Versions Compared

Version Old Version 15 New Version Current
Changes made by

Joshua Greben

Joshua Greben

Saved on

Key

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

...

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAllJakub Skoczen is next, followed by Joshua Greben

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.

5-10 minLiaison Updates

Maccabee Levine

Tod Olson

Jakub Skoczen

Craig McNally

  • CC:  Maccabee Levine: 
    • Logistics of in person mtg. Challenges with USG (LOC). New welcome letter(?) Waiting on PC for notes and acceptance for rewording of voting doc.
  • PC: Tod Olson:
    • Eureka updates: learning curve is steep but all seem to have core components (Kong, KeyCloak, application manager) in place now, moving next to the functional modules. Iteratively working through obstacles. UM SIG had first lab with Eureka permissions. Currently early adopters seem on timeline for Sunflower. 
    • Governance model: have been some minor changes to Charter; expect to approve current documents, then review Charter specifically as a follow-up step.
    • PC goals: alignment of Goals with Charter and with what PC can control
  • RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: 
    • Jakub not in attendance / RMS meeting was cancelled in any case
  • Security Team: Craig McNally:
    • Nothing to discuss
  • Eureka Early Adopters:  Craig McNally:
    • Latest status updates can be found here.
5-10 minUpcoming MeetingsAll
  • - How does TCR process change with Eureka/applications?
  • - Regular TC meeting 
  • / - In-person summit (Jenn Colt to represent the TC)
  • - Dedicated Discussion - TBD
  • - Regular TC meeting
  • - Dedicated Discussion - TBD
  • - Folio Community Update
  • Dedicated Discussion Topics:
    • Eureka after Trillium OST
    • Developer Documentation
    • Voting rules 
      • Jenn and Craig did meet on Friday to review action items, one was to touch base with CC.  Are they dictating all voting rules, or setting basics and then councils can go further.
      • Simeon has sent proposal
      • We had question about the Slack voting. Should we ask to add Slack as a voting option?
    • Evaluation of the Eureka Components/evaluating exiting modules
      • How does TCR process change with Eureka/applications?
        • Craig McNally: We should get to this sooner than later.
        • Start discussion on Wed. and move to Mon for approval
    • Developer Advocate
    • Communication after recent TCR process changes
    • Evaluating existing modules - Overlaps with the Eureka evaluation, consider combining.
      • Are we going to evaluate Eureka components or not? How are we going to evaluate Eureka applications?
    • OST issues with Java21 and Gradle
    • RFC retrospective - How much more time is needed?
    • Communication plan to promote updates to OST pages
      • Need to update OST pages with communication plan changes
      • Need a retro on changes to OST(?)
    • FQM RFC (when ready)
    • Retrospective on Eureka process (when ready) - Is this the same as the RFC retrospective item above?
    • TC Roles and Responsibilities (RFC)
0 minTCR Board ReviewAllNothing to discuss today.
5 min

Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates

All

What, if anything is preventing us from cleaning up this page?

Nothing...Tod will move last three to Historical Subgroups page.

15 min

GitHub RFCs

Wiki RFCs

All

Previous:

  • FQM RFC Update
    • VBar Original proposal was from Wolfcon 2023. The FQM is now up to date as per Ramsons release.
    • Marc Johnson We should start at public review for the FQM.
    • Maccabee Levine We should be more open and public about the delays and opening this for public review.
    • Jenn Colt We are starting the public review clock.

Today:

  • N/A
1 minDecision LogAllNothing to review.  Draft Eureka Adoption decision record has been created; Is work in progress. (Craig McNally will update and report next week)
15 min

Officially Supported Technologies (OST)

All

To Do:

  • agree on explicit communication plan around changes
  • Scheduled for Wednesday meeting
  • Updated Recurring Calendar page dates and document statuses
  • Move Moved Sunflower and Trillium from Accepted to Active and reviewed those pages
DeferredVoting RulesAll

On hold for now, pending clarification from the CC.

Straw vote about whether we should require at least 6 yes votes to accept a proposal: 4 yes, 4 no.

Last week's notes:

  • Review options around quorum and whether we use majority of members present or votes cast.

Straw poll (non-binding): do we accept majority of cast (yes) or majority of TC members present (no):

  • Yes: 3
  • No: 6
  • Abstentions: 2

Next step: define a set of straw polls we want to ask, then we can execute those all at once and hopefully narrow in on a decision.

Discussion today:

Marc Johnson problem with straw polls when the number of votes minus abstentions is less than 6

Ingolf Kuss we should think about deciding first weather we want to have slack votes or not

Jenn Colt should we enable slack voting by request before the conduction of a vote?


3 straw polls (see Voting Rule Comparisons)

  • Straw Poll: Slack yes/no: Result 3 for yes, 5 for no
  • Quorum for making a decision which may involve a vote: Result Over 1/2 or over 2/3? 6 for Over 1/2, 3 for over 2/3
  • Minimum number of ‘Yes’ votes to pass a motion

  1. Majority of votes cast

  2. Majority of those present

Result 4 to 4

Some members think about changing the votes for the last straw poll.

Marc Johnson if you have a higher quorum, then majority of votes would fix low vote decisions. On the other hand, on low quorum and option 2 fixes it too.

Today:

  • We accepted changes that PC put forth
  • Issue of Slack voting
    • + Gives chance for relevant stakeholders who are not in attendance to vote
      • We can always delay a vote if that's the case
    • / Does CC's changes allow any room for Slack voting?
      • CC favored speed over quality. Slack can further delay things
    • / How long would the voting window be if we allow it?
    • Decided via lazy consensus that Slack voting is not something we are going to add to the process.
NAZoom Chat



...