...
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
1 min | Scribe | All | Ingolf Kuss is next, followed by Maccabee Levine Jenn Colt will scribe 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. |
* | RFC Proposal to the RSMG | All | Goal: Review the proposal to the RSMG for language in the release schedule template suggesting RFCs Notes:
|
NA | Zoom Chat | 11:14:47 From Maccabee Levine to Everyone: If some of the failures are due to proposed architectural (or other cross-module) changes, the TC may request that Submitter first propose those changes via the RFC process to get sufficient community input. In that situation the TC may defer its decision pending the resolution of the RFC. (See Before Development.) 11:27:01 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: What benefit do the teams get for doing this beyond satisfying governance requirements? 11:27:27 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: My language is riffing on the language folks have conveyed from the RMS group 11:28:00 From Huff, Jeremy T to Everyone: They may be able to adopt an implementation approach that has community and governance buy in 11:28:24 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: Replying to "They may be able to …" Why would they do that if the app / module goes in anyway? 11:28:57 From Huff, Jeremy T to Everyone: Replying to "They may be able to ..." 🙂 good will? 11:29:58 From Huff, Jeremy T to Everyone: Replying to "They may be able to ..." Maybe they have no, or don’t want to spend the political capital to force the module through? 11:30:56 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: Replying to "They may be able to …" That comes down to the culture of the community 11:31:32 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: If the need outweighs the governance, we should consider dropping the module evaluation process entirely 11:33:56 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: Until the community is aligned on the fundamentals, this conflict will continue to happen 11:33:58 From Jenn Colt to Everyone: But EBSCO also fills all those roles 11:44:46 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: Which modules did we turn down? The only one I can think of is the translations work 11:45:03 From Jenn Colt to Everyone: I think he said "nearly" 11:45:43 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: Reacted to "I think he said "ne…" with 👌 11:46:54 From Huff, Jeremy T to Everyone: The translation work is what I was thinking of 11:47:11 From Jenn Colt to Everyone: But teams will just release to the customers who need it rather than to main line folio if they have to 11:47:49 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: Reacted to "But teams will just …" with 👍 11:50:05 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: We don’t know if the RFC process is any quicker as none have completed in the new processes 11:55:12 From Jenn Colt to Everyone: Implied required 11:56:56 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: The whole schedule is artificial 11:57:05 From Huff, Jeremy T to Everyone: Reacted to "The whole schedule i..." with 😁 11:57:53 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: Except for the one bit where modules must be ready to go into BugFest and then the release 12:01:27 From Marc Johnson to Everyone: If 4 months is not enough, then we have to accept modules not making it in within 1 release cycles which means a lead time of more than a year |