-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50
2026.03.10 FITS Transition Planning Meeting cont
11am ET (convert to your timezone)
https://harvard.zoom.us/j/99166363011?pwd=AnK1alFaZ7aP1HdZjacvTvbsYQpggb.1
- ...
- Introductions - brief
- Updates since last meeting (2026-01-29)
- Host org updates (OPF, others?)
- Interim sustainability planning
- Five open pull-requests
- Transfer of https://fitstool.org (before Nov)
- Reconciling the promise of A.I. with the needs of FITS
- Next steps
Prompt:
Provide a concise summary of these meeting notes; provide salient takeaways; provide next steps and action items.
The group discussed finding a new long-term steward (“comfortable new home”) for the FITS project. An open letter demonstrating strong community support was delivered to OPF (via Neil) and presented at the OPF board meeting on Feb 24; OPF has not committed yet and FITS is behind ePADD (an email archiving tool) in OPF’s intake queue, with ePADD possibly landing in the summer. Given this timing uncertainty, the group explored contingency options and agreed to define clearer, lightweight expectations for “keeping FITS alive” while also strengthening community governance and outreach.
- OPF remains the preferred target, but timing/commitment is unclear. The board discussion did not yield a “yes”; likely limited FITS discussion until after ePADD.
- Need for a Plan B / interim stewardship. Options discussed included: waiting in a holding pattern with Harvard keeping the lights on; identifying another institutional home; or moving FITS to an independent GitHub org maintained by a volunteer “community of the willing” until a formal steward exists.
- Minimum viable stewardship should be documented. Consensus that any prospective steward will ask “what does taking over FITS entail?”, so the group should document “Level 0” requirements (GitHub org, domain, security patches, at least one responsible committer/admin).
- Governance is a prerequisite for credibility. A steering group was proposed/formed to provide continuity, ownership, and a community “front” (so this isn’t perceived as solely Harvard offloading work). Scott, Mark, and Aurora volunteered; Eben will confirm after checking internally.
- Broader outreach is likely underpowered. Calls haven’t been widely advertised (e.g., Code4Lib/listservs), so there’s opportunity to recruit additional well-resourced FITS users and testers.
- AI-first maintenance is exploratory and contested. Andrew floated using AI-assisted workflows (e.g., Claude.md guardrails, conversational issue triage) as a way to reduce maintenance burden and possibly align with OPF’s evolving thinking; reactions ranged from enthusiastic to strongly skeptical, emphasizing verifiability/testing and governance.
- Draft “Level 0 support” document (owner: Scott; review: steering group). Target: ~Mar 24 (“two weeks”). Publish as a PR (markdown in repo) or GitHub Wiki page.
- Formalize steering group membership and comms channel (owner: Andrew). Create a lightweight coordination mechanism (e.g., small group DM) and confirm Eben’s participation after he checks with BPL.
- Outreach plan to broaden participation (owner: steering group; lead TBD). Use (a) signers of the open letter as an initial mailing list and (b) community channels like Code4Lib/listservs to recruit additional stakeholders, testers, and potential institutional stewards.
- Test Sarah Wu’s PR (owner: anyone with capacity; coordinated by steering group). Participants/teams to pull down and run the PR (minor MediaInfo upgrade) and report back before merging.
- Clarify interim stewardship posture (owner: steering group). Decide whether to (a) stay in holding pattern until OPF is ready post-ePADD, (b) actively shop for alternative homes now, and/or (c) move to an independent GitHub org as a stopgap—mindful of potential OPF optics.