Has everyone (anyone) had a chance to review this yet?
Tod Olson summarized the comments / input from TC members to date. Some of the dates needed to be pushed ahead as "near-term", "long-term" etc mean something different now than they meant when the document was drafted.
In some instances, the commenters felt that certain objectives were really under the control of the service providers rather than the TC (dependencies on hosting environments and such). In such cases, Mike Gorrell and Ian Walls believe we might want to remove those objectives.
Zak Burke proposed that the TC could structure some of the minimal performance requirements, while also ensuring that performance is a priority of the developers and tech architects (preventing things like memory leaks etc)
VBar asked whether the bullet in question (#6) was really a performance requirement.
Jakub Skoczen sees this as belonging to the realm of SLA terms. The TC should not have a defining role on point 6.
VBar indicated we should be able to provide performance metrics within the project.
Marc Johnson believes that the TC needs to clarify and agree on concepts like performance / stability requirements first before moving forward with this document. Also, for today, we're just trying to figure out which Council should own #6 and whether it should be the TC.
Ingolf Kuss offered to take this point to the SysOps SIG for discussion - to help define the requirements and report them back to the TC.
Craig McNally recommended that we first note the topics in the document that we agree on, then focus in later meetings on the topics in the document that need additional discussion.
Tod Olson noted that the PC and TC would have input on FOLIO "roadmaps," just need to specify which roadmaps - a technical one vs a "shared roadmap"?
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 Expectations
All
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 are not enough 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
Bulk edit - Craig McNally will ask Magda and team for a self-eval