Page tree

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

ItemWhoNotes
AWS Credits

Per Peter Murray:

New news!  AWS granted us a $62k in credits as part of their Open Source support program.  In case you don't know, this is the second year I've applied for AWS credits on behalf of the FOLIO project.  Details inFOLIO-3060

How does this affect our budget?

---

MDG reported AWS USD62K credits for the project

II: Are the AWS credits usable for reserved instances or only for on-demand. MDG to find out.

HK: What's the progress on tagging in AWS and more granular costs. MDG will link up with TC and report back.

WOLFcon Planning update

Review the discussions and current plans for FOLIO at WOLFcon 2022, get feedback from CC.

---

MDG updated on venue - Bucerius law school. 

The date needs to push back to fit with dates available to the venue. new date 31st SeptAugust 2022.

For FOLIO needs - see google doc above for details.

KKH: Does the CC need to plan some meetings to curate an agenda or structure well ahead of time to encourage attendance and structure the outcome.

DH: Will there be an OLF round table?

TC: Conference will be Worldwide - and conversations about content design for timezones are ongoing. Discussions about asynchronous broadcast options are ongoing.

DH: Lets coordinate a tri-council meeting for the conference

HK: Conference is important as a way to rebuild working relationships. Lets organise an in person meeting - Budget discussions

KKH: Lets bring together communities that don't often get face to face time - Technical folks and library staff. 

II: Can we propose an innovation lab  (thanks TC) or find other ways to curate conversations that gets technical folks talking to library staff.

BN: Future vision conversations?

MDG - Thanks to the .de team for all the hard work pulling this together.

Summarizing ideas for WOLFcon topics:

  • Governance Retrospective/discussion
  • Quarterly Community Meeting
  • Budget and Planning session
 Guidelines for Private Slack channels

Propose the following guidelines:

FOLIO is an open project and transparent discourse and decision making is the foundation of a trusting and collaborative community. Many conversations and project decisions are made using the group-chat tool Slack. This is why the default for Slack channels is to be public.

However, the community council recognizes that there are situations in which a private channel is appropriate - a channel that's intended for "internal" conversations of a team, or a topic that needs more development before being exposed to the rest of the community, or other financial or sensitive topics. This is why Private channels are allowed.

The recommendation of the FOLIO Community Council is that the default in creating a Slack channel is to have it be Public, but allow for the creator of the channel to use their discretion to make it private if that is appropriate.

Since this is the current default, the only action 'required' would be to communicate this to the #general #folio-product-council #tech-council and #folio-community-council channels.

---

TC: General Approval - any case where we would expect a decision NOT to be made in a public channel - drawing a difference between conversation and decisions (Comment withdrawn)

IW: General approval - the distinction between conversation and decision is well noted

Notes in chat - no opposition.

Upcoming Topics: 
Update on Web site Journey Map
Discussion about regressions:

SW: Raised questions about a large number of regressions in this release - do we need to discuss as the CC

II: Should we ask the TC  about this?

KKH: we should have a conversation

IW: agree sitting down as a group of three councils is useful - should CC take on board issues of strategy and high-level direction here.

MDG - bringing all councils together is a heavy process.

II: Can we bring grassroots developer perspective in this and discuss feature pressure (Thanks for the phrase HK) vs tech debt

HK/MDG should we take this to PC/PO/SIG

SW: Is the PC responsible for quality - MDG and HK think they are

HK: This isn't discussed often in PC - but it is in the imps group - because they are the ones feeling the pain.

KKH: gathering information in this area is hard - are the initiatives from the strategic goals document useful here

MDG: Should we do a retrospective on the regression issues

II: Can we offer some leadership in setting the tone of retrospectives

KKH : Can PC be more involved in the retrospective process - we need more exchange

HK: Project-wide retrospective: deep dive post-release?

HK+MDG: PC should drive that forward (+1 SW, KKH)

ACTION (MDG) : Reach out to other councils and talk about this

...