2022-01-19 Meeting notes

Raman Auramau next followed by Dennis Benndorf 

Action items reviewed

Mike Gorrell in progress with LTS, hopefully the next week there'll be materials for presentation to the council

Jeremy Huff regarding mod-ldp - there's no significant update on this; already contacted Charlotte Whitt; Marc Johnson - all we want to have is a review request to be submitted in Jira; Craig McNally - the same here, TC needs to have this on board to start formal reviewing process.

If this won't be done in timeline for Lotus, it should be postponed; Mike Gorrell - I think the deadline is/was February 4th; Owen Stephens - Presumably it could be removed at any point up to when the release is actually being cut?

Craig McNally - it's unclear what is the timeline

Craig McNally TCR-7, need to find a volunteer to review the task; this is UI task ;Zak Burke is okay to be assigned

Craig McNally

Tod Olson 

Marc Johnson

Quick update from the sub-group?

• No updates, the meeting still needs to be resurrected for 2022
• Craig McNally - no updates, no actions items by the moment

Quick update from the cross-council group for defining the end-to-end process? 

Craig McNally - Is there any things from cross-councils? Tod Olson - nothing

Mike Gorrell 

Steffen Köhler 

This is in progress - hopefully there'll be something to share with the TC by next week.

The CC has asked us to take stock of the hosted AWS environments and make recommendations for any changes (adding/removing/modifying). The context here is that the CC is:

The Community Council is about to undertake a membership drive and in prep for that we discussed what costs we need to cover, and AWS is a large part of that. We have seen AWS costs rise over the last year (potentially scary), and also see Open Sources-based credits applied from AWS (good news!). So we aren’t sure what things will look like going forward.

Essentially they're trying to make some AWS cost projections and want to know if there are any changes on the hosting side that might impact the AWS costs going forward.  

Ideally we can elicit volunteers to look into the following and report back next week:

• Scratch/dev envs
  • Are any of these not being used? (e.g. because the team not longer exists, or for whatever reason the team doesn't use their scratch env, etc.).
  • Are there plans/need for additional scratch envs?
• Hosted reference envs
  • Can any of these be shut down?
  • How are they being used?
  • Are there plans/need for additional hosted reference envs?

Craig McNally - this was posted earlier in TC's Slack channel; provided more details on the topic; make sense to handle this as much as possible offline

It's unclear with dev envs who and how is being used them; general concern is the cost projections

Jakub Skoczen - there might be a way to control this though no immediate answer. Action item for Jakub Skoczen to follow-up with Devops and POs

Steffen Köhler - can some envs be stopped/removed? and how to check if env is still active and required?

Raman Auramau - proposed to think about tagging of AWS resources

Jakub Skoczen - monitoring for stale resources; similar issue is with github repos

Mark Veksler - agreed that resources should be tagged; one other common practice is to shut-down some envs in off-work hours; another thing is a test data set (based on University of Chicago); an approach with several data sets for different needs - this seems to be a different topic

Tentative plans for the next quarterly community update to be held on 11 Feb 2022 

We should start thinking about the TC update... What have we accomplished, what are our goals for Q1 2022?  Longer term goals worth mentioning?

• Scratch page: Quarterly Community Update (Q4 2021)

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

Previous notes from 2022-01-05 Meeting notes:

Proposal

When creating a subgroup:

• • • Establish a rough charter for outcomes
    • Set some expectation for how often to meet
    • Set a time on the calendar to review progress
    • Record these expectations on Technical Council Sub Groups, with additional columns for details
    • If the TC cannot lay out these expectations, we do not form the subgroup until we have more clear expectations

Outcome

Trying above process with Technical Evaluation Process Subgroup. No volunteers to lead, interested parties have conflicts. Will revisit next week.

Jeremy Huff 

mod-ldp and ui-ldp should be re-evaluated for meeting all acceptance criteria as the initial approval was preliminary – it's not clear who should request the re-evaluation, the TC or the team

Where does this stand?  Update from Jeremy Huff who volunteered to reach out to Charlotte Whitt to establish re-evaluation of mod-ldp and ui-ldp for Lotus

• Jeremy Huff has reached out to Charlotte Whitt.  The onus is now on the contributors to create an TCR issue with relevant details.

Not discussed today.

Goal: continue working through this...

Previous notes from 2021-12-22 Meeting notes:

• Ready for review, see TC comments on CC designation of leading council for FOLIO Vision, Strategic Objectives and Initiatives for PC and TC usage
• 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"?
• Discussion around whether the goals and objectives are commitments for the TC and how should they be prioritized along with other tasks the TC participates in
• It's not clear if a commitment is needed
• Jakub Skoczen categorizing objectives into short/mid/long term indicates certain level of commitment from the TC to complete them, it's not clear how would these items be aligned with other work the TC is involved in
• Craig McNally should the objectives from the document be distilled in to priorities/work items for the TC to make them actionable?
• Craig McNally we can turn the goals/objectives into a prioritised list and work our way through them rather than commit to a specific timeline
• Tod Olson short/mid/long term categorisation can be still useful to establish priorities

Jeremy Huff 

Zak Burke 

Not discussed today.

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: 

• 2021-10-13 Meeting notes
• 2021-10-20 Meeting notes
• 2021-10-27 Meeting notes
• 2021-11-03 Meeting notes
• 2021-12-08 Meeting notes

For Today:

Any updates on these two things from before the break?