Page Comparison

• 162 attendees at site, ??? online, 
• FOLIO is the dominating project
• KKH: Overall excellent conference:  was well organized, good topics. could we do better tracking? Could we have longer breaks. Room for small groups to talk, 
• Ian: good for general understanding and where the focus is. Very good confernce
• Simeon: size of conference is good. How can we motivate more people speaking up?
• Edwin: Excellent confernence. As a new member: good open discussions - issues have been addressed
• Maike: GOKb imterest has risen - good talks and good that GOKB was on the agenda
• Simeon: Echo from Damien Katz: was good to have VuFind track as well
• Mike: after a late planing start everything came out very well
• Paula: The advantage of f2f is really given! It makes a lot of difference
• Christopher: Execellent confernce, Jesses did a very good job - expecially with the planning group, 
• Tom: Maybe give smaller projects more room by not placing the session beside big FOLIO sessions
  • Improvement with virtual attendance needed: mics, etc
  • Focus on workshops could be expanded: marketing, development
  • Charge for virtual attendees? To prevent people are not coming in because of budget reasons
  • Sponsor for vitual attendance (VA)
  • Have a moderate rate for  VA
  • Pick the f2f2 location carefully for good reach and being not too expensive
  • F2f is necessary for keeping the communities going and find people to step into responsible positions and birng the project forward - building trust and motivation
• Lightning talk: 30 minutes habe been a surprise - maybe 10 minutes? 
  • quick updates - format might need more specs?
• Attendance of Clarivate and OCLC legitimizes the openness of the Wolfcon format

• IDIQ - Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Contracts
• LC is thinking about having some default contracts with various vendors to do some certain piece of necessary development (for the community as well). The contract doesn't specify the scope or content of work. That is lined out later with each vendor.
• Can FOLIO SMLLC be a vendor in this scenario? 
• Challenge: who will work with the vendors in this area?  Has the OLF funding? What needs to be charged?
• Revenue generating vehicle for the SMLLC
• Subcontracts to organizations: FOLIO SMLLC would be a sub contractor funded by LOC and would task appropriate others with some work
  • quite very complex for volunteer SMLLC officers
  • Index Data, K-Int, EBSCO  would be very interested in this kind of collaboration - especially because of the liability piece 
  • Edwin:  from a service providers standpoint we need a general agreement and action to solve some severe issues that are underlying the functional scope - that needs to be solved as a general effort - we can't neglect this issues in lieu for the interest of big libraries wanting to get "their things done"
    • Action item: good topic for the next meeting or the tri-council meeting
  • Decision to be made:
    • FOLIO SMLLC need to reply to the IDIQ
    • FOLIO SMCC does not reply itself but is supporting another vendor in doing so
  • CC  should see a draft contract before making a decision - Simeon will go back to LOC (Caitlin) and follow up with her

What do CC members expect from next years work and what do they want to bring in? Can we collect the most important topics and go forward with them?

• Make the community developer advocate happen!  
• Meaningful meetings
• Health check
• Misse Missed topics: like MOU for contributions :   CC needs to come to an agreement about this topic first → action item: summarize the need and put it on CC's agenda

Repeat the survey from after Hamburg?

• Things that Could be Better About FOLIO – questionnaire
• Things that Could be Better About FOLIO – results grouped by themes
• Presentation of results

Topics?

• Architectural evolution: this seems a priority. Do we all know what it is? Do we agree? How can we organize and do it in a deliberate way?
• Elections eligibility: should we stay with the current restrictions on renewal?