Skip to end of banner
Go to start of banner

2021-12-15 Meeting notes

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 26 Next »

Date

Attendees

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

Chulin Meng is the next in the list, followed by Tod Olson 

5 min

Review outstanding action itemsAll

Craig McNally: Created and shared retrospective board to review our process.

10-15 minTCR Board ReviewAll

TCR-9:  Should TC review this module? using current criteria? Yes, TC should review it, we (Craig) will craft a message to PC and developers later.

            Scope?: ensure the technical integrity of FOLIO (Jeremy), need to acknowledged we may adjust the criteria along the way.

Related: Process for TC to review and provide feedback high-impact changes to FOLIO?

5-10 min

New Module Technical Evaluation

Previously: "External Code Submissions"

Craig McNally

Tod Olson 

Marc Johnson 

Quick update from the sub-group? No update

Quick update from the cross-council group for defining the end-to-end process? No update

3 minCouncil Goals/ObjectivesAll

Previous notes:

To review this in the meeting next week.

5-10 minLog4shellAll

Placeholder... I'm assuming someone will want to discuss this.  If not, we can skip it.  Ideally any conversation has a clearly defined goal, and we can time box this. 

  • Who should communicate the needed changes/fixes
  • How do we (security team) response and provide guidance more promptly
  • Backporting security fixes, need to clarify LTS process : FOLIO Release Numbering Policy
  • Action: a sub-group to look at backporting approval process (steffen Kohler and Mike Gorrel to bring this to PC for discussion and decide the first LTS release)
5-10 min

Technical Decision Making Process

Jeremy Huff 

Zak Burke 

This is a carry-over from previous weeks.

  • 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:

Any updates on these two things from last week?

  • Jeremy Huff suggested that we form a working group to define more detail around this topic. Craig McNally  agreed that was a good idea or alternatively, we need other proposals
  • Zak Burke volunteered to identify categories of decisions the TC makes and suggest applicable processes



5-10 min

Participation and Attendance ExpectationsAll

Jeremy Huff created a page to track working groups... Should we take a look together and see if anything should be added/adjusted?

  • Is there anything else we want to do for this topic?
  • Is it enough to ask those in sub groups to add them to the page?

Action: we should discuss at next meeting about appointing sub-groups when there is no volunteers.

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? 

Action items

  •  


  • No labels