2022-06-13 Meeting notes

Review the planned WOLFcon Timebox schedule and consider CC and other community meetings and whether there are any conflicts 

• CC sees no conflicts and is fine with the timebox

Review Flow on slides 7 and 8 - comments and/or concerns?

• Dracine: related to "contributor signs MoU"
• who is the contributor?
• Ian Ibbotson: initially it was software provider, who comes along and develops new software
  • maybe this needs to be broadened up
• Harry: ownership goes to OLF
  • does that make sense, if OLF cannot take care of code
  • does it make sense to change that going into the future
• Marc Johnson: agrees to Harry; there is a relationship between owner and contributor
  • needs to be granted that contributor stays around
• Harry: can this be granted by anyone?
• Ian Walls: transfering ownership is transfering responsibility
  • expectations need to be clear
  • business arrangements are needed to have FOLIO supported
• Simeon: code is given to OLF only in edge cases
  • slide 10: functional criteria for FOLIO development is where expectations are given
• Mike: need to look at higher level when looking at ownerhsip of code → FOLIO is open source and should stay open source
• Harry: has issues with slide 7 "included in FOLIO build"; meanwhile there are multiple FOLIO builds
  • example for China: acquisitions is not usable in China, they have to build a new acq in China
  • we have to encourage multiple FOLIO builds (one for China, Germany etc.)
  • core FOLIO with basic set of functionality
• Ian Ibbotson in chat: "Open Core" is a well trodden path for this kind of architecture
• Dracine in chat: I  like that language.
• Marc Johnson: need advice from broader community on ownership; different sense of meaning when discussing in scope criteria group
  • slides represent a proposal for today; not for future
• Dracine in chat: I can see a scenario where Duke might consider the Chinese FOLIO build for it's campus in China.
• Keven in chat: This is why we want to emphasize the role of regional communities, and it becomes necessary to maintain a "standard" regional version, otherwise compatibility is difficult to control and can cause difficulties in promotion FOLIO.
• Mike: this is the sticking point; what exactly is the MoU
• maybe need to find a better word
  • do you have to turn over ownership and contribute under Apache 2
• IanW in chat: so in this case, the kernel would Okapi + Postgres + Stripes, etc, and the builds would include the different functional modules
• Ian I in chat: @ianW - yes - that matches my understanding of core (possibly with users, permissions, auth also)
• Ian W in chat: Yes, Ian I., we'd need to auth/permissions, too.  and Messaging (Kafka), storage (S3/Minio), and maybe some other cross-cutting utitilities
• clarification needed for: "Contributor signs MoU"; otherwise it is difficult to agree to the new process
• feedback: it should not be needed to have the PC approve at pre-build state
• Ian W: difficulty to use "FOLIO"; different meanings (Community, product) → we need qualifiers
  • boundaries of power
  • PC says what goes into flower releases
  • everybody else can remix and bundle up
  • there is a mechanism needed
• Harry disagrees partially: the PC should not make decisions on what is in a release in e.g. China
• Marc: that would be a very different understanding of what the group was trying to achieve
• Harry: this is because the slides are contracdicting each other
• Simeon: PC is charged with managing the product
• Feedback from CC:
  1. clarification needed for: "Contributor signs MoU";
  2. it should not be needed to have the PC approve at pre-build state; due to inpracticality reasons
  3. (by Harry) how do we make sure that we have a process in place for builds in other countries (e.g. China) | how do we endorse different builds of FOLIO throughout the world
     1. Marc asks for explanation; not in scope of this proposal
     2. Keven in chat: We need that

New Members - all "Supporting Member" level - all in hebis network:

• University Library Kassel
• Darmstadt University and State Library
• University Library Johann Christian Senckenberg (Frankfurt / Main)

MoU Status

Question about paying multiple years

• Some institutions have inquired about prepaying their membership fees for the next few years.
  • Keven in chat: Paying membership fees for multiple years at a time should generally be encouraged, which helps community maintain financial stability.
    
• Potential issues:
  • Accounting?
    • Paula will talk to new accountant to check whether this is doable
  • Rate changes (supposed the level they choose becomes obsolete in future years)
  • Other?

• CC agrees that prepaying their membership fees for the next few years should be made possible

Update

• voting closes this Friday
• Simeon will send a reminder to vote