KKH: Overall excellent conference: was well organized, good topics. could we do better tracking? Could we have longer breaks. Room for small groups to talk,
Ian: good for general understanding and where the focus is. Very good confernce
Simeon: size of conference is good. How can we motivate more people speaking up?
Edwin: Excellent confernence. As a new member: good open discussions - issues have been addressed
Maike: GOKb imterest has risen - good talks and good that GOKB was on the agenda
Simeon: Echo from Damien Katz: was good to have VuFind track as well
Mike: after a late planing start everything came out very well
Paula: The advantage of f2f is really given! It makes a lot of difference
Christopher: Execellent confernce, Jesses did a very good job - expecially with the planning group,
Tom: Maybe give smaller projects more room by not placing the session beside big FOLIO sessions
Improvement with virtual attendance needed: mics, etc
Focus on workshops could be expanded: marketing, development
Charge for virtual attendees? To prevent people are not coming in because of budget reasons
Sponsor for vitual attendance (VA)
Have a moderate rate for VA
Pick the f2f2 location carefully for good reach and being not too expensive
F2f is necessary for keeping the communities going and find people to step into responsible positions and birng the project forward - building trust and motivation
Lightning talk: 30 minutes habe been a surprise - maybe 10 minutes?
quick updates - format might need more specs?
Attendance of Clarivate and OCLC legitimizes the openness of the Wolfcon format
LC is thinking about having some default contracts with various vendors to do some certain piece of necessary development (for the community as well). The contract doesn't specify the scope or content of work. That is lined out later with each vendor.
Can FOLIO SMLLC be a vendor in this scenario?
Challenge: who will work with the vendors in this area? Has the OLF funding? What needs to be charged?
Revenue generating vehicle for the SMLLC
Subcontracts to organizations: FOLIO SMLLC would be a sub contractor funded by LOC and would task appropriate others with some work
quite very complex for volunteer SMLLC officers
Index Data, K-Int, EBSCO would be very interested in this kind of collaboration - especially because of the liability piece
Edwin: from a service providers standpoint we need a general agreement and action to solve some severe issues that are underlying the functional scope - that needs to be solved as a general effort - we can't neglect this issues in lieu for the interest of big libraries wanting to get "their things done"
Action item: good topic for the next meeting or the tri-council meeting
Decision to be made:
FOLIO SMLLC need to reply to the IDIQ
FOLIO SMCC does not reply itself but is supporting another vendor in doing so
CC should see a draft contract before making a decision - Simeon will go back to LOC (Caitlin) and follow up with her
Should we change the governance model to slightly reduce the size of CC (from 15 to 13, and corresponding quorum chance) given limited interest in elections and departures? See FOLIO Governance Model#Charter
Decision: 13 members and quorum of 7 - align with PC and TC: Action item for Simeon Warner : write up the change and let it discuss and ratify with other councils
The CC is worried to find enough new members to fill in the vacant seats in the next election period - Tom is proposing to find a solution here
Paula will leave definitley, Dracine has/ will leave as well
Balance the need for experienced, qualified members and people "sitting forever" in their positions
What do CC members expect from next years work and what do they want to bring in? Can we collect the most important topics and go forward with them?
Make the community developer advocate happen!
Meaningful meetings
Health check
Missed topics: like MOU for contributions: CC needs to come to an agreement about this topic first → action item: summarize the need and put it on CC's agenda