Date
Attendees
Kristin Martin, Alexis Manheim, Anya, Brooks Travis, Charlotte Whitt, Gang Zhou, Hkaplanian, Ian Walls, Jesse Koennecke, Karen Newbery, Peter Murray, Sharon Wiles-Young, Stephanie Buck, twliu, Tod Olson
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 min | Announcements
| Emails with links to the ballots went out (May 30th). Some email has gone into spam folders. New Live on FOLIO Libraries:
| |
| 60 min | FOLIO Scope-Criteria Working Group | Kristin Martin | If someone isn't the rightsholder, what incentives are there for that person or group to maintain a module? Turn it over to a council to make decisions? To be discussed further with the Community Council. The support/maintenance is a function of the MOU, might this make signing the MOU a hurdle? The signer of the MOU may need to take responsibility for changes from others. There is a code review process that is supposed to account for this. We could be fooling ourselves or hurting ourselves if making discussions with Product Council mandatory before module development starts. We need other paths as well. For instance, Shanghai is doing some really interesting work around circulation (link); we wouldn't want to penalize that work because they didn't come to Product Council first. This path isn't the only path for something to come into FOLIO; this document is a more concrete description of how new work comes into FOLIO. The Product Council does have the authority to determine what is included in a flower release. This doesn't prevent others from doing their own work in the system. The "product" is the flower release, and Product Council determines what is in a flower release. The list of functions shared by China's folio community is forward-looking (link). Do we want to consider including those emerging functions in the FOLIO criteria document? Having a pathway for new functionality to come into FOLIO is a distinct benefit of FOLIO over other solutions in the marketplace. We might be rapidly approaching the point where the notion of a "release" isn't the same for all libraries; there isn't one build that everyone around the world accepts as a release. Releases might be differentiated by region of the world, by size/type of library, a unit determined by service providers, etc. It is important to distinguish between the core of the platform and the apps that run on the platform. |
| 5 min | Future topics | Next week is a SIG Convener's meeting week. |
Chat log
00:23:50 Brooks Travis: Not sure why there's a conflation of those two things (support and license/IP assignment)?
00:24:52 Ian Walls: I think the conflation was between the assignment of copyright to OLF with the license applied to the code.
00:25:10 Ian Walls: I think 'support' is a little ambiguous
00:25:58 Brooks Travis: That's how OS licenses work. To effectively maintain an OS license, there needs to be a clear copyright holder who has the authority to enforce that license.
00:26:31 Brooks Travis: “maintain†would probably be a better term
00:26:32 Ian Walls: of course. but the copyright holder does not need to be OLF
00:27:35 Brooks Travis: my understanding is that holding copyright assignments was (one of) the reasons that OLF was created in the first place, no?
00:31:12 Tiewei Liu: Something we can look at when discuss the functional criteria (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l6TZUJ5xxoazo6RzUblTuBTpLbPqFJOl/edit?) It was created by China’s folio community.
00:35:33 Steph Buck: Yes, the OLF came out of a need for a non-profit neutral organization to be a home for FOLIO's IP. Now, the OLF has expanded the open source projects in it’s purview, including VuFind
00:36:27 Tod Olson: ++SB
00:37:13 Brooks Travis: Yeah, again, if someone wants to build their own apps/modules that work with the FOLIO platform, they can do that. It just won't be part of the official platform/product unless it goes through that process, no?
00:39:11 Brooks Travis: If a contributor does't comply with their MOU, they're going to, at least, burn good will for future participation in the project.
00:40:03 Peter Murray: That was good, Ian: The "product" is the flower release, and Product Council determines what is in a flower release.
00:47:23 Gang Zhou (SHL): What is the future direction ? FOLIO is a platform, may like Android and Apps?
1. Platform and COR Apps will be included in future release
They are owned by the community under the license apache 2.
These new apps will be applied to the criteria.
2. The vendors can develop their Apps.
If the apps could be contributed to the community, shall the community have a certification process? The apps will be under Apache2 , but are not included in the FOLIO release
if the apps are not open source, shall the community encourage it?
If the FOLIO has App store in future, these apps may be download in store.
00:49:34 Ian Walls: I think it's important to clearly differentiate between the 'core' of FOLIO (which I've been calling the 'Platform') from the modules that make an LSP (the 'Product', which is currently named after flowers)
00:50:47 Ian Walls: different projects could then share the Platform (FOLIO LSP and ReShare)
00:52:47 Tod Olson: On not-open-source apps, I would think that could be FOLIO-recommended/FOLIO-compatible.
00:53:13 Tod Olson: I prefer "FOLIO-compatible" for this reason.
00:53:19 Ian Walls: Tod++
00:53:25 Gang Zhou (SHL): Tod+
00:53:26 Brooks Travis: yeah
00:53:33 Charlotte Whitt: Filip Jakobsen did a UX design of the FOLIO App store https://ux.folio.org/prototype/en/store?view=full
00:56:59 Ian Walls: I recall talking about this in SysOps
00:58:18 Peter Murray: Index Data has been studying the modular nature of FOLIO based on Mike Taylor's "International Journal of Librarianship" article: https://github.com/MikeTaylor/mafia#readme
00:59:17 Tod Olson: Nice repo name/acronym: mafia
01:00:48 Charlotte Whitt: <3
01:02:36 Anya: New Live on FOLIO Libraries
​University of Melbourne-ERM
Lafayette College - Full Folio
East Central Oklahoma U - Full Folio
01:05:20 Anya: thanks