Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Jeremy Huff

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Ingolf Kuss

Saved on

Key

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

...

Attendees 


Discussion items

We will begin the final review of the Application Formalization RFC: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/34
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.

WolfCon planning: TC meeting in person on Friday.

5-10 minLiaison Updates

Maccabee Levine

Tod Olson

Jakub Skoczen

Craig McNally

Jenn Colt 

  • CC: Maccabee Levine
    • no CC meeting last week. Mostly an updated to institutions who are members. Hard to coordinate many groups.
  • PC: Tod Olson
    •  Things that could be better about FOLIO survey . PC are picking up some of the issues. PC & TC don't control resources. How do we organise funding ? Probably the CC is the way to go there. Focus on forward-looking features. "Market-fit".
    • Included discussion of how development is or can be funded.
    • Interest in balance of "traditional" functionality vs forward-looking features in the context of market fit.
  • RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen . No upgrade.
  • Security Team: Craig McNally . "Rejuvenate" the group. Will bring it to the TC for the final approval of new members.
  • Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt . Met last week. Reorganised themselves. Spreadsheet about .... Waiting for repsonse of Sys Ops. Want to return to original tasks. Will return to weekly schedule. It will be a good feature to get the RFC approved, people are waiting for confirmation from the technical side.
1 minUpcoming MeetingsAll
  •   - Dedicated Discussion - Cancel due to holidays
  •   - Regular TC Meeting
  •   - Dedicated Discussion - Topic TBD
  •   - Regular TC Meeting - New Co-Chair
  •   - Dedicated Discussion - Topic TBD
1 minTCR Board ReviewAll

TCR-41 mod-reading-room. No news about PC approval. Kristin on holiday.

No volunteers. Proposal: round-robin for TCR evaluators.

Shall we wait until PC approval until we begin our review ?

Is there a threshold for a flower release ? Would be Ramsons.

→ Next regular meeting: Establish a rotation for TCRs.

5 min

Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates

All

Release Stakeholders Group. Jenn and Maccabee met.

Static Code Analysis. Will meet tomorrow. Jeremy, Ingolf, Ankita.

Developer Documentation: ...

1 minRFCs

All

1 minAction Items

Jeremy Huff

10-15 minApplication Formalization RFCCraig McNally

No new RFCs.

Application Formalisation RFC. Public Review phase is finished. Vince and Craig give an overview.

Wording was a bit misleading. Some minor adjustments.

Jeremy: Essentially we are voting on the introduction of standardised, descriptive metadata. It does not introduce new functionalities.

Marc: It does not even go as far as that. It does not introduce any application descriptors.

Craig: Application descriptors already do exist. Need to split them up into reasonable size chunks.

Jeremy: Will the TC have a chance to address these things (the next steps; the Eureka stuff) in an RFC ?

Craig: Remember that we already approved the abstracts of additinal RFCs (following application formalisation). The Eureka stuff is probably too large to be addressed in the RFC context.

Marc: Not yet addressed is the Eureka piece and the Tri-Council stuff (about application formalisation).

Craig: We could have just one retrospective for all three. We should probably re-consider the frequency of these things coming along ? It's probably a one-off, an exception.

Jeremy: The TC is eager to engage. Decision Records are another mechanism. Let's bring the focus back to this specific RFC.  Kong and Keycloak are out-of-scope for this RFC.

Jeremy: We vote on: "What is an application descriptor and what should it accomplish."

Yes = Accepting application descriptors.

There is a quorum of "yes" votes. There are no "no" votes. Some people are abstaining. So, the RFC has passed.

1 minAction Items

Jeremy Huff


1 minDecision LogAll

Nothing newJeremy follows up with Florian Gleixner and Craig. A retrospective one week from this Wednesday, the 26th of June.

Time Permitting

Officially Supported Technologies (OST)

All
NAZoom Chat

(Jakub) Sorry, some audio problems here, no updates from me

Marc Johnson (he/him) an Alle 17:35
@Craig McNally Where are they currently kept?

Jenn Colt an Alle 17:40
One of those upcoming Wednesdays?

Maccabee Levine 17:42
Agreed. If we are even considering not doing RFCs for those items Craig & Vince did abstracts for a while back, and we need a TC retro to consider that, we should do so ASAP so we are not holding up the larger effort.

Jenn Colt an Alle 17:42
Hopefully lol!

Jakub Skoczen an Alle 17:49
Sounds good

Jakub Skoczen 17:53
OK


Topic Backlog

Decision Log ReviewAll

Review decisions that 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 ChangesAllCurrently there is a PoC, developed by Maccabee Levine, of a utility to catalog Github PRs that have been labeled with the "breaking change" label. We would like to get developer feedback on the feasibility of this label being used more often, and the usefulness of this utility. 
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.
API linting within our backend modulesAll

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713343461518409


Hello team, I would like to discuss API linting within our backend modules. Some time ago, we transitioned our linting process from Jenkins to GitHub Actions as outlined in https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/FOLIO-3678. I am assuming that this move was done via some technical council decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In my observations, I've found two problems:
  1. Schema linting does not occur if the schemas are in YAML format.
  2. There are issues with resolving some deeper references during API linting.
Although I'm unsure about how to improve the existing linting implementations within Folio, I propose to consider an open-source solution that handles OpenAPI linting effectively and allows us to define custom rules. For your reference: https://stoplight.io/open-source/spectral A test of this solution can be found in this PR: https://github.com/folio-org/mod-search/pull/567. The same PR also provides an example of custom rule definition: https://github.com/folio-org/mod-search/pull/567/files#diff-d5da7cb43c444434994b76f3b04aa6e702c09e938de09dbc09d72569d611d9ab.Also, by employing 'Spectral', I discovered AsyncAPI (https://www.asyncapi.com/en), an API design tool similar to OpenAPI but for asynchronous interactions. I suggest that we consider using AsyncAPI in FOLIO to generate documentation for Kafka interactions.


PR TemplatesAll

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713445649504769

Hello team, Small request to consider.
Regarding pr templates.
  1. From my perspective, pr template is not good idea. Even the biggest open source projects that are contributed by many people don't have any pr template. Currently what we have for acq modules https://github.com/folio-org/mod-orders-storage/blob/master/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
  2. These pr template is inconsistent in different teams.
What I suggest is that, pr template shouldn't be any instructions, because most developer who are creating pr have already understand the rules. If we put just two section into template, it will encourage developers to write more about their work and that lead to knowledge  sharing among developers.
Java 21All

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713445764285349


Is Tech Council considering to update to java 21, I head good things from Netflix engineering teams about Garbage collector
https://www.infoq.com/presentations/netflix-java/ (edited)

Proposed Mod KafkaAll

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1714471592534689

Mike Taylor

Proposal. If and only if a FOLIO instance is running Kafka, it should insert and enable a module called mod-kafka, which consists entirely of a module descriptor that says it provides the interface kafka. The purpose is so that other modules can use the standard <IfInterface> and similar tools to determine whether they should attempt Kafka operations. Rationale: the FOLIO ILS depends absolutely on Kafka, but other uses of the platform will not. One such example: a dev platform that includes only mod-users, used as a source of change events for Metadb.

...