Page Comparison

Resource Management SIG organization review - desire to have a fuller discussion?  PC previously agreed to return to the topic in September.  There are no concerns from Product Council at this point.

CalTech is live on FOLIO (full implementation, coming off of Tind).

1. Funding and developer resources
   1. Update from the treasurer
   2. FOLIO can extend one developer contract another year but can't hire a second developer 
2. Continuation of the process to prioritize task list for CC deliverables (objectives and initiatives): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jfIpMOdfPQWjbWNp0_TkrNb2dr4AcIJao4CvqMGWt2o/edit#gid=
   
   1. Results will be summarized and presented to CC / PC / TC shortly 
3. Introduction of new FOLIO member UB Regensburg (Germany)
4. Job ads in the FOLIO community: shall be done in a new Slack channel (tbd)
5. CC decided to keep Zak Burke as a TC member while he is changing the employer. EBSCO has now 2 votes in TC. . (The governance model is silent on this point.)
6. Process of Governance amending was clarified, which includes the aligment alignment between CC, TC and PC
7. WOLFCon: CC supports a F2F meeting - planning in progress.  The venue is requiring payment, and the local planning committee is looking at options.  The plans for meeting scheduling will be coming up soon.
8. FOLIO Quarterly Community meeting scheduled for Friday October 8th - Wiki page will be set up

External Code Submissions and LDP app evaluation: TC drafted technical criteria for code contributions, see FOLIO Module Acceptance Values and Criteria v1.0. (This will be moved to a more permanent location.) These criteria were used to evaluate the LDP UI and its back-end connector module. For both modules there are some criteria that are not met and need remediation, details in MOD-LDP Acceptance Analysis and ui-ldp Acceptance Analysis. There was much discussion about both the LDP app and the eval process that we are developing, for details see the 2021-09-22 Meeting notes.  The largest gaps are in support for multi-tenancy and in some aspects of accessibility, plus where the canonical source code lives. The eval team is drawing up proposed deadlines for specific items.  The TC is reviewing the nature of the criteria in an attempt to reduce the subjectivity of the evaluation.  What are PC's expectations for this: is the PC looking for a yes/no answer from the TC or a report describing the nature of submission?  Also, how strict should the criteria be applied for inclusion in Kiwi?  Does the community want a process for apps to have a place that don't go through this process?

Operational and SysOPs needs: Reviewed with SysOps reps the operational concerns they have, similar to what they presented to the PC. Much of this can be characterized as forms of technical debt. There is some question about what TC can do, as TC can look at approaches but does not assign resources. Next actions are unclear. Addressing these probably involves all of CC, PC, and TC.

Check Out Performance: reviewed proposal, determining actions this week deferred due to time taken by LDP evaluation.

• Discussions about lack of dev resources for Prokopovich (the former "core-functional" team) and setting expectations on work that can be done and if projects need to move.  At the end of the year, this team will have the equivalent of 1 back-end and 1 1/2 front-end developers (spread over multiple people).  It tends to be a team that works on central apps (Inventory, Circulation, etc).  EBSCO intends to contribute two additional developers to the team, but it isn't enough.
• Schedule for Lotus: Lotus (R1 2022)
• Performance improvement proposal for Circulation functionality: Check Out Performance
• Juniper Hotfix proposals: should there be a third hotfix or wait for the next release; there are some side effects to Hotfix 2.
• Future of ranking exercises: it is no longer practical to have libraries perform ranking in Jira fields.
• Last meeting notes: 2021-09-20 Capacity Planning Meeting

• Optimistic Locking - Starting with the Inventory app, agreed on requirements and met with MM SIG for validation. Several POs are testing functionality - https://core-platform.ci.folio.org/. So far the testing is progressing well, with some challenges due to the configuration of the testing environment.  Still unsure if the feature will be included with Kiwi.
• POs met with the Roadmap team to discuss Roadmap themes and the group's goals 
• Dennis B. has proposed an additional UXPROD workflow status that represents a feature/story that requires additional technical requirements before development can begin. 
• This Friday (9/24) Kiwi code freeze date for platform complete modules. Core modules code freeze (9/17).
• 9/22 feature stats
  • 22 Closed features
  • 6 In Review features
  • 43 In Progress features
  • 1 Analysis Complete features
  • 6 Open features
  • 2 Draft features

Roadmap themes

Process:

• Develop new ROADMAP Jira project: Remote Roadmap creation via Jira process
• Create themes and subthemes categories
• POs will tag JIRAs into themes/subthemes
• Use spreadsheet to show new development
• Includes SysOps themes identified
• Update Roadmap regularly, potentially review after each release

Thoughts

• How does non-functional work get represented and prioritized in the roadmap (SysOps themes, orphan apps)?
• What is the relationship between lower-priority (P3) items and other work on the roadmap?
• There is work on an MOU for organizations on contributed code