Action item from 2023-07-10 Meeting notes was to "read and comment the proposal until next meeting! Approval in the next meeting!", was postponed from 2023-07-24 Meeting notes due to lack of quorum
At CC's request a while, back the Technical Council created a subgroup to define some processes forControlling AWS Costs. The subgroup has drafted four deliverables, linked on that page. I presented them to TC this morning; TC reviewed them and with one edit approved them as well. We also need CC's edits and approval please since it was your request originally, this is all about budgets, and the deliverablespropose a new groupwith CC's participation to perform that oversight.
Peter Murray is presenting
Kitfox team effort reduced costs
AWS cost control group: feedback loop to CC would be good. Requests should be communicated (smaller / regualr ones). Big requests need agreement anyway.
From Maccabee: "The folks behind the Developer Advocate proposal have incorporated all the feedback we received from community members and the questions from CC. The most substantive change was to add two specific scenarios of who might fill the role, including time commitments and oversight"
Scenario A was supported by the majority of the group developing the proposal
Why is scenario B full-time and not scenario A? Ian could imagine a smaller fraction of time contract but imagined some signfiicant effort to ramp-up with the community. Contractors will include benefits in fees
OLF would not be able to hire staff, could handle contractor or reimburse an institution. OLF can do 1099 agreements, or pay out to an institution.
In scenario A, what happens if nobody is being onboarded? There is plenty else to do including documentation and dev environment issues. No shortage of work though Tom suggests building in additional outreach and coordination to make scenario A even stronger
Should this role include recruiting? We think that institutions have staff the might be able to contribute but need help to do so. Perhaps documents sends more passive than intended – advertising this role might encourage contribution
Kat notes onboarding sub-group could connect with the advocate
Alexis is presenting the new version of the scenarios
Questions:
Tom: Are we now at that point to make a decision?
Boaz: Let's go ahead - make sure that 40% for are the rigth scope. As well the time of 3 month might be too short.
Alexis: All asked developers said: 40% is fine
Kirstin: 40% for better 6 month than 3 month in scenario A might be the most helpful and realstic scenario - Edwin supports this - try A first - use B as backup
Mike: What needs to be decided? Between Scenario A and B? Yes
Tom: @Alexis Manheim does the proposal describe who will “manage” the person’s community time?
Answer: We did suggest that the person would still report to their current manager and do regular check ins with the TC.
Harry: For what person do we look out? A developer or a manager? And how do we recruit? Do we need a marketing/recruiting effort? And who could be a good match for the job - a certain person?
Alexis: Search through Slack and most meetings - no heavy recruiting effort
You know - hang out where the Devs hang out and convince them to join FOIO effort… :-)
Marc: Asking again about the certain person and its skill sets - it is a task that asks for a lot of knowledge and insight
Mike: Fokus on "get startet" and see the asked tasks as aspirational
What about the budget?
No question - Boaz: strong vote for "go ahead"
Marc: yes - but we need to know, if this is working out
Alexis: There would be TC oversight - Marc: What kind of TC oversight are folks talking about? The TC doesn’t have regular hands on involvement in development on the project
Harry: job description needed
Tom: go for 6 month
Decision: Is CC supporting the proposal as whole? YES
Action items: volunteers from CC to work the next steps out (scenario A or B and find a person): Mike G., Boaz
At ad hoc discussions around ALA, Mike synthesized the following pithy FOLIO story based on various comments:
"FOLIO is a community-owned and governed, market-driven modern open source platform for libraries that provides choice and protection from vendor lock-in. Designed by librarians for librarians, its modular and flexible architecture helps solve current problems and is adaptable for future needs."
What resonates and what doesn't?
Would something like this be a useful device?
Feedback:
Boaz: useful approach
Harry: Assuming this is a draft and we need to make some changes?
First: what is the audience?
Mike: Ensure that FOLIO has an aligned message
Marc: Marketing and a short statement - but did it reflect the reality?
Harry: document, that this statement is for internal purpose
Kirstin: no difference between internal / external usage - needs to be lived by community and be a good explanation for external use - and a short understandable message
needs to reflect what we want to live and try hard to realize - some difference are ok
Boaz: I hear this is for internal purposes
Marc Johnson: I like the “lived by the community” idea, it embodies that the community is both in agreement with it and moving in line with it
Kristin / Alexis: it migth be aspirational but its a good way to explain why are we doing this - it helps explaining
Kirstin: topic for f2f CC meeting in Chicago and Tri-Council-Meeting
Harry: Clean up the sentences first before sending it out
Boaz: supports Kirstins proposal - not clean it up first - just let the discussion happen - increase engagement in the community
Kristin: present 3 versions and select the best?
Mike: Whats the purpose? Maybe go to the Pc first?
Alexis: Share it and get initial reactions
Harry: would like to work on an alternative version