Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.



Discussion items

5 minAnnouncements

The group that is talking about a response to Marshall's whitepaper will be reconvening. This came up in the discussions with the Chinese FOLIO community.

Five Colleges is live on full FOLIO (previously ERM-only). Michigan State is live on FOLIO.

15 min

 PC Elections (Nominations):

Nominations: Kristin Martin for co-chair; Peter Murray for secretary. The call for nominations will be put to Product Council Slack channel.
30 min

PC Meetings at WolfCon

Struggles of some of our subgroups:

  • Roadmap, Prioritization, Scope Criteria

Review of the first year under the new charter

Impact to of loss of community development resources

Something that would be useful for an in-person discussion at WOLFcon is a review of how Product Council has structured itself.  We have been using the new governance model for a year, and this is a good time to review it.

What are we trying to accomplish as Product Council responsible for oversight of the product (see the charter in the FOLIO Governance Model document). The community has grown and the process of managing the scope of the project needs to change with it.  For instance, the prioritization group has struggled because the project has fewer developers under its direction versus the development teams contributed by service providers. What would be a more effective way of structuring our roadmap process, and how can we use the WOLFcon face-to-face meeting to advance the discussion?

Product Council does control what is put into named releases, and it exerts this control by reviewing proposed functionality/modules/apps for the community guidelines (accessibility, code style, etc). Should the releases be based on functionality rather than on a timed basis?  For instance, the work that needs to be done for instance deletion throughout the project. We may not be able to focus on functionality because we don't have a worldwide view of what is happening in the project. The roadmap process highlights a community consensus for what can be done, and that is useful for a development team that comes to FOLIO. There is a possibility that there will be a large number of Middle East libraries that are using parts of FOLIO with different functionality, and the libraries in China can't use the acquisitions functionality that the project has developed.

WOLFcon has a FOLIO roadmap session that Jesse is convening to review the contents of the roadmap and the process for updating it. How can we make our processes more welcoming to a worldwide audience?

Topics coming up for WOLFcon: working on core defintions of products/releases, what our councils are set up to do (charter), how to move from synchronous to asynchronous meetings (and how to have a better global community), understand the regional interests that are not connected to the community (and whether this is okay).

WOLFcon will have some presence from regional communities (China's community, notably). If we start brainstorming this, we need to consider up front how to include communities that won't be at WOLFcon.

Kristin to make a survey of PC members attending WOLFcon and look at how to get input from PC members that won't be there, plus drafting an agenda for these topics at the face-to-face meeting.

It would be great to have demonstrations from different FOLIO installations on how they have implemented FOLIO.  Perhaps as a "poster session" of demonstration stations.

5 min

Upcoming topics

  • Next meeting is SIG Update

Action items


Chat log

00:26:24	Harry:	I’m not convinced all the functions listed here are actually possible for the PC to mange or be responsible for.  This Charter could be simplified.
00:27:53	Tod Olson:	If the PC does not have control, can it exert influence? and how?
00:33:08	Kirstin Kemner-Heek:	+1 Charlotte and Martina
00:34:41	Ian Walls:	function-based releases may also help relieve some of the pressure around Bug Fest, and allow more time for testing to reduce the need for Hot Fixes.
00:35:01	Gang Zhou:	Do PC, TCSand Product owners jointly decide ä»–å’Œfeatures  in the roadmap?
00:35:40	Gang Zhou:	Do PC, TC and Product owners jointly decide the features  in the roadmap?
00:39:18	Kirstin Kemner-Heek:	PC can only work for the community it has  knowledge about.
00:39:32	Harry:	The roadmap and feature priorities are how the PC can influence development
00:39:50	Alexis Manheim:	Are the libraries Harry mentions contributing any of their code back to the community?
00:40:15	Harry:	They have tried to contribute in the past.
00:40:33	Alexis Manheim:	They were unsuccessful?
00:40:41	Brooks Travis:	Are we thinking specifically of the translation work?
00:41:15	Brooks Travis:	Of have there been attempts to contribute the acq and circulation changes as well?
00:41:43	Harry:	I was referring specifically to the translation work innthis case.
00:42:15	Harry:	And our processes are currently unfriendly to the rest of the world.
00:43:13	Brooks Travis:	Our reliance on synchronous meetings is probably a big problem
00:43:21	Ian Walls:	Brooks++
00:43:30	Harry:	If you are outside of the EU or North America, you are basically not included in our discussions.
00:43:50	Harry:	Exactly correct Brooks.
00:44:53	Marc Johnson:	Part of the challenge in this conversation is how we are using the words products and platforms in a way I’m not sure everyone agrees on
00:45:11	Harry:	I agree Marc.
00:45:28	Harry:	Our Charter even mixes those terms.
00:46:07	Marc Johnson:	This model of products sounds great until we end up with multiple products sharing the same apps and they need to diverge functionally
00:47:06	Gang Zhou:	+1  Marc
00:47:38	Harry:	It's not a bad thing, but I would like to see us embrace it and grow from it.
00:48:09	Harry:	And make sure our processes can accommodate this as much as possible.
00:48:31	Ian Walls:	consortia may be a different enough use case to require a specialized Product release
00:48:53	Marc Johnson:	Alexis, for the two examples Harry provided (multi-lingual support, and circulation / acquisitions changes) have both encountered challenges getting included in the main (insert any other word for what this group is building)

As far as I know, neither have had that code included as of today.
00:50:20	Alexis Manheim:	Thanks, Marc.
00:50:44	Charlotte Whitt:	That would be a very sad day, if the PC stop having regular meetings
00:50:49	Owen Stephens:	I think the challenges were probably different in the two cases though
00:51:46	Gang Zhou:	Yes,Ian
00:52:00	Martina Schildt | VZG:	+1 Charlotte
00:52:57	Brooks Travis:	I think we need to improve our capability to integrate that work into the project, though
00:53:09	Marc Johnson:	Owen, agreed the challenges were different
00:53:24	Gang Zhou:	+1 Brooks
00:53:30	Marc Johnson:	One common element was that both made changes that aren’t necessarily aligned with FOLIO’s current architecture
00:54:12	Marc Johnson:	Brooks, I fully agree with that. When we try, we tend to hit up against governance challenges.
00:54:52	Harry:	I’m not convinced that Slack is the right tool for this.
00:55:01	Marc Johnson:	What’s interesting is that if folks made these changes from inside the regular groups then they might not get the same attention as coming from “outside” (I wish there were better words for this)
00:55:02	Harry:	I think we most likely need soething else.
00:55:04	Kirstin Kemner-Heek:	Email, there are some Tools.
00:55:31	Brooks Travis:	Discuss (or something in that class of tool) is probably a better solution
00:55:52	Harry:	I agree, Discuss is probably a better tool.
00:55:57	anya:	I know that Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Thailand  - LATAM would like to participate more - Time and Language prevents this
00:56:11	Gang Zhou:	+1 Brooks , +1 Anya
00:56:43	Marc Johnson:	Other open source projects have processes for worldwide contribution.

What it tends to mean is that folks need to be more available for immediate decisions

And larger decisions tend to require longer (think RFC’s from folks like the IETF)
00:56:46	Brooks Travis:	A tool with solid in-line automated translation would be a great boon there, I'd think.
00:56:48	Kirstin Kemner-Heek:	Every tool that meet the need is fine. The PC simply needs to know about whom we are really talking and what the specific need is.
00:59:01	anya:	inclusion - does the PC or should one of the roles of the the PC should be to reach out to the libraries that are live on FOLIO and ask them how they want to participate -and welcome them to the FOLIO community
01:00:44	Brooks Travis:	It may be worth comping some registrations (granted, a somewhat small part of the cost of attendance)
01:01:16	Marc Johnson:	Some projects don’t ban synchronous communication, instead they put high expectations on seeking opinions before hand and documenting decisions afterwards
01:02:07	Ian Walls:	synchronous communications are definitely appropriate for some things... but not for getting consent for global decisions
01:02:48	Harry:	I believe Koha does a reasonable job with this type of communication.
01:03:05	Harry:	But I’m not very involved in that community
01:04:46	Ian Walls:	I can speak to Koha's community practices (or get one of my ByWater colleagues to, as it's not been my focus for the last few years)
01:05:37	Martina Schildt | VZG:	Maybe this is better:
01:05:43	Kirstin Kemner-Heek:	We had katrin Fischer already and she told us their technique and pros and cons.
01:05:48	Harry:	I was told there was space for additional sessions
01:06:09	Kirstin Kemner-Heek:	There is!
01:06:31	Ian Walls:	that's great, Katrin is a wonderful person and Koha community member
01:09:30	Harry:	It would be good if there was no conflict with the CC meetings
01:10:34	Tod Olson:	I need to drop off. Thank you all for the discussion, this is important.
01:16:33	Harry:	Could we focus on prep for Wolfcon?
01:16:53	Harry:	Are there things we need to do to make sure it's a productive meeting?
01:17:00	Harry:	Possibly not
01:18:21	Brooks Travis:	I will need to jump off in a couple minutes to finish some prep for my next meeting. Thanks, everyone.
01:19:59	Harry:	WooHooo
01:20:08	anya:	ERM
01:20:12	anya:	yes
01:20:30	anya:	about 2 years for ERM
01:21:04	anya:	Michigan State is live
01:21:13	anya:	incase you did not see that last week
01:21:14	anya:	yes
01:22:24	Charlotte Whitt:	+ 1 Kirstin
01:22:36	Alexis Manheim:	+1 Kirstin
01:23:30	Kristin Martin:	FOLIO demo speed dating
01:23:32	Harry:	The demos were originally proposed for each part of FOLIO.  Not sure what happened to that proposal.
01:23:45	Charlotte Whitt:	Yes, love FOLIO demo speed dating
01:24:53	Marc Johnson:	Maybe we shouldn’t use production systems for these demos
01:25:04	Charlotte Whitt:	of course not
01:25:16	anya:	thank you - have to run
01:25:24	Peter Murray:	Fiscal year roll-over is such a fascinating task.  Such high pressure, high risk, and only once a year.
01:26:59	Marc Johnson:	The process engineer in me wants to figure out a way to make it not like that
01:27:40	Jesse Koennecke (he/him):	Make FYRO boring again...