Given that the monolithic flower releases have grown to be a problem and that the deployment of FOLIO is becoming unsustainable for system operators, EBSCO has developed a proposal for the formalization of applications and platforms that they believe will help solve both of these issues.
Charter:
Communicate to community in parallel to what is happening
Dialog with the group implementing
Communicating consequences
Impact on existing FOLIO user and finding a path from the current process to the proposed process.
General agreement with the proposal on the technical level, but there is a big gap between that and communicating the consequences
Need to talk through the consequences and alternatives, not simply communicate them - what path do we want to take?
When we find agreement for the path, understanding how we make things happen and how we minimize the risks or agree upon the acceptable level of risk
Can describe what we want to have and what we want to avoid
We need to understand the current state of work so we can focus our work
E.g., if there is already work underway, we should be starting there
Identify and share with stakeholders, e.g., DevOps and keep them involved
Find answers to non-technical questions or come up with proposals to reduce risk and increase alignment
Does this group help to determine what modules should come together for one app?
The might be a technical question, but the implications are very non-technical
Maybe think less “is this a technical question or not,” but what are the non-technical implications as the technical questions are answered
Current state
Some work has been done; proof-of-concept
A lot of non-technical aspects have not been addressed yet
Technical aspects align closely with proposal
Questions:
Will FOLIO as an Open Source project be easier to approach for new development team with this new change? That would be a long term goal, where especially libraries would benefit from, when asking for special development/customized development?
What is the RFC process going to look like?
Group will present overview and Scope, then take advice. Then write full RFC
RCF us technically focused but okay to ask tech/nontech questions, this depends on the RFC
Potential process
Identify risks
Formalize problems and solutions
Proof-of-concept and RFC are the appropriate vetting for this change
Because the TC has a process for focusing on the technical aspects, this group does not need to focus on those
Concerns:
Naming may be a problem - “app” is an overloaded name
How do applications get defined? Bounded concept is going to be a RFC issue
What have we agreed upon
We assume this is going forward to formalize apps/platforms
We need to formalize our charter, find a way to allow for ambiguity yet feel clear about path forward
Determine our first steps, risk analysis?
We set up a weekly meeting at 1 PM ET Wednesday
Action Items:
Jen: work on charter/refine and share with group by Friday
All: consider what the first couple of ideas are to tackle
First deliverables are reached in December
Craig provides update on where things stand/timeline