Timestamps are in GMT/BST.
[0:32] * ksclarke1 (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[0:33] * ksclarke1 (~email@example.com) Quit (Client Quit)
[0:33] * ksclarke1 (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[0:33] * ksclarke (~kevin@pdpc/supporter/active/ksclarke) Quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
[1:31] * ksclarke1 (~email@example.com) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[1:32] * ksclarke (~kevin@pdpc/supporter/active/ksclarke) has joined #duraspace
[1:34] * ksclarke (~kevin@pdpc/supporter/active/ksclarke) Quit (Client Quit)
[1:34] * ksclarke (~kevin@pdpc/supporter/active/ksclarke) has joined #duraspace
[3:53] * ksclarke (~kevin@pdpc/supporter/active/ksclarke) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[3:53] * ksclarke (~kevin@pdpc/supporter/active/ksclarke) has joined #duraspace
[4:03] * ruebot (~ruebot@pdpc/supporter/professional/ruebot) Quit (Quit: Please, sir, I want some more.)
[4:04] * ruebot (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[4:04] * ruebot (~email@example.com) Quit (Changing host)
[4:04] * ruebot (~ruebot@pdpc/supporter/professional/ruebot) has joined #duraspace
[4:25] * ksclarke (~kevin@pdpc/supporter/active/ksclarke) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[6:56] -adams.freenode.net- *** Looking up your hostname...
[6:56] -adams.freenode.net- *** Checking Ident
[6:56] -adams.freenode.net- *** Found your hostname
[6:57] -adams.freenode.net- *** No Ident response
[6:57] * DuraLogBot (~PircBot@atlas.duraspace.org) has joined #duraspace
[6:57] * Topic is '[Welcome to DuraSpace - This channel is logged - http://irclogs.duraspace.org/]'
[6:57] * Set by cwilper!ad579d86@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.108.40.206 on Fri Oct 22 01:19:41 UTC 2010
[10:25] * fasseg (~fas@HSI-KBW-078-043-007-220.hsi4.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de) has joined #duraspace
[12:17] * mhwood (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[12:21] * misilot (~email@example.com) Quit (Quit: Leaving)
[13:01] * tdonohue (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[13:04] * tdonohue1 (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[13:04] * tdonohue (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Disconnected by services)
[13:24] * misilot (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[13:34] * tdonohue1 (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Quit: Leaving)
[13:35] * tdonohue (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[13:52] * PeterDietz (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[14:20] * tdonohue (~email@example.com) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[14:38] * tdonohue (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[15:20] * ksclarke (~kevin@pdpc/supporter/active/ksclarke) has joined #duraspace
[19:23] * hpottinger (~email@example.com) has joined #duraspace
[19:32] * jrgriffiniii (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined #duraspace
[19:54] * KevinVdV (~KevinVdV@d5153D041.access.telenet.be) has joined #duraspace
[19:55] <KevinVdV> Hi everybody
[19:56] <tdonohue> Hi KevinVdV
[19:56] <tdonohue> Reminder: Our DSpace Devel Mtg starts at the top of the hour : https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DevMtg+2013-04-10
[19:56] <hpottinger> hey, KevinVdV
[19:56] <kompewter> [ DevMtg 2013-04-10 - DSpace - DuraSpace Wiki ] - https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DevMtg+2013-04-10
[20:01] <PeterDietz> Hi All
[20:01] <tdonohue> Ok. Hi all, welcome. It's time for our weekly DSpace Developers Mtg (agenda linked already above)
[20:01] * robint (522a6b02@gateway/web/freenode/ip.220.127.116.11) has joined #duraspace
[20:02] <tdonohue> First & foremost, just wanted to remind folks that we've 're-instituted' our "JIRA Backlog Hour" sessions for the hour just before this meeting (19:00 UTC) in #dspace. Obviously, if you can stop in some weeks and help us out, we'd appreciate it!
[20:03] <tdonohue> next up.. some OR13 Updates. As noted in the Agenda, I'm trying to find room/space for a DSpace Devel Face-to-Face Mtg on Monday, July 8 (likely in afternoon, 1pmish to 5pmish)
[20:03] <tdonohue> I've had a request in with conference organizers...they are gonna update me (hopefully in the next week) on options
[20:04] <tdonohue> the plan would be that this is an "open meeting" as usual. Anyone can attend.
[20:05] <PeterDietz> I'm planning to go to OR13, I'm still waiting to here back if my proposal gets approved. I'm not sure if I'll get funded if I end up not presenting.
[20:05] <tdonohue> I am open to ideas around "meeting format" though. What may have worked well in the past / what didn't work so well / what ideas you'd like to try
[20:05] <tdonohue> Proposals are supposed to be decided on by end of next week (18th or 19th). So you should hear by then
[20:06] <hpottinger> PeterDietz, you can have my presentation if it gets accepted :-)
[20:07] <tdonohue> (I'm on the DSpace User Group organizing committee -- so I know some of this stuff)
[20:07] <PeterDietz> I know one thing interesting that has happened at other conferences/workshops I've been to (DigCCurr at UNC) is that I mention "hey, I'm a DSpace developer, look at some cool things", that I do some show and tell, then people come up with gripes/problems with DSpace. So it would be cool to have a "solve your problems" session
[20:07] <hpottinger> +1 show and tell
[20:08] <tdonohue> are we talking about during our Dspace Devel Mtg on monday? A "show and tell" or "solve your problems" then? Or are you talking about a conference session? (I'm a bit confused, sorry)
[20:08] <mhwood> Hmmm, isn't there space for user-group stuff at the end of the week? The devel meeting should focus on devel gripes/problems....
[20:09] <PeterDietz> sorry, I got confused too. The show/tell and users stuff, should include users.
[20:09] <tdonohue> yea..the schedule for OR13 will pan out as follows: Monday - Workshops/DevMtgs, Tues - Main Conf, Weds - Main Conf, Thurs - Main Conf/UserGroupMtgs, Fri - UserGroupMtgs
[20:09] <hpottinger> Also, the visioning exercises that Tim lead at OR11 were cool, and helpful, and mhwood, that's what I was thinking, open mic show and tell, be prepared to show your work kinda thing
[20:10] <hpottinger> though, really, if anyone is showing up with cool stuff, they are likely to hold it for the JISC contest
[20:11] <hpottinger> or, sorry, DevSCI, whoever does the challenge thing
[20:11] <tdonohue> So, for our Monday face-to-face meeting, we're only gonna have 1/2 day. So, our time will be a bit compressed
[20:11] <tdonohue> But, we could still do some sort of vision/roadmap exercise
[20:11] <tdonohue> We could also do some "live" 4.0 planning / organizing
[20:12] <tdonohue> We also will likely have the output of the Chicago Mtg on "DSpace 3-5year vision" to talk about (this was the meeting that is being planned as a followup to the DuraSpace Summit discussions).
[20:13] <hpottinger> 4.0 planning, why does that sound familiar?
[20:13] <tdonohue> haha ;)
[20:13] <tdonohue> essentially, if you have other ideas for topics that would be good to talk about *while we are all face-to-face*, let me know
[20:14] <tdonohue> Also...as usual, we can all head to a local pub/bar after the discussions on Monday night, for less formal / fun discussions
[20:14] <tdonohue> (and anyone would be invited to join us at the pub, location TBD, as well)
[20:14] <hpottinger> I think continuing the discussion from the Chicago meeting, with more of a developer focus, would probably fill the time easily
[20:15] <tdonohue> +1 hpottinger. I was guessing that might be useful as well. That Chicago "3-5yr vision" meeting will be less-techie focused...but, I'm sure we'll all want to bring it down to a techie level and dig in on some of what was envisioned
[20:15] <mhwood> Maybe we should have a short list of "issues that never seem to move" so we can hash them out in realtime.
[20:16] <PeterDietz> hmm, so.. I'll admit, I've been *really* sucky about being involved with GitHub Pull Requests.. Would this be a good time for someone to lay the smack down and say get involved?
[20:16] <tdonohue> mhwood - seems reasonable. any in particular? I do also plan to start up a Mtg page soon, so we can start listing things there.
[20:16] <hpottinger> PeterDietz: OR13 dev meeting, or, like, right now?
[20:17] <tdonohue> PeterDietz: GET INVOLVED :) (did that work?)
[20:17] <hpottinger> I"m motivated.
[20:17] * tdonohue writes a reminder to type more in all-caps...oh wait, that'd make me seem like I'm screaming at all times
[20:17] <PeterDietz> Not effective, I don't have that guilt-tripped feeling
[20:19] <hpottinger> Is it a bad sign that I feel guilty about Tim not making Peter feel guilty?
[20:19] <tdonohue> well, I'll give a good effort to guilt trip you (or bribe you with a beer) at OR13.
[20:19] <PeterDietz> Is there any topics / components that require us to get together to break past? i.e. I think including services into the core code base, makes things more legible..
[20:19] <PeterDietz> DAO work is ~?
[20:20] <PeterDietz> REST API work will be on-going. Maybe that can be a chance to hopefully have some deliverables
[20:20] <tdonohue> Well, as mhwood mentioned, there's lots of topics that seem to be in a "holding pattern": Metadata for All, AuthN/Z stuff, DAO (although Joao is working hard on it)
[20:21] <tdonohue> REST API was essentially in a holding pattern until we've had this "informal, unadvertised team" form in the past week or so.
[20:22] <hpottinger> consider it advertised: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DSpace+Futures+REST+API+Widgets
[20:22] <kompewter> [ DSpace Futures REST API Widgets - DSpace - DuraSpace Wiki ] - https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DSpace+Futures+REST+API+Widgets
[20:22] <tdonohue> FYI for those who haven't heard...we have a REST API team forming...including hpottinger, several folks at Harvard, richardrodgers, peterdietz, Anja from Jorum. I've pestered them about advertising themselves...I know they are working on it :0
[20:22] <tdonohue> oh, hpottinger beat me too it ;)
[20:22] <tdonohue> So, it's great to see the REST API starting to get some momentum forward.
[20:23] <hpottinger> I'm on board for making some widgets, and otherwise playing with REST-APIs, the conversation has drifted a bit towards using that sort of client work provide some direction to the development of the API itself
[20:24] <PeterDietz> Do people want to form interested topic teams? i.e. 1/4 to work on REST, 1/4 to work on Metadata (for-all / relationships), 1/4 to work on 4.0 things, 1/4 to work on other topic
[20:24] <tdonohue> But, I agree that at this OR13 face-to-face, it might be good just to touch base on topics that are a bit "stuck". It doesn't mean we necessarily have to discuss them all in great depth, just that we should get an update on whether anyone has time to devote, and if so try to form a team, etc.
[20:25] <tdonohue> PeterDietz -- i'd worry that's too much "split time". Personally, I think we need to have *fewer* concentrated, well-organized projects, rather than *lots* of less-concentrated / less-organized projects. We don't have to do everything at once :)
[20:26] <hpottinger> I have an interest in seeing the AuthZ/N situation cleared up, since I blundered into the bugs in the first place, though I honestly can't devote any time to that right now
[20:26] <tdonohue> So, we might have to admit that we put time towards what makes sense / has current momentum (like REST API right now)...and put other "big ideas" on the back-burner until we can find the timeshare to devote to them.
[20:27] <mhwood> OTOH if we can resolve a blockage, then that idea can go into the queue and be ready to work on when hands are available.
[20:28] <tdonohue> mhwood: true true. I'm not against trying to figure out what is the "blocker", and seeing if we can resolve it right away. I just suspect that many of the recent blockers are: "I don't have time to devote to that right now"
[20:29] <tdonohue> So, it would be good to try and determine what outstanding "blockage" we have on some of these big ideas...if it's just a lack of resources/time, or something else
[20:29] <tdonohue> and that is something we could discuss at OR13
[20:30] <mhwood> Lack of time sorts itself eventually. What we see sometimes is lack of consensus, so (understandably) nobody is willing to forge ahead.
[20:30] <tdonohue> yep, true.
[20:31] <tdonohue> the lack of consensus may be something we have to just work at. Maybe it's worth bringing up some of these topics again in an IRC mtg in the near future to see where "consensus" lies.
[20:31] <mhwood> As with REST. We had two proposals and the community felt unable to choose one, until recently.
[20:31] <tdonohue> yep.. REST we've just been "beating at" a lot in these meetings for a long time. :) So, it is a good example
[20:32] <tdonohue> (hopefully in other cases we can try and find a quicker consensus..or at least a reasonable path to progress forward)
[20:32] <robint> I would be happy to see smaller groups empowered to make development decisions
[20:32] <mhwood> Yes, bringing stuck topics back on IRC from time to time sounds good. Some discussion of "what would it take for us to commit or drop this?"
[20:33] <tdonohue> robint: so, my question would be -- what does "empowered" mean to you? Are you talking about spinning out almost "committees/sub-teams" to make a decision and move something forward?
[20:34] <robint> Yes exactly
[20:34] <hpottinger> just thinking about specifics on AuthZ/N, I know the stackable auth implementation has some rough edges, and I'm wondering if replacing the whole works with JAAS would be a good idea? You know, maybe I do have time for this, heck, sign me up, anyone else interested in hacking away on the AuthZ/N code in DSpace, find me.
[20:34] <robint> Trying to get consensus amongst a big group can be almost impossible
[20:34] <tdonohue> I'll note that this is almost exactly what is happening with the REST API -- a few folks have taken it upon themselves to move it forward as their own "team". They've empowered themselves, in a way.. inspired by the "DSpace Futures" discussions on REST API work
[20:35] <robint> A perfect example, although easier to do in this case as it doesn't touch core code
[20:35] <tdonohue> so, I guess what I'm asking is...how can we help others to feel "empowered" to create similar teams? I'd love to do that, if we can find a way, as I agree that "big group consensus" is hard
[20:36] <tdonohue> robint -- good point about it being possibly easier cause of not touching core code :)
[20:36] <mhwood> hpottinger: I'm interested, but I think in a different area: pushing authn/z deeper in so that surface code doesn't even think about it; e.g. a UI just asks for things and is approved/denied by the things or their managers.
[20:36] <robint> So for example, if Joao could get another say 3 people on board for the DAO work then we should just trust them
[20:36] <robint> and whatever they produce
[20:36] <mhwood> robint: there is no boss, so people can just get together and create proposals.
[20:37] <robint> mhwood: true, but anyone can veto it
[20:37] <hpottinger> and we don't even have to "trust them" until we see the results of their work, they just have to trust themselves
[20:37] <tdonohue> +1 robint -- with the minor caveat that we can help review it / provide feedback along the way....but, we'd want to avoid late-vetoing
[20:38] <mhwood> Usually people say why they are vetoing. With good communication, vetos should be very rare.
[20:39] <tdonohue> Honestly, I'd love it if everyone felt more "empowered" to move projects forward in small teams (my only requirement would be that these teams need to involve *several* institutions, and have good communication back to the community).
[20:40] <tdonohue> And, I do also wonder if this is part of this whole "blockage" thing. We all just have gotten into the (possibly bad) habit of running everything through "big group consensus" which takes too long/forever
[20:40] <mhwood> 1) someone raises an issue 2) several interested parties discuss it 3) self-organized team presents idea, hears objections and suggestions 4) team addresses concerns and presents again 5) (we hope) everybody is okay with amended proposal and work goes forward 6) people talk about the work as it is progressing, and get more feedback 7) finished work addresses all known issues and is voted in.
[20:41] <tdonohue> mhwood++
[20:41] <tdonohue> (that is the ideal flow..for sure)
[20:42] <mhwood> Yes, it can go off the rails. The key, I think, is to develop in the open and keep discussion going with the broader community.
[20:43] <tdonohue> This could be a good topic to discuss at OR13. It might be a good thing to hash out in person, make sure everyone knows they are "empowered" to create these teams, etc. Maybe use REST-API as an example we can try and follow more, and find out better ways to support that concept.
[20:43] * tdonohue notes we've gone off agenda pretty far, but I'm not gonna reign this in, as I think this is useful discussion
[20:44] <mhwood> robint: does that address your issues?
[20:44] <KevinVdV> Needs to run a bit earlier today…. until next time
[20:44] * KevinVdV (~KevinVdV@d5153D041.access.telenet.be) Quit (Quit: KevinVdV)
[20:44] <robint> Yes, all good stuff, thanks
[20:45] <tdonohue> Ok. Writing myself a note about this. I think this is definitely a topic to bring up at OR13 -- might be easier to discuss in person and hear everyone out / brainstorm ideas as need.
[20:45] <mhwood> Certainly, but meanwhile anyone willing should go ahead and try it out. That way we'll have data at OR13. :-/
[20:46] * tdonohue will also create an OR13 meeting page very soon, for us to add topics to
[20:46] <tdonohue> mhwood -- oh, definitely agreed :) No need to wait for OR13. Just want to use OR13 as a way to "get us all on the same page" and improve the process as needed
[20:46] <mhwood> Yes
[20:47] <tdonohue> YOU ARE ALL EMPOWERED -- Go forth and do good! :)
[20:47] <hpottinger> PeterDietz: guilt-o-meter?
[20:48] <tdonohue> haha :) yea, I was waiting to see if PeterDietz felt guilty or inspired...doubtful. but, it was worth a try
[20:48] <tdonohue> Ok. in any case...we're down to 10mins left. Any last thoughts on OR13 stuff? Again, will post a wiki page in next day or so
[20:48] <PeterDietz> my guilt += 198,000... I still don't think that changes things
[20:49] <hpottinger> putting PeterDietz down for the AuthZ/N team, too
[20:49] <mhwood> Apropos of that: is it working, do you think, to just have people stop by and pick up PRs that interest them, or do we need a forcing function like the JIRA reviews?
[20:50] <hpottinger> regular PR review, since they can come from anywhere
[20:50] <PeterDietz> I think that I become interested in certain parts of the code. So, its probably just a matter of saying @peterdietz, take a look at this
[20:50] <tdonohue> mhwood: good question. We may need to force reviews of PRs too. I've been *hoping* they will eventually just get reviewed alongside the corresponding JIRA ticket. But, right now we have that ugly JIRA backlog we are still catching up on
[20:50] <mhwood> The question being: who says "take a look at this please".
[20:51] <PeterDietz> oops, I just jumped in the bad habit of forcing others to change their workflow because I can fall off the track, not just forcing myself to have better habits..
[20:51] <tdonohue> So, it sounds like, if we just redirect all PRs to PeterDietz's inbox, with an automated "take a look at this please" message, it will solve all our problems
[20:51] <mhwood> It's not just you.
[20:52] <tdonohue> but, seriously, you are right to point this out mhwood
[20:52] <PeterDietz> Yeah, good luck with that. It will actually work, if you send it to helix's inbox.
[20:53] <tdonohue> In the nearterm, we could institute a "PR Review" process in these meetings (first 10 mins?). Eventually, when we catch up on JIRA backlog, I think we can just review JIRA + PR simultaneously (as we should have a JIRA ticket for every PR)
[20:53] <mhwood> Sounds like a plan.
[20:54] <hpottinger> there's an e-mail that gets sent out every once in a while listing old tickets
[20:54] <tdonohue> yep, it's an automated (monthly) email
[20:54] <hpottinger> can we get the same thing for PRs?
[20:55] <mhwood> 167 entries is too daunting, though. Hence the catch-up sessions.
[20:55] <tdonohue> not sure. That monthly "old ticket" email is a JIRA option. Not sure GitHub has anything similar...we could look around though
[20:56] <hpottinger> what would be helpful would be a report that links JIRA with GitHub, to show the PRs and which issues they fix
[20:56] <hpottinger> PRs without issues would stand out
[20:57] <mhwood> That probably has to depend on people putting [Ds-nnn] in the PR title.
[20:57] <tdonohue> hpottinger. Yea, I completely agree. But, every time I've looked for a better "JIRA <-> GitHub" integration option, I've not found anything good. There's just not much out there
[20:57] * robint (522a6b02@gateway/web/freenode/ip.18.104.22.168) Quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
[20:58] <tdonohue> I wish there was a better way to integrate JIRA & GitHub ... but the plugins I've found are all very limited in nature
[20:58] <mhwood> If GitHub and JIRA expose the right information via web API, the actual report generator doesn't have to run on either one.
[20:59] <tdonohue> mhwood -- true. Just don't know of any report generator that does that & I don't have the time (currently) to write one myself.
[20:59] <mhwood> Pure speculation -- I haven't looked at either one that way.
[20:59] <PeterDietz> https://zapier.com/zapbook/github/jira/ ??
[20:59] <kompewter> [ GitHub & Jira Integrations · Zapbook · Zapier ] - https://zapier.com/zapbook/github/jira/
[21:00] <tdonohue> huh...never heard of zapier
[21:02] <hpottinger> maybe they have an Open Source discount?
[21:04] <PeterDietz> they have a free tier..
[21:04] <PeterDietz> I'm gonna go lurk now. I've got some mega statistics work to do.
[21:04] <mhwood> Thanks for the lead.
[21:05] <tdonohue> yea, I'll look around and see. It might be something we could look at more closely, if we can use the low-cost or free version. Still not sure if it "solves" the main issues here..but, worth looking at closer
[21:06] <tdonohue> Ok. Well, as usual, we're over time and we still haven't talked about the mysterious "4.0" release :)
[21:07] <tdonohue> I guess I'll just state here (for anyone reading now or later): Obviously we need to start thinking about organizing a 4.0 Release Team. So, if anyone is interested, please get in touch. We also may want to brainstorm whether there is anything different we'd like to do with the 4.0 release process (based on what we learned during the 3.0 release process)
[21:09] <tdonohue> But, as we are out of time today, I'll leave the actual 4.0 discussions to next week.
[21:09] * hpottinger raises a hand, and falls over.
[21:10] <hpottinger> my main lesson from 3.0 release: don't try to run a release on a Mac
[21:11] <tdonohue> haha..yea, that's one lesson
[21:15] <mhwood> It's getting quiet and I'm going to have to go. Thanks all!
[21:15] * mhwood (email@example.com) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[21:28] * hpottinger (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has left #duraspace
[21:43] * tdonohue (~email@example.com) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[22:06] * PeterDietz (~firstname.lastname@example.org) Quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
[22:46] * ksclarke (~kevin@pdpc/supporter/active/ksclarke) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[22:50] * jrgriffiniii (~email@example.com) Quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
These logs were automatically created by DuraLogBot on irc.freenode.net using the Java IRC LogBot.