Tech Committee Meeting Minutes 18 June 2013

From PKP Wiki
Revision as of 13:14, 18 June 2013 by CDL (Talk | contribs) (Agenda)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


  1. Welcome to our new at-large committee members: Bozana Bokan (Free University Berlin), Marc Bria (Autonomous University of Barcelona)
    1. Bozana has been working with PKP for quite awhile, especially with multi-lingual development; main contact with Free University of Berlin. Contributed bug fixes and major code, including working on the Lucene improvements.
    2. Marc has been a stable contributor to the support forums and has focused on important areas such as hosting large numbers of installations.
  2. Quick round of updates: What have we all been working on PKP-wise? Any particular needs that the group can help with?
    1. Alec, lead PKP developer; Jason Nugent is usually on the call, but can't be today.
    2. Barbara, developer from California Digital Library at University of California; chair of Technical Advisory Committee; working on backporting some code for OJS
    3. Lisa, Technical Lead from California Digital Library
    4. Bartek, OCUL--PKP Partner, currently working on setting up a centralized hosting service for all the member libraries. Talking to University of Ottawa Press about OMP; want a pilot partner
    5. Bozana--porting implementations to v 3.0
    6. Marc--working on translation of OJS and OCS; working on OMP in next round of translations. Joining early adopters of OMP, making some contributions to the code; in particular theming issues.
  3. At-large membership: one more member to invite
    1. For the third person, we had discussed a specific institution, but they may be joining in as a partner, so they would have a regular seat, so we would still have an At-large membership available. We have to wait and see how that pans out.
  4. 3 volunteers from members committee - Brian Owen has asked the Members Committee to appoint 3 people. We hope to have them on board soon, well in advance of the AGM. Still waiting on this.
  5. Reviewing our mandate, cont'd.
    1. Charge #1: provide technical input and advice on PKP’s software development methodologies and priorities. A couple of meetings ago, the group came to the consensus that PKP priorities and methodologies are unclear. We are working towards fixing this so that we can begin to give input.
    2. James has kindly provided a #Round up of documentation relating to PKP Priorities and Methodologies. Please read and we will discuss. What needs clarification? What would this information ideally look like?
    3. Barbara has taken a stab at organizing the PKP wiki so that this kind of info can be more easily found (see Main page - New). What do people think?
    4. Previously, tried to get everyone in the Tech Committee trying to understand priorities at PKP, which revealed that the published documentation around milestones and the roadmap were out of date. Now they're up to date. Will work on keeping this up to date. Need to work on how to bring in new contributors more quickly. This is also a chance to leverage skills in the Committee and also to become more aware of issues and needs around the globe. Need feedback from people, since they don't use their own software that much. When meet people at the regular conferences, they get huge lists of requests from publishers, but it's hard to deal with because it's so much--would like people to come to them sooner so that they could incorporate those requests into the regular workflow.
    5. Discussion:
      1. Marc--really appreciates the work that PKP is doing and really likes the current methodology, which is very clear. Likes that the direction is being set by the Technical Committee, but it's a very high level approach. How deeply does the Committee really need to go into the work of the PKP Development team?
      2. Alec--it would be great to make better connections between the high level milestones and the low-level bugs.
      3. Bozana--likes the documentation James made. Good to have it up to date; likes Barbara's reorgnization of the Wiki.
      4. Lisa--likes everything; agrees with Alec that it would be great to fill in the space between the Milestones/Roadmap and bugs--would be nice to get requirements and features in there.
      5. Alec--they are working on this; trying to figure out now how to get community input into community feedback to help with prioritiziation. Looking at other tools to help with this.
      6. Lisa--suggests using GetSatisfaction on the demo versions of PKP software.
      7. Barbara--also suggests attending and finding ideas at the Community Leadership Summit. Alec is going too.
      8. Marc--doesn't like software as a service developments. Want people to build their own tools.
      9. Alec--agrees, especially when they're not open source.
      10. Barbara--agrees that using open source tools whenever possible; mixed feelings about rolling your own, because it takes so many resources.
  6. Committee communication
    1. Google group -- any progress on finding out whether or not we can have a listserv hosted by SFU?
      1. There was also a discussion about using a mailing list that is archived and that isn't associated with Google. Marc is going to look into hosting the listserv. Alec prefers it to live at SFU, but there are issues, so it's not set in stone because there are some institutional limitations because of the relationship between SFU and PKP.
      2. People are OK with Google Groups for now.
    2. There is a #pkp channel on -- come hang out! New to IRC? Read the IRC Help page or feel free to ask Barbara :-)
  7. PKP AGM and conference in Mexico City, August 19-21
    1. Who is going? Alec, Barbara, Bozana will be there. Talking about a Tech Committee meeting on the 19th.
    2. What are our goals for the PKP Tech Committee meeting there?
  8. Next meeting: how about Tuesday 16 July, 2013? This date is fine for everyone. This time is OK with everyone. Will email to confirm with those who were absent.
  9. Anything else?

Alec--next milestone--very near to alpha release of OJS 3.0 in the beginning of next month. It may not be as stable as an alpha; working with CDL on getting a UI/UX review of the software, so this release is to help with that. This is a first chance to get community feedback on this--please encourage people to check it out. It won't have migration tools until the beta release, which is targeted for this fall. This release is a major change from the 2.4.X line. Extending this developing over a year to make sure there is as much community feedback as possible. Trying to keep it smaller and simpler and avoid code spread. Revising the schedule soon and will update folks as soon as possible.

Bozana--could ask people to help, but would need more information about what people should look at/do in terms of testing and feedback.

Alec--it will have the complete workflow, with a provisional reader front end (basic). This is a chance to see what the workflows and layout will look like. Won't include things like subscription and payment. It's for early adopters to see it and get a chance to accomodate themselves to the new approach. The Beta release is for finding bugs and holes. Trying to keep releases early and frequent.

Bozana--wants to know how people should comment?

Lisa--that's a good example of how Get Satisfaction could be useful.