2025-03-06 Product Council Meeting Notes

5 min

Announcements

all

• Kristin: Next weeks different daylight saving time schemes apply. For participants outside the US meeting times may shift one hour.

• Wolfcon: session proposal open: Speaker Portal email was sent on OLF channels

  • Jeremy Huff: How long will the window for proposals be open? Jesse: April 11 is deadline.

5 min

Eureka early adopters and Permissions updates

@Kirstin Kemner-Heek @Jeremy Huff @Charlotte Whitt
GBV, Texas A&M, Index Data

• Jeremy: there were issues with core components as keycloak, manager components, etc. Now, they work together correctly, moving to functional modules; hopefully next week Eureka system deployed

• Alexis: news on working with permissions, documentation of permissions?

  • Maura: UM SIG had first lab session with permissions; next meeting SIGs' expert

    will present how documentation on permission was done so far will

  • Jeremy: regarding timeline, early adopters still in time with Sunflower roadmap; so far issues that came up do not seem to be serious, more of a steep learning curve

• Charlotte: New development from ID seems to work smoothly on Eureka snapshot environment

• GBV: All components before installing platform minimal are in place now. First tenant is in place but activation of core FOLIO modules is now the next stopper. In general the process is dominated by overcoming one obstacle after anothers, digging deep to find the error. Forecasts about progress remain difficult.

10 min

FOLIO Governance Model updates

@Alexis Manheim

The CC has updated the Governance Model documentation and is asking for our approval on the document: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/800423938/2024%20FOLIO%20Gover[…]tions%20Proposal%202025-02-24%20CC%20approved.docx?api=v2

Framing and proposal: approve the overall document, but follow up on any PC Charter related updates soon after.

Kristin reports:

• updates were discussed in 2 meetings in CC.

• smaller adjustments: consistent wording, adapt to current practice; changes on voting (does not affect PC), clarification of roles, outsourcing member requirements and other things that don’t belong in the charter

• this should not be a major charter review; can happen separately afterwards

• document references an (unknown?) Folio diversity policy (Simeon will clarify or delete the reference)

Jeremy:

• only impact on PC is that the phrase “manages the scope of the Folio product” was removed; has no strong opinion about that, the phrase was rather vague

• Kristin: confirms, that it was removed because it caused confusion

Jennifer:

• phrase “the PC will guide the work of development teams”: PC is not able to do this right now, should be reviewed

Alexis:

• if we have change recommendations to existing phrases we should do this separately

• just approve adjustments made if no objections

Jeremy: sounds good

Harry: How do Goals for 2025 align to charter? At least three goals don’t seem to align => Goals should be discussed and reviewed

Alexis: this should be discussed, update charter or goals? this may lead out of the “identity crisis” of the PC

Alexis and Kristin: discussion and voting on adjustments should be finished next week,. CC expects response for chairs meeting in DC March 19;

Kristin: expect aprrox. 1h of reading in preparation for next meeting; check if what we as PC are doing is in line with charter

Jeremy: notes that there is a section “Document history” that clarifies the intent of the changes.

Charlotte: this week is busy because of sunflower feature freeze

Alexis: discuss and decide on next week: proposals and remarks till Tue, discussion on Thu

=> Alexis will put docx in a Google doc for better commenting

Jesse: was part of initial document creation process; in happy the help if there are questions on its history

35 min

PC Goals

• Calendar follow up

  • create a working group set up best practices

  • PC members, add email for calendar access here:

  • Jesse: calendar can be embedded in Wiki: Product Council Calendar

    • Kristin: Currently, the embedding shows that you have to sign in Google although already signed in=> maybe settings have to be revised

  • Kristin and Charlotte will help in setting up calendar, work out guidelines on using calendar

2025 Goals

1. Update PC Review Process

   1. document progress

   2. reach out to POs, etc. about new functionality to share

   3. add to calendar

2. Engage with App Formalization

   1. document progress

   2. Permissions

3. Revive Community Development

   1. good topic for WolfCon?

   2. focus on improving existing functionality

4. Solicit & analyze community priorities

   1. “Setting Up a Filter Subscription” or other ways to gather SIG priorities

5. Communicate Development priorities and activity to the community

Harry: Some of these goals seem misaligned to charter; the PC has not control over what is developed but rather can have influence on that. Last two seem most fitting with charter. SIG acutally have enormous influence of development. PC could do better on providing data and tools.

Alexis: Goals shall be adjusted to what PC can achieve. PC has liaisons in SIGs, topics can thus be brought into PC.

Jeremy: Charter may be good and goals aligned with charter. Wording of Charter indicates that it should have more “influence”. Just because it can’t control all of development, there is room in the charter to have a PC-controlled dev team. It would be healthy for the project if the PC could shape scope of the project more actively.

Harry: One single team could only have a very narrow focus and effect. The PC should be able to provide information on to what should be developed (eg. is planned for 2025), to guide teams.

Alexis: The we want to provide with prioritization process. … provide dashboards etc, top rated topics

Kristin: review process also helps in getting a holistic view on the project; goal was to get priorities set for Sunflower, got delayed to Trillium.

Jennifer: introducing prioritisation and discussion in SIGs helps us understand what needs to be done; review process changes make PC members more engaged

Alexis to Harry: does the prioritisation process help?

Harry: It’s good you can subscribe to what SIGs prioritize. But the PC ows a higher level of prioritization, merging the SIGs' prios => get the bigger picture

Alexis: hope is to come up with merging dashboards

Harry: PC has no way to prescribe what dev teams should do, but have a list is leading in right direction

Harry: Review / Approval process does not impact dev.

Kristin: Currently roadmap process is reactive, should be more proactive. We need to know what dev teams have planned / are committed to develop, e.g. to update roadmap. It would be good to be able to consistently find that information. To Harry, can he be the one that informs on EBSCOs behalf?

Harry: Can be, maybe better Dennis or Khalilah. There was a process and subgroup established that should do that.

Kristin: The group is not functioning very good, has not direct access to information, working adhoc. Should be more formalized.

Harry: Future dev should has two aspects: new features but also product vision. The latter is lacking at the moment (from a product mgmt perspective) and the PC should be the one to come up with one. A vison is necessary to attract investment.

Alexis: Maybe in the past, PC will “direct development” was meant as “provide a vision”

Harry: “vision” is in the charter and it is necessary for stake holders to invest

Jeremy compares PCs responsibility for Folio product vision/roadmap with ECMAscript, the abstract specification that browsers more or less implement as Javascript with varying compatibility: PC states a vision and dev teams decide on how much they follow/deviate.

Jeremy is very interested in a Wolfcon session on community development and asks for collaboration.

Future topics

5 min

all