Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Maccabee Levine

Saved on

compared with

New Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Craig McNally

Saved on

Key

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

Date

...

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

 Ingolf Kuss is next, followed by Maccabee Levine 

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. 

*TCR Process ImprovementsAll

Context/Background:

From Maccabee Levine in #tc-internal:

The TCR Process Improvements subgroup would like dibs on the Wednesday 1/31 meeting to discuss our draft PR and related recommendations.  We'll share it with TC well before that so people can review async ahead of the meeting.

Pull Request: https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/pull/55

Notes:

...


Presenter notes:


Input from:
- many comments from Matt Weaver after the lists round of TCRs
- many discussions since at TC
- Jenn, Tod, Craig and Maccabee on the subgroup

Summary of the PR:
- lots of big stuff and little stuff
- criteria and template are parallel docs.  tried to make the change in both places but have the comment thread only in one.  not consistent on which.
- work planned after PR, i.e. to wiki pages.  listed on subgroup page

Today:
- summarize major changes ~ 10-15m
- discuss whatever
- if there is time, talk through smaller changes
- see where we are at the end of the hour


Eval doc:

- Before Development section.  read criteria first.  do a RFC if needed.  comm plan in progress.

- iteration encouraged.

- keeping separation between objective evaluation results, and TC decision.  evaluator in practice can recommend a decision but that's separate from the evaluation.

- Adding two alternatives to rejection
  - deferral, if major changes needed, i.e. RFC.
  - provisional acceptance, if TC and submitter unanimously agree on changes to resolve any failures, with timeline.  for really obvious stuff that should not hold up acceptance.
  - acceptance, if the problem is ours.
  - justification required


Criteria doc:

- existing modules incoprorated.  no process defined for that, intentionally.  didn't want to get ahead of formalization.  follow-up work to determine if all criteria are relevent or not.

- FE criteria apply to shared libraries also.

- BE criteria apply to shared backend libraries and edge modules also.

- allowing sonarqube exceptions if they are justified

- Administrative section -- criteria that PC has approved.  allow us to work in parallel if we want to, but prevent TC approval if PC is still in progress. 


Template doc:

- refer to Stripes version on OST page as ACTIVE or ACCEPTED

- reference to naming conventions document.  may take extra work to update that doc.


NAZoom Chat


...