Community survey releaed. Each TC member (and CC, PC) should ask three people and put responses in the Google Doc. "Three things that could be better about FOLIO".
Architectural discussion. I emphasized that the non-technical implications list would come sooner, and the RFC later. "CC liaisons to effort to work with TC volunteers and PC liaisons on bringing this convo to fruition."
At the August 25, 2023 meeting of the Tri-Council at University of Chicago, it was agreed that we would repeat the “List of Things that Could Be Better About FOLIO” survey that was conducted after WOLFcon at Hamburg (Sept ’22).
We ask all Council members to each survey three community members for a list of three things that could be better about FOLIO.Please enter the results into this documentby September 29, 2023.
In October, we will report back both on this year’s responses as well as an analysis on progress made against the 2022 goals.
Looking ahead to the late fall, I see thatRefresh Token Rotationis coming in Poppy, that's a big change and the new API token management API is still in progress. In any case, it appears this will require changes to any scripts or integrations that hit the (non-edge) APIs. Does TC have a role in publicizing and making recommendations for how to prepare for this change? Or am I misunderstanding the impact?
Notes:
Let's briefly discuss, if more time is needed, continue conversation in slack and/or at next week's meeting.
Does the TC has a role in this ?
@Steve Ellis seems to be the contact person
5 min
Continued Discussion on Process Concerns in the wake of Vince's presentations
All
Questions/concerns were raised in #tc-internal about what the next steps are (after WOLFcon) for the topics recently presented by Vince...
Craig McNally : the presentation is not viewed as a formal proposal (yet). So far it has been presented to the Council chairs (during the Chicago "summit"). There is an expectation that the presentation will be turned into a formal proposal/RFC.
Marc Johnson : not clear what is the TC role until a formal proposal is available. It makes more sense to discuss the next steps.
Owen Stephens : the proposal is too abstract to let the PC and people responsible for the product understand what the impact is. For any approvals it is essential to understand what the impact on the product is and what the work entails, etc.
Tod Olson : operational and sys-ops related concerts.
Jakub Skoczen : can we split the proposal into two parts/phases: 1. Proposal regarding new functionality for managing permissions/capabilities. 2. Architecture/design to support the needed functionality. Part 1. to be reviewed by the parties responsible for product.
Tod Olson: sys-ops mentioned permission-management challenges. Concepts similar to "capabilities" are being implemented? back at Chicago.
Jenn Colt : the problem is with the scope, the proposal is very high-fidelity and top-down. It would make sense to focus on smaller pieces.
VBar the goal was to inject the conversation with some "big ideas"
There wasn't much interest in continuing the discussion in a dedicated Monday session.
Do we want/need to discuss more?
Marc Johnson we should revisit this topic after WOLFCon
Continue discussion from Monday and try to make a decision on how to proceed.
have conversations about architectural discussions
Would like to have this discussion in the context of an RFC.
Do we want to weaken the constraints arcoss the board ?
Concerns that it gets out of hand
RFC could propose some privileged access
The decision to keep data boundaries up is being challenged by implementations. An RFC would be a great format to have those discussions.
Consider risk of suggested approach vs. the alternatives
We won't get the RFC done by Poppy. If we grant an execption, it will be part of Poppy. Otherwise not. We could make mod-fqm-manager a special being. Anyway, we have to address the immediate question.
Tasking fqm with being responsible for cross-domain queries. That would be a reasonable way to frame it as an RFC. Instead of an exception, it could be framed that way.
TCR review and architectural implications should be separated. The discussion whether we want to make an exception or not is independent of the TCR/RFC.
Release schedule for Poppy is less significant than the bigger question.
mod-fqm-manager is a component, a sub-system, that has the sole responsibility for making cross-module queries. An RFC should be taking that one position.
Marc Johnson : But that is the same as making an exception. Then this one module has a very significant amount of power in the system. We have to move that topic forward in the next week.
Jeremy Huff : I have 3 weeks to do the evaluation. I will follow the process. The Poppy deadline is irrelevant.
Marc Johnson : That will be effectively a fail for the module getting into Poppy. We have to represent the politics that goes with it to the rest of the community.
Jeremy Huff : I am aiming to keep the deadline. The module was probably in a state that tickets could have been created two weeks earlier.
Maccabee Levine : It already missed the 3-week-deadline. The reviews take the time they take. The TC had many cycles to improve the TCR process.
Craig McNally : This deserves more communication. Let us do that in Slack.
Mark Veksler : Can we have an additional meeting on this ? Can we decide on Monday's meeting (Sept 18) ?
Jeremy Huff : We should adhere to and preserve the TCR process.
1 min
Upcoming Meetings
All
- Regular TC meeting
- Dedicated Discussion - Topic?
NA
Zoom Chat
Placeholder. Scribe should copy/paste the zoom chat here.
...
Topic Backlog
Discuss during a Monday session
Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep
All
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.
Today Notes:
Action Items
Craig McNally Will contact the PC to advise them that the list app related modules have been submitted to the TC
Jeremy Huff will contact TAMU to request a developer to evaluate mod-fqm-manager and edge-fqm
Craig McNally to set up Monday meeting to discuss concerns around the evaluation of mod-fqm-manager
Craig McNally will create a Slack vote for moving the regular TC meeting to the Monday time slot instead of Wednesday
