2024-01-03 Meeting notes

Jakub Skoczen is next, followed by Jenn Colt 

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.

All

Maccabee Levine Tod Olson  Jakub Skoczen  Craig McNally Jenn Colt 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
• PC: Tod Olson
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen 
• Security Team: Craig McNally 
  • No important updates - business as usual
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt  

• 03 Jan 2024 - Topic TBD - will likely cancel, but keeping as a placeholder in case something comes up

• Discussed a return to the previous meeting schedule, particularly exchanging Monday for Wednesday. We reviewed attendance levels on both days, and there's an agreement to keep the schedule as it is for now. Jeremy notes his availability is now open on Wednesdays, but the consensus is to maintain the current schedule. Overall, we acknowledge that we revisited the topic as planned, and the decision is to keep the meetings unchanged.

All

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.

• Distributed vs Centralized Configuration: No updates. Held off until 08 Jan 2024 
• Communicating Breaking Changes: No updates. Held off until 08 Jan 2024 

• Translation/Multilingual Support Subgroup: Craig McNally  mentioned that he had brought up the issue during a chairs meeting, because the intent was to pursue it only if both the other councils were on board.

  • Agreed not to delve into technical details unless CC and PC expressed interest.

  • Decided to postpone further discussions until January, with plans to revisit and possibly get a status update during the next chairs meeting. 

• TCR Process Improvements: Maccabee Levine  provided a brief update, noting that the next meeting is scheduled for 08 Jan 2024 , and they can expect an update around 15 Jan 2024. He mentioned progress in addressing feedback from Matt Weaver  and the completion of draft pull requests. One substantive point highlighted was the discussion on whether there should be a TCR process for an already accepted module. The consensus from the TC was not to create a process at the moment, considering ongoing formalization conversations. However, the goal is to ensure that existing modules adhere to the same values and criteria as new modules, with details to be worked out in the future.

All

• Status/Updates:
  • 0004 Date-time values must comply with IETF RFC-3339
    • From last week:  Zak Burke to wrap this up for now...  indicate in the RFC that we're putting it on hold – outcome: Deferred/Cancelled/etc. then merge the PR
      • No updates this week.
  • Application Formalization RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR:  https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/22
    • Subgroup formed
    • Some have started leaving feedback.

RFC Process Improvements:

• We need another RFC to update the metadata retroactively to reflect the new or adjusted statuses.
  • Any volunteers?
  • Holding off on this for now - maybe someone will volunteer after the holidays.

Notes:

From slack last Wednesday 13 Dec 2023 :

At today's meeting we discussed the communication plan for the postgres/quesnelia decision we made on Monday.  Please take a look at the draft message in the notes (2023-12-13 - Comms for Quesnelia Postgres) ahead of next Monday's meeting.  If you have any comments/suggestions please leave them inline right on the wiki page.  The plan is to finalize the messaging at our next meeting and get it out by EOD 12/18.

Draft message:

• PostgreSQL 12 will hit EOL as of November 14, 2024 and FOLIO needs to transition to a current version, PostgreSQL 16. The Quesnelia will be a transition release which must run under both PostgreSQL 12 and PostgreSQL 16, this will allow deployed environments to transition.
• It is imperative that, when deployed environments switch from PostgreSQL 12 to PostgreSQL 16, nothing breaks due to this update.
• For Quesnelia, modules should be constrained to PostgreSQL 12 features which are forward-compatible (not broken by) PostgreSQL 16.
• Making this transition will have implications across the technical side of the project, and the The Technical Council will collaborate with affected audiences / stakeholders to assess any impact and potential implementation issues.

List of communication channels to share this message in:

• #development
• #sys-ops
• #devops
• #folio-product-council
• #folio-community-council
• #tech-council
• #releases - at-mention Yogesh/Oleksii P.
• #folio-implementers
• #product_owners (private)

Standing agenda item... is there anything in the decision log requiring attention?

• No updates; no new items

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?

Moved to the next meeting:

• Attempt to move Quesnelia from DRAFT → ACCEPTED → ACTIVE since the relevant milestones have already passed.

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.

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 
  • etc.