2025-01-30 Product Council Agenda and Meeting Notes

5 min

Announcements

all

• SIG Reports 2025-01-20

• Update on Sunflower release schedule Sunflower (R1 2025)

• Draft timeline for the adoption of Eureka was shared with Community Council who endorsed their version of that

10 min

Draft statement on Eureka timeline

@Alexis Manheim

DRAFT: The Product Council endorses the report and timeline for adoption of the Eureka platform with the FOLIO Sunflower release. This coordinated approach for a community transition includes a list of requirements that should be met in order for the Eureka migration to proceed. The PC asserts that if participants in the early adopter program indicate that any of the requirements are not fulfilled by the planned Sunflower release date, the Eureka transition and Sunflower release should be delayed until all requirements are satisfied. 

Jeremy: There is a copy of what the Community Council that is in their minutes.

CC: The Community Council endorses the report and timeline for adoption of the Eureka platform with the FOLIO Sunflower release. This coordinated approach for a community transition includes a list of requirements that should be met in order for the Eureka migration to proceed. The Community Council asserts that if participants in the early adopter program indicate that any of the requirements are not fulfilled by the planned Sunflower release date, the Eureka transition and Sunflower release should be delayed until all requirements are satisfied.

This mirrors our language.

Kristin: We should mirror this since this is our original language.

Jeremy: Having both councils with the same message is a good thing. Involved in early adopters testing and is in the process setting up the Eureka environment. The time frame for early adopters is about 6 weeks.

Alexis: With the new Sunflower release, there is more time for the early adopters. Alexis will put a vote on Slack.

40 min

Revisit ways to leverage Jira to support PC workflows

@Jennifer Eustis

New Jira project for PC Evals, dashboard needs, etc.

PCE Project Kanban board: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/jira/software/projects/PCE/boards/265

This Jira workflow is meant to be lightweight. The issues are tasks and can be moved along the statuses.

Alexis: What happens if we don’t approve.

Jennifer: The criteria are at the level of ideas and PC is meant to work with the submitter to ensure a positive review.

Martin: Can we put issues there for new functionality? Yes

Kristin: This is a spot for this new functionality. We can proactively be involved with SIGs and working groups. If someone wants new functionality, they really want it. There’s flexibility and we might end with things with endorsement and our job is done or in the cancelled where work won’t happen.

Alexis: This makes sense as a workflow perspective. A PC member could create a draft and ping someone from SIG or PO is a good scenario just to say that the PC wants to hear about this. And they don’t have to come to a presentation - it could be a recording and questions could be put in the comments.

Kristin: Do we need all the statuses? We can review in a year to see if we do.

Jeremy: We talked about PC engaging with the submitter. Do we officially assign people for this? Would volunteers work? This board will support our work and it might be good to designate someone. One of the real power is the potential to be iterative. Is there any back and forth to shape the ideas, could you talk through that back and forth would happen? Could we use slack and the comments section of the issues? These are tools we already use. Should we have a mechanism in place to make sure new functionality is implemented in the way it was proposed? Is that a role of this group or the SIGs? This group seems like this is something we should do.

Charlotte: Maybe the PC should review all the states in 6 months or a year. Let’s get some reviews using this process and evaluate afterwards.

Tod: When you’re presenting review of statuses, it is necessary to refine that process. Are things implemented as designed? It’s two edged question. We’ve seen cases where things that were spec-ed out and what was implemented didn’t match. Needs shift. There needs to be some way of adjusting if there are changes. If something doesn’t meet the use case that is a problem.

Jeremy: We don’t want to endorse a blank check.

Kristin: We have SIG reports. We don’t have as much work as a TCR. This process is a little different. We’re trying to think of how new functionality fits into FOLIO as whole. There are some judgement calls but also yes/no ones as well. We need to get this into our regular discussions. Another group doesn’t need to be created right away. The whole PC should be engaged in thinking about how something fits into FOLIO as a whole.

Martin: If functionality is implemented not as presented, we are moving from gatekeeper to guiding. If we take this new role of guiding, there isn’t a need to review it again maybe. This might be a separate process of a more generic view of FOLIO as a product. This Kanban board could be used other things we want to endorse. Next week, the discovery group wants to be a SIG. Could this be used on this board?

Jeremy: Having someone designated with an issue is a good idea. The conversation shouldn’t come down to only one individual on the PC. The person assigned becomes a proxy to the council and a voice that can give insight.

Alexis: Having others do this also takes pressure off the chairs.

Charlotte: This process should be reserved for functionality. This is one of our key tasks. We can always discuss a process for working groups wanting to be a SIG.

Jeremy: This idea of not being a gatekeeper and guiding people through the process. If the process has only one conclusion, then the process doesn’t add anything to the product. The PC has an important contribution to the product. Doing some quality assurance is important.

Alexis: Our hope is to endorse everything. We’re trying to help folks in the right direction with stating what we prefer. There will be situations where we can’t endorse.

Kristin: The blocked/deferred is this category where we don’t actively pursue anything. Something from the blocked/deferred could rise back up.

Alexis: Functional signoff. There is a lot of detailed work with a sign off.

Lucy: Is the work about meeting strategic goals or is the goal the specific functionality to meet functional needs? We are talking the word of the SIGs for functional needs.

Charlotte: The PC is at a higher level. We aren’t reviewing UA mock ups or how properties are displayed. PC has to take a view on how FOLIO is enhanced as a product and is a strategic in that way.

Jeremy: I would like to see the PC serve as gatekeepers as an open gate. With the PC, if the process just goes along, things get through. PC reserves the right to close the gate if they see something that shouldn’t go through. The detailed functional review is done between PO and SIGs. This is something PC has delegated to the SIGs and we should be able to do that from time to time to ensure a cohesive result.

Brooks: This process is a strategic sign off process.

Alexis: That makes sense.

Jennifer: It would make sense of the liaisons to be the point person.

5 min

Future topics

all