Reminder: Please copy/paste the Zoom chat into the notes. If you miss it, this is saved along with the meeting recording, but having it here has benefits.
Update from the Application Formalization subgroup - charter has been written, PC voiced concerns about getting re-architecting work into the Roadmap, and whether Application Formalization and subsequent re-structuring would affect ability for apps to interact.
Meeting planning: scheduling topics and meetings around holidays, how to schedule for Asia/Pacific participation; SIGs going to written updates and quarterly PC meetings.
Quick updates only. If we can't find volunteers for groups, we'll need to add the topic to our backlog and address it during dedicated discussion sessions.
DR-000038 - PostgreSQL Upgrade to 15 created by Julian Ladisch . Detailed analysis has been done to check if any of the breaking changes will impact FOLIO. There are a couple of unknowns, where it can't be easily verified if FOLIO is affected. Craig McNally we want to move to PG15 but the Q release may be too soon, so the recommendation might be the R release.
Taras Spashchenko Kitfox is working on an env with PG14 and PG15 and will run a series of tests to exercise the platform.
Marc Johnson are we trying to make a decision today? We're past the point where the decision should've been made for the Q release. it's not sufficient to just search and test FOLIO core code as implementers run custom code.
Jeremy Huff knowing the results from the actual testing would help to inform the decision
Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists
Check in on progress... does anything else require attention?
Today:
Formalize decisions on the following. Quesnelia is the last chance to upgrade to avoid running unsupported versions:
Postgres 13 → Quesnelia
Grails 6 → Quesnelia
Postgres 15 → Ramsons
Wait until we see the result of Kitfox testing
Attempt to move Quesnelia from DRAFT → ACCEPTED → ACTIVE since the relevant milestones have already passed.
1 min
Upcoming Meetings
All
- Topic TBD
Do we expect to have enough in attendance to make meeting worthwhile?
- Regular TC meeting
- Topic TBD
NA
Zoom Chat
Topic Backlog
Decision Log Review
All
Review decisions which are in progress. Can any of them be accepted? rejected?
Translation Subgroup
All
Since we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?
Communicating Breaking Changes
All
Since we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?
Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep
All
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.
Dev Documentation Visibility
All
Possible topic/activity for a Wednesday session:
Discuss/brainstorm:
Ideas for the type of developer-facing documentation we think would be most helpful for new developers
How we might bring existing documentation up to date and ensure it's consistent