2021-4-12 Meeting notes

Old Business

Developer Onboarding wiki pages for review and enhancement - /wiki/spaces/ADC/pages/894533891

Should Core Committers be responsible for the Resource for Developers section of the tech-docs, scavenge what is useful from the developer on-boarding resources and sunset the rest?

Some of it (especially what needs to be current with the latest release) should go to tech docs. Background info should stay and be marked as historical or unmaintained. 

This team should mark the pages they want moved to tech docs.  Once they're in tech docs, Core Committers is interested in their accuracy and maintenance but wouldn't want to be primarily responsible for them. 

Once tech docs is onboard, link to tech docs and say that they have moved to to tech docs. Mark is going to bring this up at the next tech-docs meeting.  

Rubocop - Keep this on the agenda but currently no activity 

Lots of things being updated and making forward movement. 

We're reliant on people reporting buts but have every intention of supporting. This can be removed.

New Business/Open Discussion

3.0 update

Everyone

Core Committers Mission

What is this group? Should the group re-evaluate founding documentation and write a charter?

Is reviewing pull requests the most valuable work this group could be doing? Is there other work that would have a large impact that the group would be interested in pursuing? 

Large/ongoing project ideas for this group in lieu of PR reviewing:

• managing the resources for developers section of the tech docs
• R&D for large scale changes/updates in the application 
• In-depth testers of release candidates, including installing the RC and running it with your own data (something that doesn't happen frequently with testing now)
• Writing tests
• Investigating other db backends (Steve's never ending old business item)

Pre-Covid/when Laney was on board the team felt more purposeful.  The group has felt adrift. 

This group may not be the best to address reviewing PR. The group is a lot and another commitment.  Is there value in that?

The conversations are valuable and great connections are being made.  Is there a way to increase those valuable conversations. 

There is a desire to have a better idea about the background and design of the application.

A larger discussion about how decisions are made in lots of different ways and places was had. Core Committers doesn't understand where information comes from or how decisions.  This group feels like it is operating in a vacuum/in the dark. 

This group could be the group to form a developer community.  How do we do that without giving an individual invite to people but make them feel empowered on their own? Could this group offer more mentorship/engagement.

The idea of an office hour or quarterly call for this group like the trainers came up. 

Merging PRs was important for the team to accomplish when there was one paid developer for ArchivesSpace.  Now there is less urgency and need for help with that. Some felt reviewing PR was personally valuable to if it isn't a value to ArchivesSpace, it may not be valuable anymore. Though there may be projects or short term need for someone to take point as reviewer.

Expanding group participation

One of the intended roles of the group was to be a transparent group within the community with open meetings and playing an active role in the community.  That hasn't played out. 

How can this team be a resource to the community?

How can we identify users in the community that we may not already know?

Are there events or activities this group and spearhead to engage with the community?

Closed Pull Requests since February 8, 2021
(is:pr is:closed base:master merged:>2021-03-08)

39 closed