All PC members: From Community Council request is simple:could you please name the top three areas of greatest concern for FOLIO (or conversely, three opportunities to strengthen and improve FOLIO)?
The question is deliberately open-ended, so feel free to interpret it in any way you choose. And no need for essays—in fact shorter and from the hip answers are probably better.
Your responses may be anonymous or attributed, as you choose.If you are up to this, could you please send me a response by October 10?
Looking to PC to reach out to people to have a diverse response set.
New Implementers: Saint Mary-of-the-Woods (SWOTW College) is live on FOLIO. SWOTC is implemented by Index Data. SMOTW College is a private Roman Catholic liberal arts college in Saint Mary-of-the-Woods, Indiana. Originally a college exclusively for women, it is now coeducational. It is the oldest Catholic college in Indiana and is known for the Mari Hulman George School of Equine Studies.
Also mentioned Holy Cross or South Texas College are now live - implemented by Index Data. Holy Cross went 'live' earlier this year and STC in August.
WOLFcon debrief and how to move forward on matters of Technical Debt and Architectural Blueprint
Reviewing Charter
Security Expert from EBSCO who volunteered to work with the Security Team
TC had a number of modules for review
mod-calendar - approved
mod-oa - sent back and will not be included in Nolana
setting module for GOBI - approved
These were all sent for approval around the end of the release cycle. Will kick off a review of the process, and it will likely change for Orchid.
TC would like these reviews to not be tied to the release schedules, but recognize that's not really how things work. Craig, Marc, Alexi will meet. Some of the modules have already been included in Nolana without having been approved. It gives TC one day to approve it or not have the functionality included in Nolana.
There are some other modules that were not submitted but are targeted for Nolana. There is ongoing conversation about those.
The process is structured for developers to submit small modules. Small modules are more likely to meet the criteria and approved.
There is a tension of working to deadlines, hopes the work that the work that Julie's group is doing will change that
In an ideal world, the TC sees this as a back and forth between TC and the developers, but the rush toward a flower release deadline makes that challenging.
What can we do to avoid the introduction of unapproved modules in existing modules as a matter of policy?
A broader challenge - we have criteria to accept - but it only applies to new modules. haven't figured out how to apply that criteria to existing modules. Acceptance shouldn't be permanent either. There should be a periodic review. "A module can not depend on a module that's already included" May need to raise awareness in developers - there may be some who don't know the policy and criteria. Limit to how much can be done if people are aware and no one realized something needs to go to the TC for approval.
As we get our functional criteria, maybe discussions will happen earlier
SysOps has had these kinds of discussions for years. If we know of two modules that depend on each other, they should be merged into one module to reduce the number of dependencies.
Concern about folding dependencies into one module, apps should be independent from each other, modules could be spread across multiple apps.
Good topic for our futures group
Some interest in looking at module boundaries and where they could be redrawn so contact between modules could be more simple. But a PoC would be a lot of work.
Applications being independent - the integrated nature of real-life library work is not how it works.
True on a UX basis, maybe doesn't have to be true on an architectural basis.
Even during this conversation, we don't agree on what the words mean - dependency, app, module - where does this conversation go after this meeting?
We've identified some problems to feed into the group, and we can work on the definitions to be sure we all understand
Community Council Treasurer's report - one developer is funded by FOLIO - extended contract through June of 2023
Decision made to target a 6 month reserve to keep the project running with the goal of having one year's expenses in reserve. As of now, the amount barely covers a three month reserve
Update from Tom Cramer about the Resourcing Group
Centralized model - spent time discussing this last meeting
Decentralized model - CC will discuss this more next meeting
Proposed vision for the future of FOLIO builds - was more of a recruiting session to sign up for that
Discussion about survey on thoughts about FOLIO
Decision was made to try to get more feedback, so there's another set of questions to gather feedback
Harry presented the dashboards in Jira so Community Council could learn about how to look at what's targeted for current and past releases, and the release notes.
Is there a need for a wrap-up of the information that's available in both Jira and the Release Notes at a higher level? Will continue discussion.
Next week, Harry will come back and share
Release planning group (renaming of capacity planning group)- had a couple of calls this week to determine if Morning Glory was ready for release (it was released). Will have another meeting about the milestones the developers will have to hit to release Orchid. Will likely post next release's milestones next week. Alexi will share it on Slack.
Will try to have someone take official notes in the release planning group. The meeting is more like a stand-up, which traditionally only focuses on things that are problems.
have older capacity planning pages under the PC's page, want to transition to information under the release's page. Need to document the two channels the group is using.