Page Comparison

 Ingolf Kuss is next, followed by Maccabee Levine 

Reminder:  Please copy/paste the Zoom chat into the notes.  If you miss it, this is saved along with the meeting recording, but having it here has benefits.

Convener today: Jeremy Huff 

All

Maccabee Levine Tod Olson  Jakub Skoczen  Craig McNally Jenn Colt 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
  • No CC meeting this week
• PC: Tod Olson
  • Main item was how to follow up the work of the Entity Management WG how that intersects with ongoing work on BIBFRAME as part of the LoC contract. Thought is the EM work and a Linked Data group could go under MM SIG, and MM SIG could be restructured in some way. Will explore restructuring with MM SIG, and a call for participants in a linked data group has gone out.
  • Meeting notes today: 

    Metadata Management SIG: Their scope is getting bigger. Adding Linked Data and the use of BIBFrame to the MM SIG. MM SIG needs restructuring. Linked Data has found a home for the time being at the MM SIG. Linked Data group helps to establish what the LoC is planning. Exploring BibFrame support in FOLIO. There are a lot of technical implications. #linked_data Slack channel.

• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen No updates.
• Security Team: Julian Ladisch Nothing important to report.
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt  The group finished the charter last week and will work on deliverables. Will come up with a spread-sheet.

All

Quick updates only.  If we can't find volunteers for groups, we'll need to add the topic to our backlog and address it during dedicated discussion sessions.

Distributed vs. centralized configuration: Julian Ladisch : some progress with the text has been done. Near to getting this to the next stage. A PR for the RFC is open.

TCR process improvement. Maccabee Levine some progress: how to deal with exceptions ? Proposals have been made in the PRs. No "provisional acceptance" for fundamental changes. But put them on hold.

All

• Can we move either/both of these to the next stage?
  • 0004 Date-time values must comply with IETF RFC-3339
    • Marc Johnson it is not in public review
    • controversial opinions
    • Julian Ladisch the scope has been adjusted. We no longer require the database storage. ... It needs to be updated
    • An agreement has been reached but it needs to be reflected in the text before we move it to the next stage

RFC Process Improvements:

• Application Formalization RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR:  https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/22
  • Form a subgroup
  • The RFC is in draft, needs to go forward to "public review"
  • Jeremy Huff will create a subgroup to shepherd it through the remaining processe, after the meeting .
  • The group has no objections to form a subgroup to bring it to the next stage.
• Craig McNally: We need another RFC to update the metadata retroactively to reflect the new or adjusted statuses.
  • Any volunteers?
  • "Update the metadata retro-actively: Asking for another RFC
• PR "Ask for an implementation timeline" is still open
  • Anything preventing us from merging this?
  The RFC is in draft, needs to go forward to "public review"
  • Jeremy Huff will create a subgroup to shepherd it through the remaining processe, after the meeting Not aware of blockers. Presumably only a trivial task to merge it.

Notes:

Previous Notes:

• DR-000038 - PostgreSQL Upgrade to 16 created by Julian Ladisch . Detailed analysis has been done to check if any of the breaking changes will impact FOLIO. There are a couple of unknowns, where it can't be easily verified if FOLIO is affected.

TodayLast week:

• DR-000038 has been updated to Postgres 12 for Poppy Quesnelia and Postgres 16 for Ramsons...
• DR-000038 has been updated with the Postgres 13, 14, 15 and 16 module test results of the 35 biggest modules that access the database, FOLIO has 60 database accessing modules. Not a single issue has been found.

Today:

• Last week we voted "no" on supporting Postgres 13 in Quesnelia.
• Do we support a Service Patch in Quesnelia ? Sys Ops don't want to do upgrades "within the row". If we stay on 12 in Ramsons, we will be way out of support.
• On the operation side, for people managing many tenants, it is not practial to change postgres version from release to release equally for all tenants. Releases must therefore support multiple releases of Postgres (from Florian Gleixner)
• Tod: 

  Strawman: 

  Postgresql 12, with forward compatibility to PG16, i.e. database interactions must not rely on any features or behaviors removed in PG16.

• a "preliminary" or "bridge" support of 16.
• Owen: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9BBWRCNB/p1701105194657329
• In the decision record "

  PostgreSQL 12 and 16 are the officially supported PostgreSQL server versions for the Quesnelia FOLIO release; PostgreSQL 12 server support ends November 14, 2024. Only PostgreSQL 12 SQL features are allowed for the Quesnelia FOLIO release; they must also work under PostgreSQL 16.

  PostgreSQL 16 is the officially supported PostgreSQL version for the Ramson FOLIO release."

• Tod: 

  In the DR: 

  "Institutions are free to use any of the not officially supported PostgreSQL versions 13, 14, and 15 for their Quesnelia installation at their own risk."

• Julian: In the DR "Decision" section: Supported server Version vs. supported SQL feature Version.
• Marc: We will have to explain this to the community.
• Jeremy: We will not support all issues that might pop up when using Postgres 16. We will address all issues that pop up using Postgres 12.
• Marc: The developers perspective is: It must work on both 12 and 16. The only way to achieve this, is to only use features of 12. To use the overlap of features of 12 and 16. Do we have (a way to) check this constraint ?
• Julian: All this has already been explained. We should vote now.
• Jeremy: The votes (of last week and about DR-38) are not mutually exclusive, so we should vote.
• Craig should put that on the agenda for next week.

End of meeting

IK: Sorry, I forgot to copy the complete meeting Chat . It should be done afterwards from the recording. — I have incorporated most of the chat in the meeting notes (discussion), though.

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

• Check in on progress... does anything else require attention?

Quesnelia Officially Supported Technologies discussion:

• React ^18.2 is correct (Zak Burke)
• Zak Burke will check RTL support for React 18
• Cypress ^9.1.1: Talk to the people who use it and find out what they would like to do
• Update Grails from 5 to 6:
  • Craig McNally: I would rather make the statement that we need to go to 6; otherwise, the longer we wait and deliberate and evaluate and so forth that means it's less time for developers to do the actual work.
  • Marc Johnson: 100% completely agree

Moved to the next meeting:

• Formalize decisions on the following.  Quesnelia is the last chance to upgrade to avoid running unsupported versions:
  • Postgres 13 → Quesnelia 
  • Grails 6 → Quesnelia
• Postgres 15 → Ramsons
  • Wait until we see the result of Kitfox testing
• Attempt to move Quesnelia from DRAFT → ACCEPTED → ACTIVE since the relevant milestones have already passed.

• 06 Dec 2023 - Topic TBD
• 11 Dec 2023 - Regular TC meeting
• ...
• 02 Jan 2024 - Chairs Meeting (Tentative)