...
- Would support windows be defined at Application level rather than Platform (or 'release') level?
- And what does "supported" mean anyway / LTS discussion
- The new proposed model brings new focus to this question
- How will versioning of platforms, applications and modules interact and if there is a need to patch a module, how will the patched version get into the application and ultimately the platform (i.e. what is the equivalent of the CSP?)
- Who would decide what was in the "functionality" vs "extended" tier for a platform?
- Which platform(s) would the PC be involved in?
- If there was an "App Store" what governance would be necessary (probably a very long term question)
- Is offering all the modules in the "Extended" tier a requirement of saying you support a platform as a service provider? Or is this not relevant as you could simply have a different platform definition
- What is the need for the "Flower" release - are their product needs to have named releases?
- Institution to institution conversations
- Market conversations / marketing purposes
- What can we learn from Apple naming conventions?
- Folio Core → OS?
- Platform Functionality tier → bundled apps (tend to be updated with OS?)
- Platform Extended tier → user installed apps?
- Assuming we answer most or all of the above, what do prioritization and roadmap process(es) look like?
- SIGs - will they become App based?
- POs - will they become App based?
- Does the proposal offer the opportunity of moving away from a monolithic frontend, and if so could this open up the ability for institutions to draw on several different options for hosting apps - e.g. have apps hosted by service provider, then self-host a couple of additional apps that they wish to run or have developed locally
What stage are we at?
General discussion of how to move forward?
...