Versions Compared

Old Version 12

changes.mady.by.user Ingolf Kuss

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

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

Jeremy Huff is next, followed by Ingolf Kuss 

  • Ingolf Kuss will take notes since Jeremy has a proxy today.
5-10 minTCR Board Review

All

  • Jira Legacy
    serverSystem JiraJIRA
    serverId01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc
    keyTCR-27
    • Zak/Maccabee to work on this Friday  
5 minLiaison Updates

Maccabee Levine / Tod Olson / Jakub Skoczen 

  • Updates from CC:
    • No CC meeting this weekupdates.
  • Updates from PC:
    • PC reviewed Browsers Support statement and endorsed it. There was some support for Owen's ideas of providing some guidance. Owen had proposed in Slack. Smith wording and put it to the document. There is no specific action right now. People should be aware encouraged that they should file Jira tickets if there are any.
  • Updates from CSP Group:
    • ...
1 minWOLFcon Planning

Maccabee Levine/ Craig McNally 

  • Deadline for submission ideas has past.
  • No updates on shoulder sessions (TC or tri-council)
  • Some agenda planning for the in-person meeting
  • Expected in-person attendance of TC: 4 definitely, 2 maybe
  • A Workflow SIG is being formed. Related to the work going on at TAMU on mod-workflow and mod-comunda. A kind of SIG-level guidance.in-person attendance: 4 definitely, 2 maybe
5-10 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates

All

  • AWS Hosting Costs (Maccabee): The group finished up the documents and are sharing them. 
  • Breaking Changes (Jason): Everything finalized for an update next week. The recording has also been finalized. 
  • Distributed vs. Centralized Configuration: Florian G. set up a doodle poll.
  • Architectural Review: No update.
1 minDecision LogAll
  • Craig McNally updated the decision record to apply to the Poppy release
  • Craig McNally added the decision-record label to all decisions so they now appear in the log (table)

-----------------------------

10-20 minRFCsAll
  • Last meeting
    • Cleanup effort required:
      • filename prefix - all RFCs currently use 0000- defeating the purpose
      • conflicting process documentation between the wiki and github...
      • renaming can be done by RFC submitters, leave comments on the RFCs that still need it
      • Jenn will take on the documentation clean up, Work has started, some discussion in tc-internal slack.

Today:

  • Update on the RFC cleanup effort:
    • Jenn will go for the documentation cleanup.

Craig will create an action item for the retro board for the RFC retrospective...

5 minUpcoming Meetings

Craig McNally 

  • Continuation of our conversation about Cross-tenant/consortia and tenant checks.  Calendar already updated. Olamide Kolawole explained some details in last meeting
    • (warning) I need someone to run this meeting as I'll be out on vacation. Craig will ping Jeremy.
  • - - Folio Summit - Chairs from each council will be in attendance including Jeremy Huff and Craig McNally  
  • Holiday for many, probably best to not schedule anything 
  • RFC Retrospective

---------------

Tod: There is a meeting following up the Stanford meeting. Pushes on data import. There is representation from ARLEF and from the commercial partners, EBSCO, Knowledge Integration , IndexData and the German consortia.

Jenn et. al.: Why is this not being discussed at WolfCon ? Or we can could have 3-hours-lasting meetings at Zoom. Why is this being discussed aside ?

Tod: How It is about how we can we mobilize resources; . And about how to we do mobilize work that is not getting mobilized otherways. It is a response.

Maccabee: I am glad that our governance leaders are there.

Tod: Governance is set up more for influencing than actually for directing effort. Various groups insert exsert influence.

5-10 minTC member rolesAll

I believe what we discussed was keeping the liaisons as-is for now.  The situation with the chairs was less clear.  One idea was to phase a new chair in so there's less disruption once the next terms are up.  Let's discuss and decide today.

Chair: 

Deputy Chair:

CC Liaison:

CC Liaison backup:

PC Liaison:

PC Liaison backup:

CSP Liaison:

---------------

No change in the liaisons. Marc is CC and PC Liaison backup. Tod is the PC liaison. 

Chair / Deputy Chair: We agree on a phased-in approach. No volunteers today. We will wait until next year's elections. People are on a two-year term.

Time permittingOfficially Supported Technologies - UpkeepAll


Expand
titlePrevious Notes
  • Marc Johnson suggested that he didn't understand what the term active meant in the statuses defined in the document
    • Craig McNally suggested that it meant the actively supported release and asked if Poppy should be marked as active in that case?
    • Marc Johnson stated that this depends upon our use of the term active. And advised that we can have up to 4 releases being actively supported or in development at any one time
    • Craig McNally suggested the reasoning for the use of active was to include changes made in service packs. And Asked if it made sense to include an additional status?
    • Marc Johnson suggested using Supported for the releases available for production use and supported and active for the one open for module reviews by the TC, however that leaves a gap for the release that is past the review threshold but not yet out for production
    • Craig McNally suggested that means we would be better off keeping only the Active status
    • jroot suggested that for operators, the dividing line is what is considered generally available for production release
    • Marc Johnson suggested that would mean the active release(s) would not be the one applicable to new modules. As long as folks are happy that they know which release applies to new modules, then we can leave the statuses alone and move on
    • Craig McNally suggested we leave the statuses as is, because these reflect which releases are should be fairly stable and only updated for significant security issues
    • Marc Johnson suggested that for the release(s) being actively developed, we would expect the versions of these technologies to be changing, for example, the recent Java 17 decision
    • Craig McNally Asked if that was an exception due to releases being rescheduled?
    •  Marc Johnson advised that the only difference would be that the Quesnelia release would be the one that changed instead of Poppy. This is a general challenge with our release management
  • Craig McNally asked what the intended purpose of these statuses was?
    • Zak Burke suggested it would be really helpful to the UI folks planning changes due to the longer runway for Poppy to have a process for these kind of changes
    • Tod Olson suggested that these statuses are loosely related to that status of the releases themselves. And that the audience includes developers and module evaluators
    • Craig McNally suggested the audience also includes module evaluators. And that the process at the moment is very loose and will be updated when we know more
    • Marc Johnson agrees with Zak, getting a process in place is more important than agreeing on these statuses. And raised the concern about how we've embedded some policies in these statuses and that the guidance around them does not match up with how they will be used
    • Craig McNally captured open questions for us to review
      • what are the relevant milestones in the release process for moving the status of these pages?
      • do we want a single status for the current release and in support or multiples statuses?
      • what is the process for making changes to these documents?
    • Craig McNally asked why we needed the statuses?
      • Marc Johnson stated the reason we wanted to statuses was to avoid ambiguous edits to the pages and arbitrary text reflecting their status. We could not have any statuses and instead, only update the pages when we've decided, however that makes it harder to evaluate draft changes to these documents

Today:

..

Today:

  • 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 for the Poppy release.
  • Zak: A handshake between developers, dev ops and the TC. Who makes that decision and how to 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.

Topic Backlog





Action Items

...