuesday as well
[16:34] <bradmc> Anything we decide to discard, I'll have our intern close the issue and try to contact the interested parties.
[16:34] <stuartlewis> Would a week on Tuesday be better 1st September to give people time to read through the issues, get any new issues in there, and make a date in their diary?
[16:34] <bradmc> I think we'll want to do this periodically.
[16:34] <bradmc> Fedora does it weekly as part of their committer meeting, but they only have to deal with 2-3 reports.
[16:35] <mhwood> Next two Tuesdays are currently open for me.
[16:35] <stuartlewis> I think it would be great if we can open the event to everyone, and ask for people to come along and volunteer to take on an open bug/feature etc.
[16:35] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207.172.69.79) Quit (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer))
[16:35] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207-172-69-79.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com) has joined #duraspace
[16:35] <bradmc> So I propose making a start of it next Tuesday, and see how far we get.
[16:35] <rrodgers> what time?
[16:36] <bollini> starting from September 8pm GMT is needed... I can try to be present also at the 6gmt but I'm not sure
[16:36] <stuartlewis> OK - shall I draft an email in the next 30 mins, and get it sent to -commit for your approval?
[16:36] <bollini> ok
[16:36] <stuartlewis> 6pm GMT seemed better, as it is easier for the Europeans I hope, and easier on us folks the other side of the world (6am is better than 4am!)
[16:36] <mhwood> Thank you.
[16:37] <bradmc> Sounds fine. Who will we lose by moving from 6 to 8, (or who would we gain vice-versa; maybe Claudia?)
[16:37] <stuartlewis> Just to check - is everyone still happy for an end-of-September informal feature freeze, and the release of an RC in mid October?
[16:38] <mhwood> Yes
[16:38] <bradmc> Proposal: Tuesday 6PM GMT. If subsequent meeting needed, Following Tuesday 8PM GMT.
[16:38] <bradmc> stuartlewis: +1
[16:38] <rrodgers> Yep - we can obviously make small adjustments if needed
[16:38] <stuartlewis> bradmc: Sounds great.
[16:38] <bollini> bradmc: ok
[16:39] <tdonohue> stuartlewis: +1
[16:39] <tdonohue> bradmc: +1
[16:39] <stuartlewis> My plan is to try and distribute DSpace LiveCDs (1.6 RC) at the DSUG and perhaps hold an informal testathon there.
[16:39] <rrodgers> bradmc: +1
[16:39] <mhwood> bradmc: +1
[16:40] <stuartlewis> Great - thanks.
[16:40] <bradmc> I think that's all the topics thrown out at the top; anyone care to add any?
[16:40] <stuartlewis> PMC?
[16:41] <bradmc> Sure, although I always find it a little weird having discussions without their proponent present.
[16:41] <stuartlewis> True. Maybe best leave it a week or two.
[16:41] <bradmc> Or do it now, and then again then ;-)
[16:42] <stuartlewis> My own worry is it adds another level of perceived hierarchy.
[16:43] <stuartlewis> And presumably we want to be flattening the hierarchies, and enabling more involvement from community members?
[16:44] <tdonohue> stuartlewis: i'd definitely agree to avoid a hierarchy and keep things flat to encourage involvement
[16:44] <mhwood> (From the proposal) "My idea is to see this entity be separate and orthogonal conceptually from those developers who have commit rights...."
[16:45] <stuartlewis> It will be interesting to see the community reaction to 1.6 - see whether they remember the fact that they had a voice in its development aims when they either talk/blog about loving it or hating it.
[16:46] <tdonohue> though to me, i wasn't thinking of the PMC as adding a hierarchy....just trying to gather together folks who have a current commitment to be active developers, and plan/manage releases over time as a group
[16:46] <stuartlewis> Because one of the main arguments has been the direction of the platform - being set by devs not users / librarians.
[16:46] <mhwood> I'm not entirely clear on its purpose, but it seems to me to be a group charged with making sure that important things happen, not as a checkpoint of any sort.
[16:46] <tdonohue> but, i can definitely agree, if done incorrectly, it could be perceived as a hierarchy
[16:46] <stuartlewis> Yes - I'm the same. It sounds a good idea, but I have worries about it.
[16:47] <bradmc> I read it similarly to tdonohue, although it's not clear to be whether it's a private club for developers, or if it's open to any community member willing to put the time in.
[16:47] <stuartlewis> I assumed it was for anyone? Not just devs.
[16:48] <mhwood> (From the proposal) "This committee would be comprised of a subset of the developers with commit rights on the DSpace SVN repository...."
[16:48] <tdonohue> stuartlewis: i see the PMC as helping that problem....it should involve both devs and non-devs.. My hope is that PMC could help ensure the direction is not being set *just* by devs
[16:49] <mhwood> Perhaps that's just to start?
[16:49] <bradmc> If it's the former, I think it assumes an ideal separation of developers vs. users vs. managers which doesn't map well to the practical world. If it's the latter, I think it needs to be immediately discussed in that context, including some of the thought leaders from the users side.
[16:51] <bradmc> Most DSpace developers are beholden to a particular set (or sets) of users and institutions, and thus have their agenda set in that fashion. A PMC for DSpace would seem to me best structured to explicitly acknowledge and use those agendas, as opposed to some separate developer only viewpoint.
[16:51] <stuartlewis> Agreed.
[16:53] <mhwood> I think such a PMC needs both folks who know what it will cost to develop something and those who are keenly aware of what it costs *not* to develop that. :-)
[16:53] <bradmc> yes.
[16:54] <stuartlewis> Should we try and talk about this face2face (with IRC for those not present) at the DSUG (Friday afternoon - separate to a committers meeting, and open to anyone) and work out a way forward for post-1.6?
[16:54] <stuartlewis> (or Skype conf call etc)
[16:54] <bollini> I'm agree... we need no-dev folks involved in project management... I have proposed a no-devel people for the committer group some time ago
[16:55] <mhwood> I know that, without explicit user requirements, I tend to create stuff that is more interesting than useful. :-(
[16:55] <bradmc> stuartlewis: +1
[16:56] <tdonohue> stuartlewis: +1
[16:56] <bollini> stuartlewis: +1
[16:56] <stuartlewis> Maybe it would be good to try and find some new roles in the community - we have been lucky to have Jeff volunteer to look at the documentation - a job he is excellent at. Perhaps we need to do the same with project management etc? Maybe release co-ordinator should be a split job with a committer and a dedicated non-dev project manager etc?
[16:57] <bollini> goooood!
[16:57] <mhwood> A good idea.
[16:58] <bollini> we need a QA
[16:58] <bradmc> Interesting idea. It may also be that we just need to focus on the pre-conditions that enable that to emerge. Which is to say, make it possible for someone to self-nominate in the fashion that Jeff did.
[16:59] <bollini> we have already some name that jump to the eyes... see the testhaton partecipation
[16:59] <bradmc> One step in that direction may be how and where we call for the next release coordinator.
[16:59] <bradmc> That could happen out at -general, as an extreme change from -committ
[17:00] <tdonohue> as a small side note...We should make sure to really highlight what Jeff's done, when 1.6 is released (i.e. in the 1.6 announcements)
[17:01] <stuartlewis> Radical idea? Perhaps have a PMC in overall charge, scrap the committers group, and have 'developers' (who have svn commit perms), documenters, dedicated support people, project management people, graphic design / UI people - play to people's strengths, and let them be acknowledged for those strengths. Lower the bar for active participation and recognition.
[17:02] <bradmc> tdonohue: Definitely. He's already in a mention in the next newsletter.
[17:02] <stuartlewis> tdonohue: YES! (And everyone else too - there has been a lot of great work put in by a lot of individuals, and sometime we're not good at giving recognition where it is due).
[17:02] <tdonohue> yea...not only the newsletter though (though that's also due)...I was talking about highlighting some key people in the 1.6 release announcement
[17:02] <bradmc> stuartlewis: Now there's some fodder for that discussion at DSUG!
[17:03] <bradmc> tdononue: Oh, I agree, early and often was where I was going with that.
[17:03] <bradmc> We are at the nominal one hour mark. Close to wrapping up?
[17:04] <tdonohue> stuartlewis: yea, I'd actual be interested in considering the radical idea as well...
[17:04] <stuartlewis> tdonohue: Yes - we'll make sure that is done in all the announcements etc.
[17:04] <bollini> yes, I need to go in 5 minutes...
[17:04] <mhwood> Unless there are other topics, I think we've wound down to "these are all good ideas". (And they are.)
[17:05] <stuartlewis> Ok - I'll write the email about the JIRA event now (do we have a funky name for it?) - if you could all reply within 12 hours, I'll get it posted in 12 hours time so as to give maximum notice.
[17:06] <mhwood> It sounds like Minute Madness again....
[17:06] <bollini> stuartlewis: ok
[17:06] <bradmc> Will do.
[17:06] <mhwood> Yes, will look at it tonight.
[17:06] <bradmc> See you folks on Tuesday. Thanks all!
[17:06] <tdonohue> bye all...good discussion
[17:07] <bollini> bye
[17:07] <mhwood> 'bye all
[17:07] <rrodgers> bye all thanks
[17:07] * rrodgers (n=rrodgers@dhcp-18-111-15-222.dyn.mit.edu) Quit ()
[17:07] * mhwood (i=mwood@mhw.ulib.iupui.edu) has left #duraspace
[17:07] <stuartlewis> Bye!
[17:07] * bollini (n=chatzill@host127-23-dynamic.10-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) Quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.85 [Firefox 3.0.13/2009073022]")
[17:08] * tdonohue (i=80ae241d@gateway/web/freenode/x-oyaxqgaztlnhrfym) Quit ("Page closed")
[17:20] * ben_atmire (n=ben_atmi@62.235.129.4) Quit ()
[17:35] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207-172-69-79.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com) Quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[17:35] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207-172-69-79.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com) has joined #duraspace
[17:52] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207-172-69-79.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com) Quit ()
[20:15] * michaeldb (n=michaeld@99.254.62.125) Quit ()
[20:50] * cwilper (n=cwilper@74-44-155-90.dsl1-erie.roch.ny.frontiernet.net) Quit ()
[21:32] * cwilper (n=cwilper@74-44-155-90.dsl1-erie.roch.ny.frontiernet.net) has joined #duraspace
[21:32] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207-172-69-79.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com) has joined #duraspace
[23:01] * bradmc (n=bradmc@207-172-69-79.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com) Quit ()
These logs were automatically created by DuraLogBot on irc.freenode.net using the Java IRC LogBot.