Versions Compared

Old Version 26

changes.mady.by.user Chulin Meng

Saved on

compared with

New Version 27

changes.mady.by.user Chulin Meng

Saved on

Key

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

...

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

Chulin Meng is the next in the list, followed by Tod Olson 

5 min

Review outstanding action itemsAll

Craig McNally: Created and shared retrospective board to review our process.

10-15 minTCR Board ReviewAll

TCR-9:  Should TC review this module? using current criteria? Yes, TC should review it, we (Craig) will craft a message to PC and developers later.

            Scope?: ensure the technical integrity of FOLIO (Jeremy), need to acknowledged we may adjust the criteria along the way.

Related: Process for TC to review and provide feedback high-impact changes to FOLIO?

5-10 min

New Module Technical Evaluation

Previously: "External Code Submissions"

Craig McNally

Tod Olson 

Marc Johnson 

Quick update from the sub-group? No update

Quick update from the cross-council group for defining the end-to-end process? No update

3 minCouncil Goals/ObjectivesAll

Previous notes:

To review this in the meeting next week.

5-10 minLog4shellAll

Placeholder... I'm assuming someone will want to discuss this.  If not, we can skip it.  Ideally any conversation has a clearly defined goal, and we can time box this. 

  • Who should communicate the needed changes/fixes
  • How do we (security team) response and provide guidance more promptly
  • Backporting security fixes, need to clarify LTS process : FOLIO Release Numbering Policy
  • Action: a sub-group to look at backporting approval process (steffen Kohler and Mike Gorrel to bring this to PC for discussion and decide the first LTS release)
5-10 min

Technical Decision Making Process

Jeremy Huff 

Zak Burke 

This is a carry-over from previous weeks.

  • The tech leads group not being a decision making body
  • Whether it's realistic and/or desirable for the TC to make every technical decision
    • There was some overlap here with the external code submission topic

Additional Context: 

For Today:

Any updates on these two things from last week?

  • Jeremy Huff suggested that we form a working group to define more detail around this topic. Craig McNally  agreed that was a good idea or alternatively, we need other proposals
  • Zak Burke volunteered to identify categories of decisions the TC makes and suggest applicable processes



5-10 min

Participation and Attendance ExpectationsAll

Jeremy Huff created a page to track working groups... Should we take a look together and see if anything should be added/adjusted?

  • Is there anything else we want to do for this topic?
  • Is it enough to ask those in sub groups to add them to the page?

Action: we should discuss at next meeting about appointing sub-groups when there is no are not enough volunteers.

Time permitting



  • Another meeting rules thing: should we have a formal policy/discussion about attendance, discussion, and decision making when attendance is low/less than half?  

Action items

  •