2023-09-22 Meeting notes

Review of Action item: Template for SIG reports. Proof of concept, Jira template. Another idea is to have a spreadsheet on the wiki where we can track requests.This can be done in Confluence. Here's an example: Template Issue Tracker for PC.

Questions:

Use this template to update the FOLIO Product Council on an issue related to your SIG. Please include the following information.

------------------------------------------------------------

SIG Name:

SIG Convenor: 

Description of issue/report:

Link to SIG meeting discussion on issue or request:

Link to any jira issues related to issue/report/discussion:

Is this a new feature, a bug, or regression?

Is this a proposal for a new group and it is a subgroup of the SIG or a stand alone working group?

What are you asking from the FOLIO Product Council?

Do you want to attend a future FOLIO Product Council meeting to present this request?

Should we do the report in Jira?

• Advantages:
  • we can tied reports to Epics/Bugs/UXPRods
  • Assign people dates
  • Others can comment
• Disadvantages
  • Jira is complicated
  • People might not know how to use it.
  • It's hard to delete
  • Really more development focused

Use the wiki?

Use the wiki to enter action items

• Advantages:
  • Shared on wiki in main area of FOLIO information
  • Ability for others to comment
  • Already placed in PC space
  • Searchable
• Disadvantages
  • Would need to create a new template/macro to create
  • Could be a combination of report/report and general information sharing doesn't require a decision

Further thoughts:

• Google form for inputting report
• Take report form from Google and translate to wiki
• Conveners enter information directly on wiki
• Separate page for requests
• PC should follow up with SIGs that don't provide an update
• Items that need decisions would be associated with a particular report
• Use the decisions widget to also indicate when items are outstanding and when they are done
• Have as much information as possible live on the wiki, but need to take the time to keep it organized

 Review of SIGs and app responsibilities

What's a SIG vs. a working group?

• WG generally run by product owners for specific functionality, and don't have separate conveners, but are convened by POs. Do we want them to do SIG reports? Do SIG conveners have to report for the WGs as well as the whole SIG? Is it too much to ask conveners to also deal with WGs that spawn from their sig (DI and QM groups have a clear line to MM sig for instance, while bulk edit is cross sig)

Notice: working groups don't have SME conveners and this impacts reporting to PC, since POs don't report on WC to PCs.

• These types of issues in WC are bigger than a particular SIG
• How are POs working with SMEs and developers? For SIGs, how do we want to manage our data? Here's our workflows and what we want to do. Then there is a separate discussion working with the PO so that decisions are made on how we want to do X. These two discussions are combined, and this may be leading to frustration.

Idea:

• SIG has theoretical discussion on topic. Like, "we need functionality on boundwiths." Should this spawn a working group, or would this be too many.
• How can conveners be in line with the SMEs? Is it a problem of scope?
• What does Metadata Mgt do?
  • Searching, SRS, layout, and editing Inventory records
• Perhaps the major working groups need to be converted to SIGs with conveners and direct reports to PC
• What to do with overlap? Perhaps we figure out when a special group is needed for specific issues/cross-app problems
• SIGs have been "forever" groups, but how can we define scope, and then have some smaller groups that can exist for shorter periods with limited scope