...
Note taker: Jeremy Huff
\uD83D\uDDE3 Discussion topics
Time | Item | Presenter | Notes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 min | Announcements | all | Caitlin Stewart: LoC is having a celebration to commemorate the completion of their phase 1 milestone for implementing FOLIO. | ||||
10 min | Update on subgroup’s eval of PC Functionality Review process | Slides (Jennifer presented) Alexis: expressed concern that this will become more work for the POs Jennifer: Said this is a good point, and stated that we do not have to do everything that the TC does in their review. Brooks: He does not know what a formal processes will add in regards to incentivizing early engagement with the review process. Jennifer: This mechanism adds more clarity beyond just reaching out to the PC Chairs Harry: Have we reached out to other communities to find out what their needs are for FOLIO Caitlin: Maybe if we produce broader materials that could be more accessible by other communities. Additionally, in regards to reducing the effort for POs in this process. Jira might allow us to take some of the burden off of the POs by monitoring the tickets to identify things the PO might be interested in. Tod: In the TC process there has been an attempt to identify things that need broader agreement across the larger FOLIO community. For instance in situations where changes of an architectural changes are reviewed. What does the PC feels is important, and how is that represented in what’s being proposed. Kristin: There is only so much that can be done to make sure that FOLIO is a market-fit globally. She is hoping that having a review framework will help Jeremy: In response to Tod, the criteria will express the areas of focus for the PC. Additionally, in response to Harry, TAMU’s interest in FOLIO was initially for its focus on Academic Libraries. Caitlin: It is interesting to view the product council as an body that focuses organizing the limited resources that the project has available. Harry: In response to Jeremy, FOLIO means different things to different people and it may not be appropriate for there to be a singular governing body for such a diverse user base. Alexis: Even in academic libraries there are differences in needs. What are our next steps? Jenifer: We have gotten good feedback, we should take it back to the subgroup. We should focus on developing this into an effective process that does not impose too much on the POs Easy Retro Board (Caitlin Presented) | |||||
40 min | PC Goals ranking results and next steps |
| |||||
5 min | Future topics | all |
...