Versions Compared

Key

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

Date

...

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

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

5-10 min

Review outstanding action itemsAll
  • 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
3 minCouncil Goals/ObjectivesAll

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?

3 minUpgrade/Migration Script Performance

Quick update from Raman Auramau?

Action Items with deadlines?

  • documentation is drafted and tech team is reviewing, but delivery date is not specified
15-20 min

New Module Technical Evaluation

Previously: "External Code Submissions"

  • 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.
15-20 min

Technical Decision Making Process

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: 

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

Time permitting



  • Another meeting rules thing: should we have a formal policy/discussion about attendance, discussion, and decision making when attendance is low/less than half? 

...

  •  Craig McNally to create a place on the wiki where we can capture meeting rules/policies, how meetings are run, how agendas are formed, etc. - by 11/17
  •  Tod Olson , Jeremy Huff , Anton Emelianov (Deactivated) to connect on the cross-council group for defining the larger process for new module acceptance - no clear deadline defined, but effectively should happen by 11/17
  •  Jakub Skoczen and Stripes Architecture to devise a transition plan for auth token expiration, adoption of refresh tokens, etc.  - no clear deadline defined, but soon given that some of this is tentatively scheduled for Lotus
  •  Craig McNally , Zak Burke , Jakub Skoczen , Raman Auramau to discuss the formation of an executive TC group for forming meeting agendas and how it might work - no clear deadline defined
  •  Tod Olson to define a deadline for having a set of Goals/Objectives ready for the TC to review and discuss - by 11/17

...