Date
Attendees
- Jeremy Huff Mikhail Fokanov Ingolf Kuss Marc Johnson Florian Kreft Ankita Sen @Maccabee Levine Tod Olson Jenn Colt Zorian Sasyk Ian Walls
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 min | Scribe | All | Ingolf Kuss is next, followed by Maccabee Levine |
| - | TCR Board Review | All | |
| - | RFCs | All | |
| 1 min | Things FOLIO could do better | All | |
| 10-15 min | Technical Council Sub Groups Updates | All | |
| 5 min | Spring Boot 3.0 | All |
Although we don’t recommend it for production, you can try Spring Boot 3.0 milestones today to see how hard it will be to migrate your project.
Today: |
| 5-10 min | Tools/Dependencies Versions | Previous:
Today: | |
| 5 min | Retrospective on the ADR Process | ||
| 10-20 min | Officially Supported Technologies and Mod OA | A discussion, explored by Marc Johnson in this slack post (https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C02HP10PPGB/p1665740976370339), should be had concerning the role of Officially Supported Technologies in our new module evaluation process. | |
| Topic Backlog | |||
| 20 min | All | Previous: Members were asked to review the TC charter in preparation for today's discussion.
Notes: TC charter has been updated recently, how would the TC like to review it? Jeremy Huff Was it written by TC or by someone else? - Craig McNally It was written by TC? Craig McNally Let's create a draft version, discuss it, communicate to other councils before publishing Tod Olson A comment to Guiding Principles .... (smth that should be explicitly stated as a GP) - Tod will add a comment to the doc Some conversation followed.. some comments were added to the doc itself Review and comments from TC members are welcome After review, what will our rewrite process be? Suggestion: make a subgroup to handle the rewrite. What's the value of continuing the review in TC as a whole? Would provide a general summary of feeling about the current charge. Useful onboarding, or better to onboard with a revised charge? Seems like a subgroup has formed: those who have actually commented Decision: will continue with review, try to be quick and then hand to a subgroup ReviewGuiding Principles:Need some revision per above, make these clear as they are what we go to when we are uncertain. Motivation review:Much language needs to change: relationship with PC is different, TC does not do resourcing, "platform" is a dubious term now. Structure and Composition:Much of this is redundant with FOLIO Governance Model. Should refer to that document, and retain only those items that supplement that document. Responsibilities:What does "own architecture" mean? When we reviewed a year ago, concluded we were not doing this well. There are some abandoned blueprint documents. Do we think we are still responsible for this? Yes. The purpose of TC is to set some constraints or shared agreements about how the platform develops. TC does not have many options for enforcement, want compliance. Might affect how we approach the architectural guidance. Opposing view: approach as agreement and consent rather than enforcement and compliance. Giving teeth or power to the councils balances the weight of more powerful community members, like a check and balance. One challenge for the councils is that some voices have made decisions and councils have to retroactively accept these decisions. This creates a disincentive to talk to the councils as they may disagree. So incentive is to do first and ask permission later. Define processes, etc.: need to be clear about project requirements v dev team domain Maintenance of Contributor licenses, etc., CoC, etc.: Many of these seem to be for CC Out of Scope: need to update the audience for these bullet points, broader than PC. Key deliverables:Much language inconsistent and out of date, some things up in discussion and may change radically. May need two phases: short term immediate changes, then long term after other discussions resolve. Architectural blueprint - have provided but need to update the deliverable. RFCs: need to add ADRs | |
20 min | WOLFcon Hot Topics | All | An overview was provided of the "hot topics" at WOLFcon. It seems clear that the TC ought to be involved in these discussions/efforts; what is the best way to participate?
Notes: |
| How can/should the TC weigh in on the architectural impact of new modules? | Introduce the topic
| ||
| Optimistic Locking interfering with batch update in inventory | Conversation started in slack:
Topic has been addressed. Core team has agreed to implement as separate API that disables optimistic locking. See also Bulk Operations redesign, different issue but seems related. | ||
| Ease of Installing FOLIO | All / Ian Walls | From last week:
Today:
| |
| Revisiting FOLIO Governance | All / Ian Walls | Slack discussion: Revisiting FOLIO Governance | |
Action Items
- Craig McNally investigate a calendar to track long term TC responsibilities