Page Comparison

Dennis Benndorf is next in the list, followed by Zak Burke 

• auth-token discussion happened, but no clear deadline, and Jakub Skoczen is absent today; in progress
• goals/objectives review expected to be complete by next week (Tod Olson ); complete
• connect cross-council groups (Tod Olson ) this is in-progress; complete
• update wiki with docs related to module acceptance criteria, new modules (Craig McNally ); in progress
• meeting procedure review: please take note of the Technical Council Meetings and Notes page and provide feedback offline; in progress

Follow-up from previous meetings...

Previous notes:

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.

Update from Tod Olson?

Can we set a deadline for having something ready for the TC to review and discuss?

Raman Auramau

Quick update from Raman Auramau?

Action Items with deadlines?

• documentation is drafted and tech team is reviewing, but delivery date is not specified

Craig McNally

Zak Burke 

• JIRA workflow is ready for review
• Process document has been updated and also ready for review
• Evaluation template?  Zak Burke  to provide an update.
• The applicable deadline is Dec 3.  See Lotus (R1 2022)#Timeline
  ---
• The subgroup understands there are pending requests to add new modules to FOLIO (e.g. mod-inventory-update) but decided to defer all evaluation pending definition of the process. We now feel the processes are sufficiently stable to begin accepting reviews, if the TC agrees.
  ---
• Craig McNally : review of the process document, Jira workflow, and evaluation template.
• Marc Johnson : where will those evaluations be stored? Zak Burke to update the repo with a directory where those will be stored.
• No objections from members who are present, but less than half the council is present today. How do folks feel about making a decision?
  • There is general concern about the low attendance today, though folks acknowledge the need to move forward so we can get stuff done.
  • Marc Johnson : let's not have provisional acceptance; either accept or reject. 
  • Everybody wrings their hands. 
  • Tod Olson : can we accept by lazy consensus, and let folks object/call for a vote next week? acknowledge that our process is a WIP.
  • Craig McNally : reminder that you can (should!) send a proxy when you cannot attend.
  • Marc Johnson : hearing folks want to get this done today despite our reservations, and ack this is supposed to be iterative. So: use lazy consensus to accept this, and commit to later reflection on how this went?
    • No objections.

Jakub Skoczen

This is a carry-over from last week.

• The tech leads group not being a decision making body
• Whether it's realistic and/or desirable for the TC to make every technical decision
  • There was some overlap here with the external code submission topic

Additional Context: 

• 2021-10-13 Meeting notes
• 2021-10-20 Meeting notes
• 2021-10-27 Meeting notes
• 2021-11-03 Meeting notes

For Today:

• We had homework to review Jakub Skoczen's document and provide feedback/questions/comments.
  • Does the RFC proposal meet the purpose outlined here in this document?
  • Are there other proposals for a decision making process (maybe that borrow parts of the RFC process)?
• From last week:  "need some feedback, will come back next week"
  ---
• Craig McNally : skipping this today