Versions Compared

Old Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Craig McNally

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Craig McNally

Saved on

Key

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

Date

Attendees 

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

 Tod Olson is next, followed by Ankita Sen 

5 minVoting Rules ClarificationAll

The voting rules captured here are worded ambiguously.  This has caused confusion.  Re-watching the recording of the meeting where these rules were agreed to, it's clear which interpretation was intended.  The following clarifications have been suggested:

  • 6 or more votes are required to make a decision
  • 6 or more votes in favor are required to make a decision in favor of the motion
  • Example:  A vote is called to decide that watermelons are better than carrots.
    • 6 in favor, 5 against -> decision is made that watermelons are better than carrots. (i.e. motion carries)
    • 5 in favor, * <=6 against -> decision is not made that watermelons are not better than carrots. (I.e. motion does not carry)
Hard stop at 11:35TCR Board Review

All

  • A one-business-day exception has been granted to us from the RMS group.  This is the last day for new module acceptance into Poppy.
  • Revote on TCR-29 - mod-fqm-manager
    • on the TC voted to accept this module on a conditional basis.
      • Conditions:  Depending on the outcome of an RFC about the use of views to query data from multiple modules, changes to mod-fqm-manager may be required .   in the future.
        • Team has agreed to draft the RFC.
    • The vote last Friday ended with 5 for, 4 against.  Given the clarified rules above, we will hold a revote today.
    • Revote: aye: 7 nay: 3, motion carries.
  • TCR-31 - mod-lists (Tod Olson / Craig McNally)
    • Issues: 
        ...
        • SonarQube code smells on number of parents for Exceptions.
        • MinIO/S3 buckets not technically approved, decision still in DRAFT status
          • practically speaking, this is a gap in our process, have used other 
        •  mod-lists uses /query and /entity-types APIs, module descriptor needs to be updated
      • Vote: Aye: 7, Nay: 1; motion carries
    • TCR-32 - ui-lists (Zak Burke  / Maccabee Levine) 
      • ...Aye: 10, Nay: 0; motion carries
    • TCR-30 - edge-fqm (Kevin Day /  Jeremy Huff)
      • Not all endpoints show up in the generated API documentation. Reason is that some lives in a shared library used by both mod-fqm-manager and edge-fqm. Documentation is all in the OpenAPI spec, but generation tool is not picking up the library code.
      • Aye: 10, Nay: 0; motion carries

    Much discussion centered around the integrity of the TC review process and whether we are setting precedents by accepting these modules, whether conditionally or by accepting a missed but easily-corrected requirement. There is a real concern that we are setting precedents that undermine the review process.





15-20 minRefresh Tokens Rotation - Rollout plan

Steve Ellis 

Steve Ellis will share an updated rollout plan (proposal) for refresh token rotation.

  • Original plan for Poppy to be a hard cutover, and there was concern about enough time to transition scripts and integration to the new authentication method.
  • The current proposal to support both methods during Poppy and allow a transition period, asking for buy-in from the TC.
5 minLiaison Updates

Maccabee Levine / Tod Olson / Jakub Skoczen / Craig McNally 

5 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates

All

Quick updates... 1 minute each

  • Skipped today - Subgroup leaders:  If you have important updates please share them in #tc-internal or #tech-council slack channels.
1 minDecision LogAllNothing new
1 minRFCs

All

Nothing new
1 minThings Folio can do betterAll

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:

1 minUpcoming MeetingsAll
  • - Dedicated Discussion:  Officially Supported Technologies Upkeep
5 min

Officially Supported Technologies

All

Skipped today due to time constraints

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

Today:

NAZoom ChatPlaceholder.  Scribe should copy/paste the zoom chat here.

Jakub Skoczen  to  Everyone 11:05 AM
I can’t unmute
For whatever reason

Tod Olson  to  Everyone 11:19 AM
mod-lists uses /query and /entity-types APIs

Matt Weaver  to  Everyone 11:21 AM
Worth noting, even though it’s not actually done yet: we’re planning on fixing those interfaces in the current sprint

Marc Johnson  to  Everyone 11:28 AM
I have the opposite concern A primary reason I voted for the conditional acceptance was because folks told me the product needs were urgent That would mean I consider this kind of a atomic decision
I also share the concerns folks have for the integrity of our processes going forward
The criteria were _not_ intended to be subjective The evaluation failed. Tod as the evaluator is saying he thinks the review should pass anyway  (Note the distinction between evaluator and reviewer)

Marc Johnson  to  Everyone 11:34 AM
These modules were submitted 3 weeks and 1 day, thus they officially met our time expectations

Tod Olson  to  Everyone 11:36 AM
Will you be able to share these slides?

Jenn Colt  to  Everyone 11:44 AM
That is definitely what I thought reading this morning

Maccabee Levine  to  Everyone 11:46 AM
Thanks Steve & team for the guide here: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=1396980 including the "guide for non-module clients such as scripts for other applications".  Would the team please take this a step or two further and provide some example client code (or pseudo-code) using the new API?

Marc Johnson  to  Everyone 11:46 AM
I don’t get it, we are being more permissive, and we are now spending time on this when we didn’t on the previous more restrictive plan
I’m not concerned about the new plan (it’s better than the old plan). I’m concerned about the more identity stuff
Urgent not identity
Why do folks want buy in now, when no buy in was asked previously?

Marc Johnson  to  Everyone 11:53 AM
Thanks Taras, that rework is what I was trying to express

Maccabee Levine  to  Everyone 11:55 AM
I agree with Jeremy and Marc that this should have been an RFC.  However if it was raised with the TC long ago (pre-RFC process) then I think I give that a pass.  FWIW I also agree with the architecture.

Marc Johnson  to  Everyone 11:56 AM
I think the new plan is better than the old plan The concerns about how we got here is a topic for a different day

vbar  to  Everyone 11:56 AM
You can always delay deploying Q release if you need more time.

Marc Johnson  to  Everyone 11:57 AM
Shall we vote on the new plan?

Jenn Colt  to  Everyone 11:58 AM
Why is this a thing to vote on at all? Voting is fine but why?

Marc Johnson  to  Everyone 11:58 AM
My understanding is that folks now want our support

vbar  to  Everyone 11:59 AM
That would be concerning

vbar  to  Everyone 12:00 PM
deprecation is a compromise as it is. Delaying the removal only extends the risk

Owen Stephens  to  Everyone 12:00 PM
I have to go but I don’t have a vote

Marc Johnson  to  Everyone 12:00 PM
That’s a bummer, because my primary motivation for the exception was to get the urgent product features to folks
We let ui-calendar through which used type script

Marc Johnson  to  Everyone 12:04 PM
We definitely have a timing challenge with our supported versions of our own tooling that tends to be released late in the release cycle

Matt Weaver  to  Everyone 12:17 PM
Thank you so much everyone for being willing to stick around for those last couple TCRs! ❤️❤️❤️

Maccabee Levine  to  Everyone 12:17 PM
Thank you dev team for your patience and respect for the process

Steve Ellis  to  Everyone 12:18 PM
Thanks everyone!


Topic Backlog

Discuss during a Monday sessionOfficially 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.

Today Notes:


...