#duraspace IRC Log


IRC Log for 2014-05-14

Timestamps are in GMT/BST.

[0:05] * kshepherd2 (~kim@ has joined #duraspace
[0:48] * kshepherd2 (~kim@ Quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
[1:00] * kdweeks (~Adium@2001:468:c80:a103:94d6:d036:dfa7:4cc7) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[6:50] -cameron.freenode.net- *** Looking up your hostname...
[6:50] -cameron.freenode.net- *** Checking Ident
[6:50] -cameron.freenode.net- *** Found your hostname
[6:51] -cameron.freenode.net- *** No Ident response
[6:51] * DuraLogBot (~PircBot@atlas.duraspace.org) has joined #duraspace
[6:51] * Topic is '[Welcome to DuraSpace - This channel is logged - http://irclogs.duraspace.org/]'
[6:51] * Set by cwilper!ad579d86@gateway/web/freenode/ip. on Fri Oct 22 01:19:41 UTC 2010
[9:59] * kshepherd2 (~kim@121-99-152-96.bng1.nct.orcon.net.nz) has joined #duraspace
[10:08] * kshepherd2 (~kim@121-99-152-96.bng1.nct.orcon.net.nz) Quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
[12:18] * mhwood (mwood@mhw.ulib.iupui.edu) has joined #duraspace
[12:28] * tdonohue (~tdonohue@c-50-179-112-246.hsd1.il.comcast.net) has joined #duraspace
[13:06] * awoods (~awoods@adsl-74-243-180-194.ard.bellsouth.net) has joined #duraspace
[14:35] * kdweeks (~Adium@2001:468:c80:a103:f18b:bc50:a6cd:ee56) has joined #duraspace
[16:20] * edInCo (~smuxi@seta.coalliance.org) has joined #duraspace
[18:33] * mhwood (mwood@mhw.ulib.iupui.edu) Quit (Remote host closed the connection)
[19:51] * mhwood (~mhwood@2602:306:3016:1899:6a05:caff:fe00:f66d) has joined #duraspace
[20:01] <tdonohue> Hi all, it's time for our weekly DSpace Developers IRC Meeting: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DevMtg+2014-05-14
[20:01] <kompewter> [ DevMtg 2014-05-14 - DSpace - DuraSpace Wiki ] - https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DevMtg+2014-05-14
[20:02] * kshepherd2 (~kim@121-98-53-154.bng1.nct.orcon.net.nz) has joined #duraspace
[20:03] * hpottinger (~hpottinge@ has joined #duraspace
[20:03] <tdonohue> So, kicking things off today, the first announcement is that NEXT WEEK we will begin an "alternating IRC meeting schedule". We will alternate this meeting between 15:00UTC and 20:00UTC every other week (next week will be at 15:00UTC)
[20:04] <tdonohue> I'll be sending out an official announcement (to dspace-devel) & updating info on our wiki later today or tomorrow
[20:06] <tdonohue> Next up...just the usual reminders
[20:06] <tdonohue> If you are heading to OR14 and want to attend our developer meeting, please let me know by adding your name to this signup sheet: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DevMtg+2014-06-09+-+OR14+Meeting
[20:06] <kompewter> [ DevMtg 2014-06-09 - OR14 Meeting - DSpace - DuraSpace Wiki ] - https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DevMtg+2014-06-09+-+OR14+Meeting
[20:07] <tdonohue> Also, we're still looking for DSpace 5.0 Release Team members. A rough, tentative/proposed 5.0 schedule is posted to: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DSpace+Release+5.0+Status
[20:07] <kompewter> [ DSpace Release 5.0 Status - DSpace - DuraSpace Wiki ] - https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DSpace+Release+5.0+Status
[20:07] <hpottinger> please volunteer, so I can stop freaking out :-)
[20:09] <tdonohue> Yes, for hpottinger's sanity & for an awesome experience, definitely let us know if you are interested in joining the 5.0 Release Team. :)
[20:10] <tdonohue> So, the primary topic for today was just to update folks on what happened in last week's face-to-face DSpace Steering Group meeting (much more info will be coming out at OR14, etc)
[20:11] <tdonohue> Essentially, the main topic that the Steering Group discussed was beginning to establish a "Governance Model" for DSpace moving forward, and to look to hire a full time Product Manager role (who would help gather use cases and develop a long term "Product Plan/Roadmap")
[20:12] <tdonohue> I've started documenting the (very rough around the edges) Governance Model up at: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Governance (However, this is NOT finalized in any way/shape/form...the plan is to have a rough draft to present to the community for feedback at OR14 and beyond)
[20:12] <kompewter> [ Governance - DSpace - DuraSpace Wiki ] - https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Governance
[20:14] <hpottinger> that's a lot of groups...
[20:14] <tdonohue> Essentially, it's proposing to establish some (now standard in all DuraSpace projects) Governance groups: Steering Group, a "Leadership Group" and "Members of DSpace" (anyone who gives/donates to DSpace to become a member). The Left hand side are the (on the ground) "working groups"
[20:16] <tdonohue> hpottinger: yes, it is quite a few, and we aren't final on this model...but each group is "tasked" with a particular role
[20:17] <mhwood> Looking forward to those "coming soon"s.
[20:17] <hpottinger> I wonder if it would be possible to mock up the path of a project through these groups?
[20:19] <tdonohue> it might be easier to understand by talking about the "roles" of each group.
[20:19] <tdonohue> Committers roles don't really change in this model, but they are no longer "tasked" (as a group) with Long Term Roadmap/Planning...they can concentrate more on day-to-day maintainance, code reviews, etc.
[20:20] <tdonohue> DCAT's roles change slightly...while they are still advisory to the Committers, they also are now tasked with gathering/maintaining Use Cases (via Surveys and similar) which can be used to improve the product.
[20:22] <tdonohue> The "Technology Planning Group" is essentially a subset of the Committers, who are specifically tasked with drafting implementation plans/options (based on use cases). So, they need to be *active* Committers, who are willing/ready/able to draft implementation plans, etc
[20:23] <tdonohue> Finally, at the top, the "Product Planning Group" takes the Use Cases (from DCAT) and the Implementation options/plan (from Tech Planning) to create an overall Product Plan / Roadmap (which is then approved by Steering Committee). This Product Planning Group is likely only ~6-8 people (from DCAT or Committers mostly) who are proposing a vision for what to prioritize & how to get it done
[20:24] <tdonohue> And, again..NONE of that is finalized...that's just the current "vision" of how this *could work*
[20:24] <mhwood> Tell me about the pyramid, where all of the money and most of the power seem to live.
[20:26] <tdonohue> The "pyramid" is essentially the new DuraSpace Membership model adopted by all projects (which has begun "rolling out" in the last few weeks, and replaces our old "Sponsorship" idea).
[20:26] <tdonohue> At the very bottom are the "Members", which is *any* institution which "gives" money to DSpace through the DuraSpace Membership program.
[20:27] <tdonohue> In terms of Governance, any institutional Member can have a representative be nominated and elected to the Steering Group.
[20:28] <tdonohue> Above that is the "Leadership Group". These are institutions which are also Members, but they donate at a "higher lever" (either more $$ or possibly developer time, TBD) than other Members.
[20:28] <hpottinger> so, roughly equivalent to a board and an executive committee?
[20:29] <tdonohue> Leadership Group is roughly the "Shareholders". They get a bit more say (as they've contributed more), so they can vote (up or down) on proposals from the Steering Group.
[20:29] <tdonohue> Leadership Group also gets to elect the actual Steering Group (from all the Members)
[20:30] <tdonohue> Finally, at the top is the Steering Group. They are roughly the "board of directors" for DSpace. They control the purse strings (all donates for DSpace are allocated based on how they see fit), and they set the strategic direction for the entire project. They are elected members of the community, plus a few Ex-officio members
[20:31] <tdonohue> The Ex-officio members are DSpace Tech Lead (myself), eventual DSpace Product Manager (once hired), and the Chair of DCAT
[20:32] <tdonohue> Does that clarify the pyramid? The only real "active" group in the pyramid is the Steering Group. The "Leadership Group" just is called upon to vote on key issues or vote in new Steering Group members.
[20:33] <tdonohue> I should mention, this entire model will be presented & discussed at OR14 (both by the Steering Group during a discussion on Thurs, and ALSO during the DSpace Developers Meeting at OR14)
[20:34] <tdonohue> So, we are actively looking for feedback. Though I will warn that (as you can tell) there's a lot of "More Details Coming Soon" which needs to be filled out PRIOR to OR14
[20:35] * kshepherd2 (~kim@121-98-53-154.bng1.nct.orcon.net.nz) Quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[20:35] <mhwood> Thanks for presenting and documenting this.
[20:36] <tdonohue> Sure thing. I wanted to get it in front of all of you early on (even though it's still at an "incomplete" state). The next steps here are there are several folks (self included) tasked with filling out the missing details to send back to the Steering Group for their OK before OR14
[20:37] <tdonohue> I'll be working on drafting the "Technology Planning Group" and "Product Planning Group" in more detail (along with a few other folks). DCAT is working on redrafting their mission. If any of you have feedback about any of this though, you are welcome to let me know.
[20:38] <tdonohue> (and as I said there will be plenty more opportunities for feedback, beginning at OR14)
[20:39] <tdonohue> and obviously, if you have strong opinions about the separation of tasks between "Technology Planning" and "Committers", I'd love your feedback. It needs a bit of clarification, and I'm working towards that, but I'd welcome your ideas as to whether you feel this is "offbase" or "reasonable" or whatever
[20:40] <tdonohue> (My attempt here is not to change the role of Committers drastically..but just to try and "fill in gaps" on things which we often don't have time for...e.g. long term technology planning)
[20:41] <hpottinger> I'm a bit confused about how the long term tech planning will work, as Committers, we've generally taken the attitude of "sounds interesting, show us some code"
[20:41] <tdonohue> but, if I'm missing the mark, obviously let me know (publicly or privately)
[20:41] <mhwood> Dunno if it's *time* so much as *information*. There's lots of neat stuff we could do, but what would be important to the people who will use it?
[20:42] <tdonohue> mhwood: good point. I'm hoping the "information" gap can be helped by more Use Case gathering, etc
[20:44] <tdonohue> hpottinger: my view is that that "show us some code" would still be a valid response. HOWEVER, the *hope* here is that we can also find ways to do some more *directed/organized* development projects (e.g. "Project to actually build a Business Layer") which would be *designed* and proposed by the Technology Planning group, and implemented by a team of dedicated developers (hopefully donated by Member Institutions or from the Commi
[20:45] <hpottinger> I see, so, not just a "planning" role but an organizing one
[20:45] <tdonohue> yea...maybe "planning" is the wrong word...good point. (These group names are totally pulled out of a hat as of now)
[20:47] <tdonohue> I may need to come up with a better name to attempt to disambiguate "Technology Planning Group" from "Committers". Initially we were calling it a "Technology Group" but that just seems to overlap with Committers roles
[20:47] <hpottinger> "project management" might be too loaded of a term, but it might fit?
[20:48] <tdonohue> maybe a bit closer...but it's still more a technology-specific group...and "project management" and "product planning" may be confusing then.
[20:49] <tdonohue> in any case, group names are hard. I'll have to think on this some more :)
[20:49] <tdonohue> (and maybe once I nail down that group's role/responsibilities, the name will become a bit clearer)
[20:51] <tdonohue> In any case, this is the "big thing" that came out of the Steering Group discussions last week (well that, and the decision to try and seek funding to hire a Product Manager).
[20:51] * pbecker (55d422d9@gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #duraspace
[20:52] <tdonohue> If there are other questions, feel free to ask them. Otherwise, honestly I'll try and keep you all updated as this moves forward (and as we get closer to OR14)...there will be plenty of time for feedback in coming weeks
[20:53] <tdonohue> Ok, realizing now we're almost out of time today as well. Any other topics to bring up?
[20:57] <tdonohue> Ok, I don't really have anything else to bring up today, then.
[20:57] <hpottinger> In case ya missed it, I think *you* should sign up for the 5.0 RT
[20:57] <tdonohue> (nice plug, hpottinger!)
[20:58] <tdonohue> With that, we'll go ahead and wrap up for today. Reminder, next week we will meet at 15:00UTC! (announcement will be forthcoming to dspace-devel today/tomorrow)
[20:59] <tdonohue> Oh, and because we are meeting so early we'll have to figure out JIRA backlog review time....just remembering that. We could aim to start that at 14:00UTC or just do it at 16:00UTC...any preferences?
[21:00] <pbecker> 14 UTC
[21:02] <tdonohue> ok, we can aim for 14UTC for JIRA backlog review... I *may* be a minute or two late to that, but I'll try for it (depends on my local morning traffic, as I have to drop my daughter off at daycare just before then)
[21:02] <hpottinger> I can do 14 UTC, might be a tad late, depdends on my kids
[21:03] <pbecker> it's just my preference. You can do it at 16utc if it's better for you.
[21:03] <pbecker> but if it starts at 16 utc it would end at 7pm in germany, which is later then the office time of the most persons here.
[21:04] <hpottinger> no worries, that's my official start time, I *ought* to me at my desk working then
[21:04] <pbecker> :-)
[21:04] <mhwood> I think I should be able to do either.
[21:05] <hpottinger> it's just the backlog hour, if we work the backlog at all, it's a victory, it can start a bit late
[21:06] <tdonohue> yep, I agree. Backlog hour can start slightly late if folks aren't there right at 14:00UTC. So, I'm fine with aiming for 14:00UTC
[21:06] <hpottinger> *and* if you all start without me, I'll start my day off with a warm fuzzy feeling, so, please, don't wait for me :-)
[21:07] <tdonohue> So, JIRA Backlog hour will be at 14:00UTC next week, followed by the official meeting at 15:00UTC
[21:08] <pbecker> okay, great!
[21:09] <hpottinger> so, I'm wondering, has anyone here made use of these packages? http://jpackage.org/
[21:09] <kompewter> [ :: JPackage Project | Home :: ] - http://jpackage.org/
[21:10] <mhwood> Hadn't heard of it. Seems to be a Fedora thing.
[21:11] <tdonohue> not i, hpottinger. It also worries me a bit that the "news" is from 2009 (though I see some packages have been built as recently as July 2013)
[21:12] <hpottinger> Yeah, RH isn't doing a great job keeping up with Tomcat (they forked Tomcat 6 into JBOSS)
[21:13] <hpottinger> I'm trying to find a container I can run that my sysadmins will be responsible for supporting
[21:17] * pbecker (55d422d9@gateway/web/freenode/ip. has left #duraspace
[21:18] <mhwood> Someone should tell them that TC 8 is out and working toward stable.
[21:19] <mhwood> Also that Linus released a v3 kernel some time ago.
[21:24] <hpottinger> mhwood: I can't explain it, RH makes *no* sense to me
[21:30] <mhwood> Ubuntu has TC 7.recent.
[21:37] <hpottinger> The grass is indeed greener on the Ubuntu side, I agree
[21:38] <mhwood> Gotta sign off now. 'bye.
[21:39] * mhwood (~mhwood@2602:306:3016:1899:6a05:caff:fe00:f66d) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
[21:40] * hpottinger (~hpottinge@ Quit (Quit: Later, taterz!)
[22:25] * tdonohue (~tdonohue@c-50-179-112-246.hsd1.il.comcast.net) has left #duraspace
[23:49] * edInCo (~smuxi@seta.coalliance.org) Quit (Remote host closed the connection)

These logs were automatically created by DuraLogBot on irc.freenode.net using the Java IRC LogBot.