2025-11-20 Product Council Agenda and Meeting Notes
Date
Nov 20, 2025
Participants
PC Members: @Autumn Faulkner @Tod Olson @Lisa McColl @Alexis Manheim @Martin Scholz @Thomas Trutt @Charlotte Whitt @Jennifer Eustis @Jeremy Huff @Jana Freytag
Other Attendees: @Kristin Martin , @Brooks Travis @Gang Zhou @Peter Murray @Joseph A Molloy @Mark Veksler @Martina Tumulla @Christie Thomas @Christopher Spalding @Maura Byrne
Regrets: @Caitlin Stewart
Note taker: @Jennifer Eustis
Highlights for Monthly Newsletter
Discussion topics
Time | Item | Presenter | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
5 min | Welcome & Announcements | @Jeremy Huff |
|
Housekeeping | |||
3 - 5 min | Liaison Updates | @Tod Olson , @Alexis Manheim , @Jennifer Eustis | TC: TC is working on the environment variables. |
3 - 5 min | Action Item Review | @Jeremy Huff | Completed: @Tod Olson will announce the decision on support periods @Alexis Manheim will add this to the future topics list ( duplicate of one below) @Alexis Manheim will add SIG consistency to the future topics list @Alexis Manheim will reach out to Khalilah to ask about presenting at the next PO meeting Vote on Slack for TC Period of Support proposal @Jana Freytag to reach out to @Rachel Fadlon concerning legacy folio news letter @Jeremy Huff will let the TC know that it passed and update wiki/decision log. @Jeremy Huff will let the TC know that the Support period vote passed and update wiki/decision log. |
3 -5 min | Update Wiki Shortcuts | @Martin Scholz | @Jeremy Huff can update these, what do we want them to be? Proposal (Martin):
Jeremy now has permission to edit shortcuts in the left hand menu. The consensus is to add the following shortcuts: Decision log, current PC charge, Community Priorities dashboard, Topic calendar, current meeting notes, PC working groups. Jeremy will start and present to the PC in Dec. |
Updates on Active Initiatives | |||
|
|
|
|
New Topics | |||
10 - 15 min | Working Group Charter Review: Community Directed Development Framework | @Jeremy Huff | The working group charter. This working group wants to coordinate regular meetups with CC and TC. Question: It would be good to spell out the DIP acronym. Yes. Question: For the DIP pilot, how would that work for resources? Is this dependent on funding and developers? This is something the working group will have to look into. Question: We’ve had processes in FOLIO that we’ve tried to initiate that haven’t been adopted. What kind of outreach during the development of the process that we will have a process that meets needs and agreeable to all players? The working group might put this in the communication plan. It is planning on outreach to the other councils and the WOLFcon presentation. Wouldn’t this be a nice topic for the newsletter? Yes! Updates from the working groups. Instead of after the fact, we need to communicate what is intended. There is in the “In Scope” where the working group will gather feedback from the community. The working group have discussed meetings with the tricouncil so that we avoid creating just a piece of paper. It would be smart to keep an eye on who is affected and pull them in as needed. Maybe explicitly name the stakeholders. This will depend on how things shake out. It would be great to keep in mind ways we could articulate the success story. How can we make this stick and be adopted? What about tricouncil meetings? This could work. This looks really good. The biggest risk is that it gets bogs down somewhere and becomes a bureaucratic solution. Communicate wins, slow downs, and delays. There is a lot in the charge that is how do we do this. There might potentially be a phase II. Could you clarify how we’re measuring success for the DIP ( and the pilot of course)? That’s a good point. If the pilot received good feedback, then it was successful. Having a documented process that works is the measure of success. The working group also proposes a full definition and roadmap. The working group should be as practical as possible. Is the charge the right place to define a healthy process? It is more important to produce the deliverables. The testing process for the full DIP process isn’t in scope. The testing process is for the pilot and lay out some proposals for how this will work on a larger scale. Is this more the work of the group rather than the charter? Action items: See below |
10 - 15 min | Working Group Charter Review: RMS/PC Roles, Relations and Communication | @Autumn Faulkner | Presentation Postponed until Dec. 2025 |
Planning | |||
5 min | Newsletter topics | All |
|
10 min | Define agendas for next 2 meetings | All | |
Action Items
Decisions
Related materials
Recording: