CC considered ~8 proposals from PC and TC plus a few others brought up during the meeting. Categorized as ongoing roles vs. ongoing programs subscriptions vs. one-time projects. https://wiki.folio.org/display/CC/2023-06-26+Meeting+notes
Most CC support right now for the Community Developer Advocate proposal. Asked TC and PC to refine responsibilities / requirements (messaged chairs).
Also interested in adding one of the one-time projects (Security Audit and Privacy Assessment discussed) or in the FOLIO Reference Environments proposal for support needs. But no consensus yet.
Holiday for many, probably best to not schedule anything
RFC Retrospective
Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep
WOLFcon 2023
Tod: There is a meeting following up the Stanford meeting. Pushes on data import. There is representation from ARLEF and from the commercial partners, EBSCO, Knowledge Integration , IndexData and the German consortia.
Jenn et. al.: Why is this not being discussed at WolfCon ? Or we could have 3-hours-lasting meetings at Zoom. Why is this being discussed aside ?
Tod: It is about how we can mobilize resources. And about how we do mobilize work that is not getting mobilized otherways. It is a response.
Maccabee: I am glad that our governance leaders are there.
Tod: Governance is set up more for influencing than actually for directing effort. Various groups exert influence.
A workflow for these pages. When do they transition from one state to another. Do we even need statuses at all ?
Stripes architecture group has some questions for the Poppy release.
Zak: A handshake between developers, dev ops and the TC. Who makes that decision and how to we pass along that knowledge ? E.g. changes in Nodes and in the UI boxes. How to communicate this ? We have a large number of teams, all have to be aware of it. TC should be alerted that changes are happening. We have a couple of dedicated channels for that. Most dev ops have subscribed to these channels. How can dev ops folk raise issues to the next level of community awareness ? There hasn't been a specific piece of TC to move that along.
Craig: There is a fourth group, "Capacity Planning" or "Release Planning". Slack is the de facto communication channel. There are no objections to using Slack. An example is the Java 17 RFC.
Craig: The TC gets it on the agenda and we will discuss it. The TC gets the final say.
Marc Johnson: We shouldn’t use the DevOps Channel. The dev ops folks have made it clear that it should only be used for support requests made to them.
Jakub: Our responsibility is to avoid piling up technical debt.
Marc: Some set of people have to actually make the call. Who lowers the chequered flag ?
Craig: It needs to ultimately come to the TC at least for awareness. There is a missing piece. Capacity Planning needs to provide input here.
Marc: Stakeholders / Capacity Planning could make that decision. Who makes the decision ? Is it the government or is it some parts of the body ?
Marc: the developers community, the dev ops community and sys ops are involved. For example the Spring Framework discussion or the Java 17 discussion. But it was completely separate to the TC decision. It is a coordination and communication effort.
Marc: Maybe the TC needs to let go that they are the decision makers so that they be a moderating group.
Jakub: I agree with Marc. But we are not a system operating group. Dependency management should be in the responsibility of Release management. There are structures in the project for that.
Jason Root: I agree with Jakub and with Marc also. Policies should drive operational/release/support aspects of Folio.
Jason Root: If the idea of “support” is that frameworks are supported, then of course the project should meet that.
Marc Johnson Some group needs to inform OleksAii when a relevant policy event occurs. These documents effectively ARE the manifestation of the policy.
Craig: This is a topic for the next Monday session.
Craig to see if Oleksii Petrenko could join us to discuss the process for updating the officially supported technologies lists.