Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Craig McNally

Saved on

compared with

New Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Marc Johnson

Saved on

Key

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

Date

Attendees 

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

 Marc Johnson is next but out, so Steffen Köhler is up, followed by Chulin Meng 

5 min

Review outstanding action itemsAll

Craig McNally  asked for a volunteer to document the decisions that the TC has made recently (July 2021)

Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan volunteered to do take this action

10-15 minTCR Board Review

All

Zak Burke 

Zak Burke informed us that the bulk edit modules have been removed from the module acceptance process. The issues will be cancelled.

Jeremy Huff  and Zak Burke  explained the confusion around TCR-13, as it is not an evaluation request, rather it was a task to add a self evaluation to TCR-12 caused by some confusing advice given. Zak Burke  will clean these issues up.


Technical Designs

Jeremy Huff suggested that there might be a place for asking the TC for thoughts on what folks are intending to build e.g. whether it is the right thing to build

Zak Burke agreed with the need with that. The reason for these modules being withdrawn was due to them not being ready e.g. missing self evaluation

Tod Olson concurred that there is a need to talk about what we are building and expressed that it would be unfortunate if we ended up throwing away significant amounts of work e.g. the reference record translations 

Zak Burke explained that there is history around folks doing independent development prior to involving folks from the central governance in decisions


10-15 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates

All


New Module Technical Evaluation

Craig McNally informed us that he and Jeremy Huff  met this week and have defined a list of what they are going to address.

Technical Evaluation Process

Chulin Meng  asked if the working group he is involved in is around confusion around the module evaluation process? 

Craig McNally  advised that this another working group that he and Jeremy Huff  are in, whereas the group Chulin Meng is facilitating is about how the project / TC makes technical decisions e.g. including Kafka in the infrastructure, fundamental API designs or where translations should happen. Zak Burke is working on defining what those technical decisions may be.

Chulin Meng advised that the first meeting will be next Tuesday.


10-15 min

Quarterly Community Update

Jeremy Huff / Craig McNally 

Jeremy Huff  advised that Craig McNally and he met to discuss this and have started putting together a presentation around this.

All Council members are asked to give feedback on this. The event is on Friday, so limited time to do this

10-15 min 

Council Goals/ObjectivesAll

Tod Olson advised that a new document has been created for this

Craig McNally stated that the goal of this is for the TC to form it's own objectives

Tod Olson asked if folks could provide feedback on this document

Marc Johnson stated that he would not be providing feedback on this document, as he recognises that his previous feedback was not helpful


Personal Data Disclosure Form

Craig McNally 

Craig McNally  described that the Privacy SIG has submitted changes to the Personal Data Disclosure Form and has asked him for feedback

Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan asked if there are legal implications to this?

Craig McNally advised that this is in the early stages and has not got to that stage yet

Marc Johnson asked who owns this work?

Jeremy Huff stated that he thinks every repository should have an owner and the TC should be the backstop for reviews on any unowned repositories

Zak Burke echoed that Mike Gorrell asked "if not you, whom?" when the TC suggested it isn't responsible for something. He suggested that we need to find a way to get things done and maybe we can have a quick review and complete it.

Craig McNally suggested that we go back to the Privacy SIG and suggest they own it?

Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan suggested he does not understand the technical aspect and leave this to the Privacy SIG (who are the experts)

Craig McNally described how the history is that VBar and he created this prior to the Privacy SIG's existence

Jeremy Huff suggested that the new Technical Council is trying to establish a culture and legacy of policy and processes for technical governance

Zak Burke agrees that we should propose the Privacy SIG own this

Deferred Agenda Items

TimeItemWhoNotes

Deferred until Jakub Skoczen  is back ( ?)

Hosted AWS environments

Jakub Skoczen 

No update, to be discussed in the future.

2022-01-26 discussion

  • Jeremy Huff open question is to whether this is really under TC's purview? TC Charter explicitly says "resourcing" is not our thing, so this feels like a bit of a gray area. Mike Gorrell but ... if not TC then who? By process of elimination, feels like TC is best suited to offer advice here. Jakub Skoczen we have also been asked to review requests for new envs. Feels like this could/should be handled by a dedicated group from devops/sysops. Maybe Peter Murray and OLF sysops group is in a place to offer good info here? Folks on TC don't look at the bills, so not the best-placed group to make decisions. Jeremy Huff we can describe usefulness of different envs, but leave decision to a group that actually deals with bills/funding. But we probably need a somewhat systematic way to keep these evals fresh so is not laborious every time we are asked for input. Tod Olson soliciting input from outside TC is likely crucial here. Jakub Skoczen to ask Peter Murray to help organize such a group.

Deferred this week since Jakub Skoczen  is out.

10-15 min

Quarterly Community Update

Jeremy Huff / Craig McNally 

Update from Jeremy Huff  and Craig McNally :

10-15 min 

Council Goals/ObjectivesAll

Goal: continue working through this...

2022-01-26 discussion

  • Jeremy Huff : lots of great insight in this document, but some open questions too. Where do we want this document to go? Tod Olson : 1. internally facing; this is our own strategizing/prioritizing. 2. externally facing, allows other councils to understand what we do so we can better-align our efforts.
    • The community council originally tasked us with responding to the draft they provided. Mike Gorrell : no implied responsibility of TC to "reply", but wanted PC to and the larger community to have a sense of the TC's own goals. Jeremy Huff : end game for this doc is, in fact, to respond in order to establish expectations TC has for itself (its goals, its role in the broad context of FOLIO). Tod Olson : strip it down to TC-only items, explain discrepancies. This will take some time; possibly deliverable by 2022-02-09.

Time Permitting

Meeting rules/policies

All

Craig McNally reviewed previous meeting notes, we have discussed many of these issues in the past (December 8th)

Notes from :

  • Another meeting rules thing: should we have a formal policy/discussion about attendance, discussion, and decision making when attendance is low/less than half?
    • Do we even have formal TC policies?!?
    • Zak Burke : don't make decisions, by vote or lazy consensus, with less than half the members present.
    • Charlotte Whitt is there a general FOLIO policy about decision-making the TC can simply follow?
    • Owen Stephens : there is documentation about making decisions; we should dust it off and enshrine it and make it easily accessible to people. Jeremy Huff : capture this beyond just mentioning it in meeting notes. 

Today:  Still looking for someone to look through previous notes and document the decisions we previously made about this in a central location on the wiki.

Action items

  •  


Action items

  •  Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan will document the decisions that the TC has made since July 2021
  •  Zak Burke  to clean up TCR-12 and TCR-13 following the confusion about how to provide self evaluation
  •  All Council members are asked to provide feedback on the Quarterly Community Update presentation before Friday
  •  All Council members are asked to provide feedback on the Council Objectives