Update on votes from WOLFcon meeting and Slack followup
@Simeon Warner
We will extend Patrick Pace in the developer advocate role through June 2025. Same terms as before but we will also develop an assessment strategy to inform our decision about whether to extend the role and Patrick in FY26.
At WOLF meeting, all 6 present voted in favor; 4 additional votes in favor via Slack
Total: 10 votes in favor, none against. AGREED
We agree to the following principles to guide our decisions about infrastructure support. At the meeting this was rolled in with the following discussion but I think it is useful to separate out.
– the community will fund truly shared infrastructure including CI/CD, UAT and end-to-end testing environments
– development teams fund their individual dev/test environments
– cost sharing for any significant changes in spending or direction can be joint funded, subject to advance discussion, mutual agreement, planning and budgeting
At WOLFcon meeting, 5 voted in favor, 1 abstention; 6 additional votes in favor via Slack
Total: 11 votes in favor, 1 abstention, none against. AGREED
Additional comments advocating for the development of a better understanding of what we mean by “truly shared infrastructure”
We will implement the above principles by following up with the funders of development teams that currently have FOLIO community supported dev environments (EBSCO and TAMU) to implement a transition.
At WOLFcon meeting, 5 voted in favor, 1 abstention; 6 additional votes in favor via Slack
Total: 11 votes in favor, 1 abstention, none against. AGREED
Now we understand that Patrick Pace will not continue in the Developer Advocate role, how do we feel about rehiring?
Consensus that we should re-hire
Suggestion that in addition to Patrick’s notes about the role and what might be adjusted, we would like him to say what he thinks about traits to be successful
We will discuss again when we have Patrick’s notes
Nomination committee
@Simeon Warner
See https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/x/jYBpFg notes, agreement from tri-council that we’d like to get a much earlier start this year and to include outreach via all councils to ensure we have full slates, and ideally competitive elections, for all councils
found a nomination committee
responsible to raise interest in the councils work, motivate people to hand in applications, describe the tasks
committee can be led by a CC member but it can be someone else as well
inclusiveness is key
committee is an advising body, not a decision making body
aimed change: start ealier, intensify outreach, include person from PC
Action item: set up this committee → @Boaz Nadav Manes is volunteering to take it on, Joe Grobelny is joining in
AWS costs
@Simeon Warner@Shawn Nicholson
Status update: Projected monthly cost $27,316 (largest expenditures include: Compute Savings Plans, Relational Database, EC2 Instances = ca. $20,000)
Meeting planned on Friday, Oct. 18, 2024: Simeon, Christopher, Shawn with EBSCO team
Possible review and renewal of governance documents
@Simeon Warner
Discussed in https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/x/HQDBHg - Sense that we need some more clarity. Also CC number of members is wrong at the bottom of the document. Should likely have some process for broad input of potential changes.
Discussed needs to update the Governance Model documents
Suggestion that we create a Google docs version of the governance document for comment by all as a starting point
Focus on word and phraseology, not wholesale changes
@Maccabee Levine thinks TC happy with current charge as has just reviewed it
Proposal to create a cycle of review (every 3 years?) that engages larger FOLIO community for a comprehensive review
ACTION: @Simeon Warner to create Google Doc version with clarity on the aims of this round of review - DONE
From the open CC Slack channel, this question came: "Does the FOLIO community have a policy on the use of AI to generate meeting notes? Specifically, is it acceptable to send a recording to an external program like Otter or Fireflies in order to generate meeting notes?
@Simeon Warner
Affirmed: no extant policy on using AI for meeting notes
Discussion
benefits for using AI for summarization
recordings are found in the Wiki
transparency and openness are values
obligation remains with the human member of the Council to ensure that decisions are accurately recorded and status of the rest of the notes is clear
tool choice:
no prohibition
encourage Councils to read the license and make members aware of the tool choice
apprehensive to recommend specific tools, as institutional licenses will vary
ACTION:
@Simeon Warnerto respond to Open Slack question based on the above - DONE:
Hi Tara! CC discussed this 2024-10-14. We confirm that there is no extant policy on using AI for meeting notes within the FOLIO community. While there is no prohibition on such uses of AI and CC discussion was generally in favor of them for assistance, we caution groups to understand that the responsibility for accurately recording decisions and discussion must ultimately remain with a human participant. Further, we encourage groups considering the use of AI tools to discuss within themselves to make sure all members are aware of the tool choice and any license implications.
Meeting in person in Charleston
@Boaz Nadav Manes
Discussion item: Benefits of meeting in person leveraging other conferences beyond once per year at WolfCon