Page Comparison

Mike Gorrell 

Mike Gorrell 

Kristin Martin  

Presentation by the Scope Criteria group; propose for  evaluating new functionality/apps for FOLIO. Draft Presentation.

Made up of representatives from the 3 councils

Problem: no holistic review process for new apps; TC has a review process but PC does not; apps tend to come to PC at end of development; FOLIO releases getting large and unwieldy

Charge :

• Determine how FOLIO as a project will decide what code and new modules it is willing to accept into the project
• Determine way to decide whether new code brings enough benefit to be worth the cost
• Develop process to assess new modules that addresses functional and technical needs, and provides a blueprint for long-term support
• Provide contributors with a clear mechanism and understanding on how they can and should contribute

Have good definition of "module" but not of "app."

Solutions:

• Process that works under today’s flower release
• Way for PC and TC to engage earlier in the conversation about new modules
• Clear expectations regarding intellectual property rights, support, and framework to supply code
• The creation of “FOLIO approved” modules/apps

Remaining challenges:

• FOLIO flower releases remain large and unwieldy
• Still need to develop mechanism to contribute module(s) that can be added by libraries but are not part of the core build
• May wish to create clear guidelines on “when should this be a new module” vs. “fit into existing module”
• Does not address existing “orphaned app” situations

Demonstrated flowchart of new module/app review process

Created new document: Functional Criteria for FOLIO

• Provides a high-level functional view of what belongs with the FOLIO workspace, based on work done early in the project
• How should the functional criteria (what an app or module does versus how it is created) fit into the review of new modules by the PC?

Proposed an MOU for FOLIO contributions - will need a lot of review and discussion before this can be finalized

Some questions:

• Is this list of criteria accurate and complete?
• Do all contributors have to turn code over to the Open Library Foundation and contribute under the Apache 2 license?
• Is there benefit if the contributor is not a member of the OLF?
• Could not having code be contributed to OLF work under current Flower Release system?
• What happens if someone other than the contributor wants to change an app? Do they have to discuss with the contributing team? Who takes responsibility for those changes?

Suggestions for future:

• Determine mechanism for contributors to provide modules that can still be used, but not part of “Core FOLIO”
• Back to idea of marketplace or “FOLIO factory” where institutions start with a core, and then can select additional functionality to create bespoke builds
• FOLIO project could recommend some groupings to support libraries of comparable location or type or libraries could build something completely customized
• Assuming this can be done, create two levels of module(s)/apps:

1. FOLIO-approved apps
2. FOLIO-recommended apps

• What can implementers or hosting providers reasonably expect for apps that fall into these two categories?
• If there is code that not included in the official build, how could we including them in testing (whether BugFest or something else)?

Next steps:

• Review and receive feedback from all Councils by June 10
• Adjust and approve process to work under current flower release system
• Separate group determines mechanism for FOLIO to go forward with “FOLIO-Approved” apps and FOLIO Core–conversations already occurring with development teams
• Create marketing mechanism for new designations for FOLIO apps
• Adjust review and approval process after changes to FOLIO architecture
• may need separate processes for Approved vs. Recommended

Perhaps there is a "global FOLIO" and "flower FOLIO"

Comment - PC is responsible for FOLIO releases, it's still possible for others to develop outside of that and mix-and-match their own, but would it be worth doing?  It looks like a potential strength of the project.

ACTION:  CC needs to review the Flowchart and Functional Criteria document and the MOU by June 17

Keven: In China our current intention is very similar to this onion structure, the current FOLIO modules are far from meeting our needs, so we have launched a number of very special modules/apps that allow development companies to own the copyright as commercial modules that can be promoted and available on the app store after a compatibility assessment

KM-have been asked why do this since it's open source.  We think there's a big technical barrier to developing FOLIO apps, this could be a way to address "how can I contribute?"

Boaz - glad to see a process being proposed

Tom - might be worth study how the "outside" apps work, how many there are?

MDG: there is a WOLFCon session planned around this topic