1 of 11

April 13, 2023

Kristin Martin

Evaluation Process for New FOLIO LSP Functionality

| www.folio.org

1

2 of 11

Current Group Members

  • Mike Gorrell, Index Data, Community Council
  • Harry Kaplanian, EBSCO, Community Council
  • Kristin Martin, Chicago, Product Council
  • Tod Olson, Chicago, Technical Council
  • Mark Veksler, EBSCO, Dev Team and Release Management

| www.folio.org

2

3 of 11

Background of the Problem (still here!)

  • New “apps” (suite of functionality containing one or more modules) being developed, but no holistic review process
  • Technical Review process and criteria developed by Technical Council, but no parallel functional criteria for the Product Council
  • FOLIO lacks published criteria for evaluation (ignoring the TC for the moment). Makes it hard to change course or critically assess them.
  • FOLIO releases getting large and unwieldy and taking up substantial developer, PO and testing time.
  • FOLIO has very limited funding and lacks the staffing to maintain all the code, documentation, testing, etc. being contributed to FOLIO

| www.folio.org

3

4 of 11

Original Charge (as we understood it in June 2022) …

Determine how FOLIO as a project will decide what code and new modules it is willing to accept into the project

→ Determine way to decide whether new code brings enough benefit to be worth the cost

→ Develop process to assess new modules that addresses functional and technical needs (and provides a blueprint for long-term support)

→ Provide contributors with a clear mechanism and understanding on how they can and should contribute

| www.folio.org

4

5 of 11

… but! (Feedback from the recommendations in May 2022)

  • The scope of FOLIO cannot be limited - if someone is willing to build it, then it is important. → So what does contributing look like?�
  • There are already different versions of FOLIO in use around the world (roughly: North America/ Western Europe, China, Middle East).�→ So whose scope are we talking about?�
  • The current flower release process remains unwieldy and unsustainable.�→ How do I know the flower release will work cohesively?

​

| www.folio.org

5

6 of 11

Timeline of work on project

August 2022

WOLFCon Discussion

​

Agree on next steps to create immediately actionable criteria for module review, including PC, TC, and an MOU.

“Vision for Future FOLIO Builds” to determine longer term goal for flexibility and ease of deployment

November 2022

Vision for Future FOLIO Builds disbanded

​

No one is able to lead effort. Related work may continue through TC subgroup on FOLIO architecture (currently group is on hold).

December 2021

Scope Criteria Group Formed

​

Discussed challenges of both the size and complexity of FOLIO releases and management of requests for new FOLIO functionality

May 2022

Initial results presented to Councils

​

Proposed new module review process by PC, then to TC (ultimately rejected in current form as too burdensome).

Suggestions for ways to manage FOLIO by having a Core set of modules, along with “approved” and “recommended” modules.

| www.folio.org

6

7 of 11

Timeline of work on project

December 2022

Evaluation Process for new FOLIO Modules Presented

​

Module-focused and light weight process for a PC/TC review, with MOU requirement for new module

Process rejected again with concerns around module focus, MOU management, and Community Council engagement.

​

April 2023

Evaluation Process for new FOLIO LSP Functionality

​

Here we are today!

| www.folio.org

7

8 of 11

What’s Different? Addressing the Feedback

  • PC should be looking at a functional area, and not concern itself with individual modules
    • Revised version places PC at the “app” level, relying on new FOLIO terminology
    • Rather than a module description, PC should ask for a feature/app description, which explains the overall functionality and can include details of how individual modules work together to deliver the proposed features
    • Already developed areas that need to organize code into new modules would not then have to start at the PC for a review, but move to the TCR process of the TC.
  • Process should strengthen desire for contributors to talk to the PC early, and use SIGS as an incentive for developers to create a strong product
    • Submission process highlights this without making it a requirement

| www.folio.org

8

9 of 11

What’s Different? Addressing the Feedback

  • Some PC criteria overlapped with TC criteria
    • Criteria were reviewed and adjusted to keep PC criteria focused on functionality, features, and ways PC SIG and working groups can strengthen the contribution
  • Concerns around MOU: who should manage these?
    • Turning decision about the need for an MOU to be made by the Community Council and offering flexibility for which modules would benefit from MOU
  • Concerns around MOU: is the language strong enough to avoid increasing technical debt?
    • Turn this over to the Community Council for decision on what should be included in the MOU
    • Reminder: it’s an MOU, not a contract
    • Ongoing question for project: how can we help support contributors who don’t have ongoing revenue streams to keep their modules current?

| www.folio.org

9

10 of 11

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Contributors are encourage to engage with Project prior to beginning

Want to build a FOLIO functionality to contribute to FOLIO build / codebase

Built FOLIO feature and want to contribute to FOLIO LSP official release

Pre-build/mid-build conversation with PC/TC/ SIGs as appropriate

Included in next Official Release

Passes full criteria review for PC

Contributing New Features to FOLIO

Passes full criteria review for TC

Contributor signs MOU with OLF/CC

| www.folio.org

10

11 of 11

Next Steps

  • Walk-through document
  • Vote/approval process from Councils
  • Action items for CC around MOU (subgroup in process)

| www.folio.org

11