Versions Compared

Old Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Craig McNally

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Jakub Skoczen

Saved on

Key

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

Date

...

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

 Jakub Skoczen is next, followed by Taras Spashchenko 

Reminder:  Please copy/paste the Zoom chat into the notes.  If you miss it, this is saved along with the meeting recording, but having it here has benefits.

1 minTCR Board Review

All

Nothing new

5-10 minLiaison Updates

Maccabee Levine Tod Olson  Jakub Skoczen  Craig McNally 

  • CC: Maccabee Levine - 
    • Developer advocate: CC worked out a salary question, and they plan to recruit "as soon as we can".  That doesn't translate into when someone would be hired.
    • Apache 2 license compatibility for TCRs: Jenn Colt explained the challenges: checking individual licenses (compatible / not compatible / unknown) as well as how to deal with license changes as the module evolves after approval.  OLF attorney is available for quetsions.  CC will be also bringing questions to the OLF to see if this is a service they can/should provide to member projects, there was talk years back about offering regular audits.
  • PC: Tod Olson - 
    • Tod was OOO
    • Marc: announcement regarding multi-lingual support, conversation regarding how the SIG will communicate with the PC
  • RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen -  Poppy release delayed to accommodate more testing for ECS and RTR (GA date: 18/12)
  • Security Team: Craig McNally -  running Prisma tool and reporting issues found. An embargo on the tickets for now. Some are false positives. The sec team is chipping away at those.
5 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates

All

Quick updates only.  If we can't find volunteers for groups, we'll need to add the topic to our backlog and address it during dedicated discussion sessions.

Subgroups:  update from Maccabee Levineregarding TCR process improvements.

1 minDecision LogAll
  • DR-000038 - PostgreSQL Upgrade to 15to 16 created by Julian Ladisch . Detailed analysis has been done to check if any of the breaking changes will impact FOLIO. There are a couple of unknowns, where it can't be easily verified if FOLIO is affected.
    Craig McNally we want to move to PG15 but the Q release may be too soon, so the recommendation might be the R release.
  • Taras Spashchenko Kitfox is working on an env with PG14 and PG15 and will run a series of tests to exercise the platform. 
  • Marc Johnson are we trying to make a decision today? We're past the point where the decision should've been made for the Q release. it's not sufficient to just search and test FOLIO core code as implementers run custom code.
  • Jeremy Huff knowing the results from the actual testing would help to inform the decision
10-20 minRFCs

All

  • 0004 Date-time values must comply with IETF RFC-3339
    • Update/Status?  Is this ready to be moved to the next stage?
    • Zack was going to talk to Julian if there's an agreement to move this forward. Craig McNally will follow up regarding an update.
  • 0005 Application Formalization
    • Update/Status?  Craig McNally no updates, planning to get related/other RFCs out
  • Craig McNally I'm close to having abstracts for related RFCs ready, but not quite ready yet, nor are they in GitHub.  Is there a way we can make progress on this w/o pushing it out another week?
    • Ideas:
      • If I get these wrapped up and checked into GitHub by EOD, share links in slack - folks can look at them and leave feedback, then we can go through it together and make decisions next Monday? (reversed process)
      • Present these on Wednesday?
      • Just wait until next Monday?

RFC Process Improvements:

  • RFC Process has been updated with what we were previously referring to as "RFC Process 2b"

Notes:

Florian Gleixner working with Julian Ladisch on the distributed config RFC

1 minUpcoming MeetingsAll
  • - Officially Supported Technologies Upkeep cont.?
  • - Regular TC meeting
  • - Topic TBD
5-10 min

Officially Supported Technologies

All

Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists

  • Check in on progress... does anything else require attention?
  • Today:
NAZoom Chat

Jenn Colt to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.09)
https://folio-org.atlassian.

NAZoom Chat

net/wiki/display/PC/2023-11-13+Release+Management+Stakeholder+group
 
Owen Stephens to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.10)
My understanding was that the extension was agreed at the meeting
 
Owen Stephens to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.10)
8th December being the new release date
 
Tod Olson to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.12)
8 Dec or 18 Dec?
 
Owen Stephens to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.13)
8th I thought, but I may have misread /heard
18th makes more sense though - as I think it was a 4 week extension
 
Taras to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.16)
Please add me to the Translation/Multilingual Support Subgroup
 
Tod Olson to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.16)
The timeline in the RMS notes looks like 18 Dec. (Thanks Jenn for posting the link!)
 
Owen Stephens to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.17)
You are correct its 18th
But the bugfix release deadline is 8th which is probably where I got confused
 
Owen Stephens to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.19)
I’ve posted a screenshot of the proposed plan in the Slack channel
 
Marc Johnson to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.26)
At some point I think we should revisit the point of decision records and how that fits in our process
Also some of it is in private repositories, like set up for the ansible boxes and hosted reference environments
 
Owen Stephens to Everyone (13 Nov 2023, 17.35)
I think this is the message in Developers channel being referenced https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C210RP0T1/p1699449360347409?thread_ts=1696254127.579829&cid=C210RP0T1


Topic Backlog

Decision Log ReviewAll

Review decisions which are in progress.  Can any of them be accepted?  rejected?

Translation SubgroupAllSince we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?
Communicating Breaking ChangesAllSince we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?
Officially Supported Technologies - UpkeepAll

Previous Notes:

  • A workflow for these pages. When do they transition from one state to another. Do we even need statuses at all ?
  • Stripes architecture group has some questions about the Poppy release.
  • Zak: A handshake between developers, dev ops and the TC. Who makes that decision and how do we pass along that knowledge ? E.g. changes in Nodes and in the UI boxes. How to communicate this ? We have a large number of teams, all have to be aware of it.  TC should be alerted that changes are happening. We have a couple of dedicated channels for that. Most dev ops have subscribed to these channels. How can dev ops folk raise issues to the next level of community awareness ? There hasn't been a specific piece of TC to move that along.
  • Craig: There is a fourth group, "Capacity Planning" or "Release Planning". Slack is the de facto communication channel.  There are no objections to using Slack. An example is the Java 17 RFC. 
  • Craig: The TC gets it on the agenda and we will discuss it. The TC gets the final say.
  • Marc Johnson: We shouldn’t use the DevOps Channel. The dev ops folks have made it clear that it should only be used for support requests made to them.
  • Jakub: Our responsibility is to avoid piling up technical debt.
  • Marc: Some set of people have to actually make the call. Who lowers the chequered flag ?
  • Craig: It needs to ultimately come to the TC at least for awareness. There is a missing piece. Capacity Planning needs to provide input here. 
  • Marc: Stakeholders / Capacity Planning could make that decision. Who makes the decision ? Is it the government or is it some parts of the body ?
  • Marc: the developers community, the dev ops community and sys ops are involved. For example the Spring Framework discussion or the Java 17 discussion. But it was completely separate to the TC decision. It is a coordination and communication effort.
  • Marc: Maybe the TC needs to let go that they are the decision makers so that they be a moderating group.
  • Jakub: I agree with Marc. But we are not a system operating group. Dependency management should be in the responsibility of Release management. There are structures in the project for that.
  • Jason Root: I agree with Jakub and with Marc also. Policies should drive operational/release/support aspects of Folio.
  • Jason Root: If the idea of “support” is that frameworks are supported, then of course the project should meet that.
  • Marc Johnson
    Some group needs to inform OleksAii when a relevant policy event occurs.
    These documents effectively ARE the manifestation of the policy.
  • Craig: This is a topic for the next Monday session.

  • Craig to see if Oleksii Petrenko could join us to discuss the process for updating the officially supported technologies lists.


Dev Documentation VisibilityAll

Possible topic/activity for a Wednesday session:

  • Discuss/brainstorm:
    • Ideas for the type of developer-facing documentation we think would be most helpful for new developers
    • How we might bring existing documentation up to date and ensure it's consistent 
    • etc.

...