Page Comparison

Dennis Benndorf is next in the list, followed by Zak Burke; Dennis Benndorf was absent; Zak Burke will scribe.

From Mike Gorrell:

I have created a clean copy of what the Community Council created to identify which FOLIO Goals/Objectives were under the purview of the CC. We also took a stab at what thought would be handled by PC or TC. Please feel free to give us feedback/etc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jVxW2XEK2bRSpXG9_FvdVtgqDfCTeKKM5h49IIhmRw/edit#heading=h.m2gdb67ibe1x. and use for your planning purposes.

The goal here is to introduce this and get eyes on it.  Provide feedback directly in doc, or discuss and provide consolidated feedback from the entire TC?

• Tod Olson: discussing and coming to a common understanding would be a good idea here. 
• Craig McNally: let's all look at this, plan a short discussion next week to organize feedback to the CC.

Jeremy Huff

Zak Burke

Ian Walls

Mike Taylor

• LDP app evaluation
  • mod-ldp:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oSXnV-2mjAtnI_UH709eES8sjxHsVKEu1oLMP6tnIV4/edit?usp=sharing
  • ui-ldp: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w6WzHB_1cUmJE1a_xp4qMzBnuwATBr5sRsMnAnOh2Ak/edit?usp=sharing
  • Mike Taylor agreed to join us and answer any questions that prevent us from finishing the evaluation.
  • Provide clarification/answers to questions  Mike Taylor or other LDP add developers have, e.g. wrt failed criteria.
• Ongoing work on Acceptance Criteria and Processes (submission, evaluation, etc.)
  • We need to publish the Acceptance Criteria v1.0  somewhere, and probably add references/links in other places.
  • Ian Wallsto continue to lead this effort?
  • Agree on short and long term goals 
    • Define processes for submission, evaluation, review, feedback, acceptance
    • Improve the AC with more verifiable criteria, links to supporting documentation, etc.

***

• Ian Walls will continue to shepherd the Acceptance Criteria toward perfection
  
  • weekly meeting for the subgroup?
  • publish this ... somewhere! (Git, Wiki, dev.folio.org...?)
    • TC: yes publish it; please subgroup figure this out.
• mod-ldp evaluation continuing discussion
  • POST with read permission seems odd? should maybe be a GET? Nassib Nassar to follow up
  • ref data? not applicable. 
  • .mvn can (should) be removed; it isn't sensitive but committing it was just a mistake
  • tenant segregation: LDP is not multi-tenant the same way that FOLIO is. Current understanding is that mod-ldp cannot be configured in a multi-tenant manner ATM; Nassib Nassar to follow up with developers. Tod Olson: documentation about how to configure multi-tenancy to protect data in transit and at rest would be helpful.
  • TC note to self: we need to make our criteria WRT DB schemas clear here; they apply specifically to modules with storage, not to external systems.
  • tolerance of missing/bungled config is a WIP
  • discussion about probationary acceptance rather than pass/fail was spirited. 
    • must-meet requirements: multi-tenancy, /admin/health
    • concern that we are making must-meet decisions on the fly
  • Jeremy Huff TC perceived the implicit desire to get LDP into Kiwi, but at the same time was asked to develop the acceptance criteria at the same time. Time was short. 
• ui-ldp: make sure we incorporate UX guidelines discussed on Slack into the AC
• github home for the code: Jeremy Huff : should be folio-org, or alternatively should be developed like an SDK that anything can use in the manner of a third-party app.
• 12:11, folks need to drop for other meetings, we are running late, and uncertain about the next steps
  • VBar: I think of eval as transactional. Project submit a module, gets the eval, then can resubmit. Process we are discussing is more like an open ticket, which may/may not be desirable. There is some agreement. 
  • Jeremy Huff: process with LDP is justifiably different than the ideal. 
  • Marc Johnson: points out there is not, yet, a deadline in the Kiwi release schedule. Many folks are thinking of it as 2021-09-24, but not all.
  • General agreement that later dates should be reasonably considered. 
• Steffen Köhler: what is the push to have this in Kiwi? Why don't libs who want this just deploy it even if it's not official?
  
  • Jakub Skoczen: There's a bunch of history. It's ... complicated.
• Nassib Nassar community, through the PC, has expressed strong desire to have this app included in the distro.
  • VBar: yes, but that is orthogonal to TC's technical evaluation
• Craig McNally: we agreed on pass/fail. Are we intending to question that?
  • Jeremy Huff: in this particular instance extenuating circumstances apply. Zak Burke, Jakub Skoczen agree.
  • Mark Veksler: plan a "must have" list for the next release (Lotus)? 
  • Folks would rather use full criteria for Lotus; some willing to consider "must have" criteria for Kiwi. Bugfest deployment starts 2021-10-11; testing starts 2021-10-18.
  • Ian Walls: Some folks feeling is that kiwi is possible depending on evaluation of criteria as features/bugs and how the kiwi feature/bug deadlines hit
  • Jeremy Huff and Zak Burke to provide a must-have list to devs today  as an exercise, understanding TC is still evaluating its process/vote/deadline/etc. Post criteria to #tech-council (X by Friday, Y by bugfest) today; ask TC to vote on criteria and deadlines. 

Marc Johnson

** 2021-09-22: deferred **

Proposal:  Check Out Performance

Marc Johnson was asked to make a proposal for checking out performance; draft document is available by the link above. Feedback is appreciated

There's a link to PTF analysis from the mentioned doc

Debate regarding cache/caching as a term..

Ian Walls "we could revisit the concept of a Shared Storage module that can allow for data from all these different modules to be retrieved live instead of maintained in duplicate"

Agreed to add a placeholder for the next meeting to continue the discussion.