2024-04-29 Meeting notes

Date

29 Apr 2024

Attendees

Discussion items

Time	Item	Who	Notes
1 min	Scribe	All	Ingolf Kuss is next, followed by Maccabee Levine 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.
5-10 min	Liaison Updates	Maccabee Levine Tod Olson Jakub Skoczen Craig McNally Jenn Colt	CC: Maccabee Levine no meeting today PC: Tod Olson (for last two weeks) Upcoming PC elections and recruiting candidates. Existential questions. WOLFcon proposals Next steps on FOLIO topics from the China community, with focus on how to get the product issues to the POs Planning for architectural and authentication changes discussed in 2024-04-24 - Architectural PoC, wondering about effects on roadmap. RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen a request for potential rfcs Security Team: Craig McNally Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt Week off in favor of attending TC meeting on Wednesday things have been repeated incorrectly. Straightening things out.
10-15 min	TCR Board Review	All	TCR-38: Florian Gleixner ready for review by the TC does it have to be in the main platform distribution ? → question for release planning group if we approve it, it will be in the Ramsons release some confusion because of naming: edge-erm wraps mod-agreements, but FOLIO EBSCO ERM is something completely different.
5 min	Upcoming Meetings	All	01 May 2024 - Dedicated Discussion - Communicating Breaking Changes cancelled because of international holiday 06 May 2024 - Regular TC meeting 08 May 2024 - Dedicated Discussion - Topic TBD 13 May 2024 - Regular TC meeting Do we want to setup another Q&A Sessions on the Architectural PoC? Patrick Pace: Introduces himself; Helps new developers.
5-10 min	Technical Council Sub Groups Updates	All
5 min	RFCs	All	PUBLIC REVIEW: Distributed vs. centralized configuration : Final review
1 min	Decision Log	All	Standing agenda item... is there anything in the decision log requiring attention?
???	Action Item Updates	All
???	Consolidation of Developer Documentation	All	Currently, Developer Documentation exists in several locations: dev.folio.org the folio wiki within GitHub repositories During last Wednesday's dedicated discussion, there seemed to be a loose consensus around the idea of consolidating this documentation into a single location. We should discuss if this is a course of action that we would like to take, and if so, how this can be done. Marc: should this be the decision for the DA to make? Maccabee: it seems that there is a general conflict about general documents on the dev site vs the wiki, arguments for not losing specific contents from the website Jeremy: the TC could define some goals for the DA but not prescribe how Jen: since the migration to the Cloud, the quality of results from the wiki is not great Jen: it might be a big project so it should be considered if that's what the DA should focus on Macabbee: docs are a time-sink,
Time Permitting	Officially Supported Technologies (OST)	All	Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists
:30	FOLIO topics from the China community,		old version of FOLIO: Goldenrod problems supporting CNMARC; Problem with marc4j or with the FOLIO code ? Owen: A marc4j issue: github.com/marc4j some of these things might have been fixed in later versions, already; we won't fix them in Goldenrod Chinese community ready to move forward to some more recent version, if there is enough reason to do so significant changes in circulation and orders things about authentication that might be addressed through Keycloak will the Chinese community update their fork or will they get back to the mainline development branch ? Tod will be able to bring that (feedback) back Marc: some things not in the TC purview. Significant changes in circulation. It will be a lot of work to get back. Marc: We haven't touched some fundamental things which presented them challenges. There were process differences. Maccabee: Why did they fork years ago ? It makes no sense to speculate here. Craig: Let us get the fundamental questions answered first, otherwise it will be a waist of time. Jenn: Let us have a Wednesday meeting about that and have Patrick there.
Time Permitting	Topic Backlog Grooming	All	Review the topics on our Topic Backlog to remove those that are no longer relevant, modify those that require change, and add topics that might be missing.
NA	Zoom Chat		Marc Johnson 17:10 The only reason to seek a review is for it to be included in a flower release There is no middle ground Platform core is effectively not used anymore Owen Stephens an Alle 17:13 No However that endpoint does pull data from Agreements AND Licenses Marc Johnson an Alle 17:15 Any team can build / submit a module, there is no exclusive access to a particular area of the system Owen Stephens an Alle 17:15 So `edge-erm` is interacting with a mod-agreements endpoint which is acting across mod-agreements and mod-licenses Sie an Alle 17:15 ebsco erm is not mod-agreements Craig McNally an Alle 17:16 This has nothing to do with the eholdings module I think that's what you're referring to @Ingolf Kuss Sie an Alle 17:18 edge-erm wraps mod-agreements, but "erm" in FOLIO (so far) relates to EBSCO erm. I find the Name of the edge modul somewhat confusing. Owen Stephens an Alle 17:19 1st May is a public holiday in many places Marc Johnson an Alle 17:16 Boundaries and naming are out of scope of the TC’s evaluation Sie 17:22 ok, acknowledged Owen Stephens an Alle 17:30 Goldenrod I thought too Owen Stephens an Alle 17:33 @Tod Olson I thought this in marc4j was an issue https://github.com/marc4j/marc4j/blob/de23419f06d2152de4488c312ccd402015dd6341/src/org/marc4j/MarcPermissiveStreamReader.java#L1152 Tod Olson 17:45 I have passed this on to Gang Zhou. Tod Olson an Alle 17:34 Aha! I missed that, thank you! Owen Stephens an Alle 17:38 I agree Maccabee Owen Stephens an Alle 17:44 Link to the call for volunteers for a PC group on this https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CTYQZ7PF1/p1714397760381039 Jenn Colt 17:47 Performance was where it started? yeah

Topic Backlog
Decision Log Review	All	Review decisions that 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	Currently there is a PoC, developed by Maccabee Levine, of a utility to catalog Github PRs that have been labeled with the "breaking change" label. We would like to get developer feedback on the feasibility of this label being used more often, and the usefulness of this utility.
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 etc.

Action Items

TC members to review policy guidance in Ramsons OST page and provide feedback