2023-11-13 Meeting notes

Simeon Warner (in absentia)

Mike Gorrell Boaz Nadav Manes 

See 2023-08-14 Meeting notes and 2023-09-25 Meeting notes

Discussion from 2023-09-25 Meeting notes

• We want to take account for both the situation of an independent contractor or someone associated with an institution. In the latter case we need to account for institutional overhead which varies (Cornell is 37%, Stanford is 30-32%)
• Mike Gorrell to refine the budget request and seek approval via Slack.
• On 2023-11-06 the TC discussed improving developer documentation , i.e. setting priorities of how to approach that.  As developer documentation is one aspect of the developer advocate role, TC wanted to ask CC for an estimate of when this person would be hired, so TC could get its prep work done before that.

From the CC-Members Slack channel:

Mike Gorrell said:

The proposal is to budget $27,000 for 6 months - which equates to $4,500 per month. The Job Description won’t lay out this detail. I believe we are open to a contractor as well as a FOLIO institution’s employee. In the Cornell case above, Cornell and the individual would have to be OK with $4,500 per month, regardless of the person’s actual salary or overhead rate. So if a Cornell person made $110,000 with 37% overhead, the cost to Cornell is $12,558.33 per month. 40% of which would be $5,023.33. SO - the salary/stipend from FOLIO would not cover the full cost of that 40%. Cornell would have to be OK with donating the difference.

OTOH, if the employee’s salary was $90,000 then Cornell’s cost for that 40% would be $4,110… I have assumed that FOLIO would still pay $4,500 - so Cornell (and the individual) makes out on the deal somewhat.

We’ll discuss at Monday’s meeting to get on the same page.

• Is the salary fixed at $4,500 per month, or, is that the cap (max)?
• Will each individual/organization "quote" a rate for the 40% of an individual for 6 months?

Mike Gorrell 

Jenn Colt notified CC that the TC has some concerns. Currently one of the checkpoints in the process has to do with checking the licensing of dependencies in modules. The current criteria is that the licenses be "Apache 2.0 compatible". The feeling is we need a more concrete list of acceptable licenses to use during the evaluation process.

• We need a white list with licences that are competible and a negative list which licences are not to be considered.  Unkown licenses are needed to be check by a lawyer

Marko Knepper has volunteered University of Mainz counsel to help with this process. How best can we proceed? I think that ideally the TC/Devs would like a list of licenses that are OK - anything outside that list would be flagged as not compatible.

• Action item for Marko: bring Jenn Colt in contact with a certain lawyer to clarify the open questions
• This check needs to be done periodically (once a year?)   as a maintenance process
• What is the responsibility of the community to supervise the usage of software tools and their licenses that are supported by the project?
  • Question to CC
  • OLF might want to set up a support structure to provide this security audits all projects might need. 
  • Christopher will bring this to OLF Exec

Mike Gorrell 

Architectural evolution will focus on Applications in FOLIO first. (Platform and authn/z will follow.)
TC launching RFC process for app changes described at WOLFcon.
TC subgroup to document non-technical requirements & implications for discussion in community. 
CC liaisons to effort to work with TC volunteers and PC liaisons on bringing this convo to fruition. 

From 2023-09-25 Meeting notes

• Boaz Nadav Manes Mike Gorrell and Simeon Warner volunteer
• Maccabee notes that TC is looking for CC guidance on process

Tom Cramer Ian Ibbotson (Use this one) Christopher Spalding 

Tom Cramer 

Ian Ibbotson (Use this one) (liaison to CC)