2023-09-13 Meeting notes

Craig McNally 

Ingolf Kuss is next, followed by Maccabee Levine 

All

• TCR-29 - mod-fqm-manager -TBD
• TCR-30 - edge-fqm - TBD (Tamu volunteer?)
• TCR-31 - mod-lists - Tod Olson volunteered to evaluate, supported by Craig McNally 
• TCR-32 - ui-lists - Zak Burke and Maccabee Levine

• PC approval?  Seems like yes.
• Hold off on in depth discussion wrt FQM/cross-module DB access.  There's a dedicated topic later in the agenda.

Maccabee Levine / Tod Olson / Jakub Skoczen 

• Maccabee Levine  CC:
  • Community survey releaed.  Each TC member (and CC, PC) should ask three people and put responses in the Google Doc.  "Three things that could be better about FOLIO".
  • Architectural discussion.  I emphasized that the non-technical implications list would come sooner, and the RFC later.  "CC liaisons to effort to work with TC volunteers and PC liaisons on bringing this convo to fruition."
• PC: no meeting last week
• Jakub Skoczen 
• Craig McNally 

All

• Nothing new

All

Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists

• Postgres 12 EOL Fall 2024...  

Vote passed with 7 in favor.

Change to take effect next week. 

Maccabee Levine 

See slack post from Tom Cramer:

At the August 25, 2023 meeting of the Tri-Council at University of Chicago, it was agreed that we would repeat the “List of Things that Could Be Better About FOLIO” survey that was conducted after WOLFcon at Hamburg (Sept ’22).

We ask all Council members to each survey three community members for a list of three things that could be better about FOLIO. Please enter the results into this document by September 29, 2023.

In October, we will report back both on this year’s responses as well as an analysis on progress made against the 2022 goals.

Thank you.
-Tom Cramer (CC), Jesse Koennecke (PC) and Maccabee Levine (TC)

Questions/Notes:

• ...

Tod Olson / All

See slack post from Tod Olson:

Looking ahead to the late fall, I see that Refresh Token Rotation is coming in Poppy, that's a big change and the new API token management API is still in progress. In any case, it appears this will require changes to any scripts or integrations that hit the (non-edge) APIs. Does TC have a role in publicizing and making recommendations for how to prepare for this change? Or am I misunderstanding the impact? 

Notes:

• Let's briefly discuss, if more time is needed, continue conversation in slack and/or at next week's meeting.

Questions/concerns were raised in #tc-internal about what the next steps are (after WOLFcon) for the topics recently presented by Vince... 

• Getting feedback from other councils
• Turning these topics into formal RFCs
• etc.
• Craig McNallywhat are the next steps for the TC?
• Craig McNally : the presentation is not viewed as a formal proposal (yet). So far it has been presented to the Council chairs (during the Chicago "summit"). There is an expectation that the presentation will be turned into a formal proposal/RFC.
• Marc Johnson : not clear what is the TC role until a formal proposal is available. It makes more sense to discuss the next steps.
• Owen Stephens : the proposal is too abstract to let the PC and people responsible for the product understand what the impact is. For any approvals it is essential to understand what the impact on the product is and what the work entails, etc.
• Tod Olson : operational and sys-ops related concerts.
• Jakub Skoczen : can we split the proposal into two parts/phases: 1. Proposal regarding new functionality for managing permissions/capabilities. 2. Architecture/design to support the needed functionality. Part 1. to be reviewed by the parties responsible for product.
• Tod Olson: sys-ops mentioned permission-management challenges. Concepts similar to "capabilities" are being implemented? back at Chicago.
• Jenn Colt : the problem is with the scope, the proposal is very high-fidelity and top-down. It would make sense to focus on smaller pieces. 
• VBar the goal was to inject the conversation with some "big ideas" 
• There wasn't much interest in continuing the discussion in a dedicated Monday session.  
• Do we want/need to discuss more?
• Marc Johnson we should revisit this topic after WOLFCon
• Ingolf Kuss Discussion in sysops SIG: 2023-08-11 Sys Ops & Management SIG Agenda and Meeting notes

Matt Weaver / VBar / All

• 18 Sep 2023 - Regular TC meeting
• 20 Sep 2023 - Dedicated Discussion - Topic?

Previous Notes:

• 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 about the Poppy release.
• Zak: A handshake between developers, dev ops and the TC. Who makes that decision and how do 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.