Page Comparison

Craig McNally 

Ingolf Kuss is next, followed by Maccabee Levine 

All

• [TCR-28] Request for Technical Evaluation of a edge-courses - FOLIO Issue Tracker - Jeremy Huff volunteered
• TCR-29 - mod-fqm-manager -TBD - Jeremy Huff volunteers
• TCR-30 - edge-fqm - TBD (

• Kevin Day volunteered)
• TCR-31 - mod-lists - Tod Olson volunteered to evaluate, supported by Craig McNally

• - work is going on
• TCR-32 - ui-lists - Zak Burke and Maccabee Levine - work is underway, hit some glitches

• PC approval?  Seems like yes. → list app has been approved by the PC
• Hold off on in depth discussion wrt FQM/cross-module DB access.  There's a dedicated topic later in the agenda.

Maccabee Levine / Tod Olson / Jakub Skoczen 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
  • 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."
    • CC was wondering about the RFC
• PC: Tod Olson no meeting last week
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen Craig McNally  - no news
• Security Team: Craig McNally no updates
• Folio Chairs: Craig McNally / Jeremy Huff
  • Mostly discussion about the tri-council meeting following WOLFcon and action items coming out of that.

All

• Nothing new

All

Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists

• Postgres 12 EOL Fall 2024...  
• Handle in Quesnelia page Quesnelia - Technical Council - FOLIO Wiki
• Typescript needs to be addressed
• Open question: Timelines
• Want to give people more lead time before the Poppy release

Vote passed with 7 in favor.

Change to take effect next week . for a trial period of one month of time. Have a discussion one or two weeks before the end of October.

Monday will be our next regular TC meeting.

Update in Wiki pages: Jeremy Huff volunteers.

Automatic meeting notification which pops up in Slack needs to be moved. Craig McNally checks that.

Maccabee Levine 

See slack post from Tom Cramer:

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 document by 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.

Thank you.
-Tom Cramer (CC), Jesse Koennecke (PC) and Maccabee Levine (TC)

Questions/Notes:

• "Things that could be better about FOLIO" presentation slide deck:

  Widget Connector
  url https://docs.

  ..

  google.com/presentation/d/1x2jON9yjEQboPlXiwFm8pqPT69g0wCDCD_4atR04atw/edit

Tod Olson / All

See slack post from Tod Olson:

Looking ahead to the late fall, I see that Refresh Token Rotation is 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

Questions/concerns were raised in #tc-internal about what the next steps are (after WOLFcon) for the topics recently presented by Vince... 

• Getting feedback from other councils
• Turning these topics into formal RFCs
• etc.
• Craig McNallywhat are the next steps for the TC?
• 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
• Ingolf Kuss Discussion in sysops SIG: 2023-08-11 Sys Ops & Management SIG Agenda and Meeting notes

Matt Weaver / VBar / All

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.

• 18 Sep 2023 - Regular TC meeting
• 20 Sep 2023 - Dedicated Discussion - Topic?