Page Comparison

Tod Olson is next, followed by Jakub Skoczen 

All

N.B. Deadline for Poppy is 19 May 2023.  TCRs submitted after 03 May 2023 (prior to the TC meeting) may not be completed in time.

• TCR-25 (ui-consortia_settings)
• TCR-26 (mod-consortia-settings)

Today:

• Make final decisions on these 

Maccabee Levine / Tod Olson 

Any updates from the PC and/or CC?

• CC: 
• PC: 

• Nomination window has ended
• We have 7 nominations for 5 open spots.
• Unclear when voting will start/end

Maccabee Levine 

All

Craig McNally 

• TC dedicated discussion:  15 May 2023 11:00 AM ET
  • ?

N.B.  Check your profile settings to ensure the timezone is configured appropriately.  Events in the TC calendar will have incorrect times if your not configured correctly.

Maccabee Levine 

From Maccabee Levine in #tc-internal slack:

From this morning's CC meeting: CC is looking at a possible budget surplus next FY due to discontinuing the developer position (Mikhal) and expected reductions in AWS costs (details).  There was discussion about asking the other councils for input on possible spending priorities, and CC would discuss again at their next meeting in 2w.  From the minutes:

• Options for spending $150,000 - $200,000 in FY24?
  • Pay for other needed positions in the organization?
  • Buy out part/half time of individuals to perform needed functions?
    • Dev lead?
  • Other wish list items from the project?

Previous Notes:

• Spitballing ideas
  • Jeremy Huff: How is CI pipeline funded?
    • Marc Johnson AWS costs paid under these funds.  Personnel volunteered by various orgs.  Traditionally it was predominantly Index Data, now some EBSCO/EPAM people.
    • Jeremy Huff Community would be served by ownership / responsibility of that process.  Interested in pursuing / defining more clearly.
  • Maccabee Levine Part funding dev lead / mentor for new developers?  Funding part of someone's time on community dev support.
    • Tod Olson Can we just re-fund Mikhal?  Not taking that loss would be great.
    • Jeremy Huff Support anything that keeps him on the project, but maybe crowd-sourcing this.  Proposals from the community to award an initiative?
• Jenn Colt Do we know that funding would be stable?
  • Marc Johnson Discontinuing community-funded developer position was part of it.
  • Jenn Colt One-time funding or ongoing?
  • Jeremy Huff Also might be able to fund something for X years.
• Jeremy Huff and Maccabee Levine drafted two proposals, shared on Monday to #tc-internal.
• Goal today is to see if we have TC approval for one or both, as DRAFTS, i.e. we support the general idea.  For presentation to CC as a potential proposal, as PC did about AirTable a few meetings back.  If CC is willing to hear more, then we can discuss on TC how to proceed.

Today

• Which, if any ideas does the TC support?

A process was proposed for how to keep these pages up-to-date, we need to revisit and put some processes into place.  As it stands right now, we have members of the community making changes w/o consulting the TC.

• Managing Tools/Frameworks/Dependencies Version - v0.2 DRAFT
• Officially Supported Technologies

Previous Notes:

• Florian Gleixner advised that he added a header including page properties for some of the release pages for folks to review
• Craig McNally asked what states do we want for these pages e.g. Draft, Final? 
  • Jeremy Huff suggested Active (for actively being defined by the TC), Supported (for after initial version is finalised, yet may still change) and No longer supported (for after the support period for the release has ended)
  • Marc Johnson wondered how we would come up with the list of statuses, without figuring out the process for maintaining these policy documents
  • Jeremy Huff asked how we determine during the module evaluation process, which release's supported technologies they should be judged against? Marc Johnson and Craig McNally advised that this would be the release currently ongoing at the time of submission
  • Jeremy Huff suggested that we could use Confluence's page restrictions functionality for limiting who can change these documents and add some clarifying text to advise folks contact the TC to submit changes. Craig McNally volunteered to investigate this
  • Craig McNally asked for volunteers for defining a list of statuses and adding a description of the process to the top level page. Jeremy Huff volunteered to take these on

• Confluence page/space restrictions - see comments from Craig McNally in slack #tc-internal
  • Jeremy Huff At least one member of each council should have admin rights.

Action: Craig McNally will start that conversation.  Why it would be easier to manage this on our own.

• Update from Jeremy Huff on list of statuses
  • Presented document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1USp-u6VJLQZ-yiJZG21Zd-dP-57hnTM_cZL3miQzXbw/edit?usp=sharing
  • DRAFT, FINAL, ACTIVE, ARCHIVED
  • Craig McNally "Final" is confusing naming.  Consensus changed to Accepted.
  • Maybe change "Active" to "Current"?  But there can be multiple currently supported releases.
• Next steps?

Action: Jeremy Huff Capture this on the wiki, including intro language.  Add metadata to each page as well.

Today:

• Let's try to pick this up again

From slack:

There's a conversation in the PC channel about browser support... I don't want to stick our collective nose into other's business, but is this something the TC should be weighing in on?  It feels like it's somewhat of a grey area.  Thoughts?  See https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CTYQZ7PF1/p1682096515922269

Previous Notes:

• Craig McNally provided some real-world stats for browser usage in production sites
• Zak Burke provided a draft statement on browser testing

Today:

• Where does this stand?

From Jenn Colt in slack:

@cmcnally for the TC agenda next week, this is what I think we need: a vote on whether to accept the document as it is now (with our deletions) but with a statement adding that there are other definitions of platform in use. I believe Simeon/Kristin/me will get that statement in before the meeting. I think that vote is what we need to give CC. After that we should discuss whether people want to participate in a new group to talk more about the definition of platform. I think people may also indicate that there are other definitions they would also like to revise. After this vote, I think it will be the end of my involvement with the doc on this level and someone else should consider coordinating TC proposing some definitions. Right now it seems like we are not happy with existing definitions but don't have alternatives to propose, but that is just my assessment of where things are.

Notes: We get a lazy consensus to accept the document as it is. 

Maybe the best thing we can do is to form a TC subgroup which is open to other members of the community.

• All the councils have accepted the draft document as-is.  Except specifically for the "platforms" definition(s), TC is invited by CC to keep that going.
• Craig McNally : Better for a regular TC meeting.