2023-09-18 Meeting notes

 Maccabee Levine is next, followed by Tod Olson 

All

• [TCR-28] Request for Technical Evaluation of a edge-courses - FOLIO Issue Tracker - Jeremy Huff volunteered
• TCR-29 - mod-fqm-manager 
• TCR-30 - edge-fqm 
• TCR-31 - mod-lists 
• TCR-32 - ui-lists 

• PC approval?  Seems like yes. → list app has been approved by the PC

Maccabee Levine / Tod Olson / Jakub Skoczen 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
• PC: Tod Olson 
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen 
• Security Team: 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...  
• Handle in Quesnelia page Quesnelia - Technical Council - FOLIO Wiki
• Typescript needs to be addressed
• Open question: Timelines
• Want to give people more lead time before the Poppy release

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:

• "Things that could be better about FOLIO" presentation slide deck:

Jeremy Huff /All

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OLae-eGN3_dEOXbAr7Tr1cvudBzqNA7TttzH9QmvuR8/edit?usp=sharing

Any objections to sharing this with the PC?

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:

• Does the TC has a role in this ?
• @Steve Ellis seems to be the contact person

Matt Weaver / VBar / All

Continue discussion from Monday and try to make a decision on how to proceed.

• have conversations about architectural discussions
• Would like to have this discussion in the context of an RFC.
• Do we want to weaken the constraints arcoss the board ?
• Concerns that it gets out of hand
• RFC could propose some privileged access
• The decision to keep data boundaries up is being challenged by implementations. An RFC would be a great format to have those discussions.
• Consider risk of suggested approach vs. the alternatives
• We won't get the RFC done by Poppy. If we grant an exception, it will be part of Poppy. Otherwise not. We could make mod-fqm-manager a special being. Anyway, we have to address the immediate question.
• Tasking fqm with being responsible for cross-domain queries. That would be a reasonable way to frame it as an RFC. Instead of an exception, it could be framed that way.
• TCR review and architectural implications should be separated. The discussion whether we want to make an exception or not is independent of the TCR/RFC.
• Release schedule for Poppy is less significant than the bigger question. 
• mod-fqm-manager is a component, a sub-system, that has the sole responsibility for making cross-module queries. An RFC should be taking that one position.
• Marc Johnson : But that is the same as making an exception. Then this one module has a very significant amount of power in the system. We have to move that topic forward in the next week.
• Jeremy Huff : I have 3 weeks to do the evaluation. I will follow the process. The Poppy deadline is irrelevant.
• Marc Johnson :  That will be effectively a fail for the module getting into Poppy. We have to represent the politics that goes with it to the rest of the community.
• Jeremy Huff : I am aiming to keep the deadline. The module was probably in a state that tickets could have been created two weeks earlier.
• Maccabee Levine : It already missed the 3-week-deadline. The reviews take the time they take. The TC had many cycles to improve the TCR process.
• Craig McNally : This deserves more communication. Let us do that in Slack.
• Mark Veksler : Can we have an additional meeting on this ? Can we decide on Monday's meeting (Sept 18) ?
• Jeremy Huff : We should adhere to and preserve the TCR process.

• 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.