Page Comparison

2 min

• How did it go? Reporting out on progress
  • Anne Marie: Formatting
    • Using quotes for blurbs taken from resources
      • I kept the quotes in for abstracts, but omitted them from succinct descriptions from GitHub
    • ‘A few more to do’
      • Separately listed out plugins and integrations from ArchivesSpace wiki (omitted deprecated ones)
      • Added additional plugins that I learned about at the Boston ASpace users forum and a few that I saw pop up on the ASpace members listserv over the past few weeks
      • All of the resources are now formatted.
    • Re: a checklist or questionnaire
      • I haven’t had any additional thoughts about a ‘getting started’ checklist. I like how things are shaping up now, and don’t think this is necessary, unless other people disagree.
    • Re: the corgi slides: Permission granted

    • Some additional thoughts re: ‘How did it go?’

      • It’s sometimes hard to figure out what a plugin actually does because the Read Me file contains very little info. This was an issue raised at the Boston ASpace forum, that authors should write more detailed plugin descriptions in the Read Me files.
      • It’s also sometimes difficult figuring out who authored a plugin based on the github account information.
  • Maggie: Intro to Awesome List and following up on questions
    • Add sentence or two to introduce each section?
      
      • Done
    • TAC question: ongoing maintenance of list?
      • Wanted one entity (position or subteam) to be responsible for ongoing maintenance (responding to pull requests, etc.)
      • Vice Chair of TAC for now – I'll see how this goes
    • TAC question: github repo?
      • Somewhere in the ArchivesSpace organization github page, TBD by Laney

  • Tina and Justin: Categorizing list

  • How did it go?
    • Migrations section: rediscovery section is lean compared to other sections, decided to keep it anyway because it is . Will reach out to Illinois Tech
    • Plug-ins/Integrations: sometimes difficult to separate out. Separated out how to create a plug-in.
  • Which categories worked? Which didn't?
    • Justin added a couple of categories: additional back end functionality and additional front end functionality.
  Any questions for group discussion?
  • Migrations: No questions, went well
  Re formatting of categories titles: Maggie will put up on github and change around phrasing if neededList is up on GitHub!
  • Added Code4Lib’s CodeofConduct4Lib to contributing guidelines
  • Added new section for APIs and Scripts and moved the list items that Justin and Tina had left comments on or bolded the words ‘scripts’ or ‘API’ in the description to this section
  • Added our conversation about ongoing maintenance of the list to the Ownership and credits section
  • Everyone reviewed it!
    • Removed General Resources category
    • Any additional comments?
  • "Announced" list to community!
• TAC retrospective and our retrospective
• Address any issues that have arisen
• Other?

Putting up on GitHub:

• Which repo? 
  • Do we have necessary permissions?
  • Maggie is following up with Laney on this
• Initial populating: Maggie
• Double checking: All
  • Maggie will send link and ask for feedback when it's up

Discuss ongoing maintenance of lists.

• Has an owner been identified?
  • Vice Chair of TAC
• Do we need to pass on any information to them? How to communicate that info?
  • scope of the list and project – should be all detailed in the READ ME
  • make sure that we're updating it, continuing to solicit feedback so that list is actually helpful
  • general recommendation for owner – respond to all pull requests, monitoring of the list serve and adding new content as you come across it. 
  • every couple of years a new working group to do an in-depth review of the list
    • put a note in the ReadMe
    • every two years?

"Announce" list to community – June

Check-in on the community's reception of the list? Any participation? Any improvements we can make?

What else do we have left to do?

Final meeting! Thank you!!

Reflect on two questions via email:

• What did we do well this year?
• What didn't go well, or what could we do better next year?
• and: How has your experience on a TAC ad hoc working group been?

Anything, small or large, task- or process-oriented or more existential, is welcome.