Page Comparison

 Taras Spashchenko is next, followed by Jenn Colt

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.

Maccabee Levine

Tod Olson

Jakub Skoczen

Craig McNally

Jenn Colt 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
• PC: Tod Olson 
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen 
• Security Team: Craig McNally 
  • No important updates - business as usual
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt 

All

• TCR-37 (and TCR-35 and TCR-36)
• TCR-33

• 26 Feb 2024 - Folio chairs meeting
• 28 Feb 2024 - Topic TBD
• 04 Mar 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 06 Mar 2024 - Ramsons OST:  Accepted → Active

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.

• ...

All

• Application Formalization RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR:  https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/22
  • Looks like we're ready to progress this to PUBLIC REVIEW.  Craig McNally will work on that this week.
• Go Programming Language for Backend Development RFC - PRELIMINARY REVIEW PR: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/25
  • Previous Notes:
    
    • Jakub Skoczen will finish steps on Preliminary Review, push to next phase, Draft Refinement.  Get feedback from TC members and others.
    • Subgroup volunteers: Jeremy Huff Matt Weaver Ingolf Kuss 
    • Ensure we have membership from people familiar and not familiar with Go.  Maybe post in #development
• Distributed vs Centralized Configuration RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/26
• Discussion:  Possible RFC candidate...
  • From Maccabee Levine:  Now that we have said our criteria should apply to existing modules -- and even though we are not defining any process for evaluating existing modules, or for retro-fixing any of them, given we want to do the application formalization first -- we should review the criteria to see if any of them should actually apply only to new modules, for whatever reason.  The subgroup suggests that this be an RFC, so the larger community can weigh in.
  • Do we want an RFC for this?  Dedicated discussion topic?  

RFC Process Improvements:

• We need another RFC to update the metadata retroactively to reflect the new or adjusted statuses. - Jenn Colt

The announcements were made before the holidays.  No objections. Probably need to ask testing people explicitly. 

See: DR-000038 - PostgreSQL Upgrade to 16

Notes:

• Craig McNally is still discussing with Yogesh Kumar and Oleksii Petrenko.  Stay tuned.

Standing agenda item... is there anything in the decision log requiring attention? 

• ...

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?
• Next Important Milestone:  Review Ramsons (1st party dependencies) and move from ACCEPTED → ACTIVE by 15 Mar 2024  
  • Maybe we should aim to start looking at this on 06 Mar 2024  so we have time for discussion/adjustments
• Other todo items: 
  • Review policies and reasoning on page with intent to vote on approval (Sunflower)