A tri council meeting should be coming up. What do we need from that meeting?
Craig:
working on finishing up RFC, at TC final review in the next couple weeks-ish
Next steps based on TC and PC Meetings
All
How could we help prepare the hosting community for Eureka?
those outside EBSCO are not in a position to be able to just do Eureka right now
need sample environment with documented deployment, it doesn't have to be a cookbook just a model you could adopt
Could there be Eureka hosting session at WC?
Sessions have already been submitted and none are exactly like this but several will be of interest to sys ops:
session on manager component
Harder to do a session on deployment because of difference in environments, EBSCO only has nuts and bolts details on what they use
What would a model look like?
detailed diagram
example implementation that can be adapted
FOLIO devops team newly funded, how can they be involved?
new reference environment with deployment scripts
some practical model - how would I do this in ECS theoretically or in Kubernetes
layout of a deployment strategy
Current work in Rancher envs:
Kitfox updating to support Rancher envs using Eureka plus a hosting reference environment
Some of this work should come online this summer and should help give examples. Craig will look at the timeline.
How does the transition actually happen?
What is the roadmap for the transition?
Do we want to support 2 platforms?
How do we support the transition?
How do we know who is hosting?
How can we avoid leaving people in the lurch?
Ask Kitfox to be in touch with the sysops sig to let them know what they are working on and schedule a demo when they are ready. Sys ops is well positioned to disseminate info
Craig can touch base with Kitfox about what works/makes sense for them
Should we have a project manager/product owner for the transition?
What is our intention? Do we want everyone to get to Eureka? What is the plan for how to get there?
If we really want every one to get there need to support those doing hosting
What if there is pushback?
If we make a community choice, it is expressing a community preference that others are not required to follow but will require them to potentially support their alternative themselves
Should the RFCs be completed before asking the community/councils to endorse a path?
Is there value to the RFC process if it isn't going to cause any change? What level of investment in the RFC process is worth?
Pushback could surface in sysops but in the moment it is more like pockets of concern than outright rejection. Kirstin will talk to Ingolf about taking the temperature
RFCs allow for consensus and potentially improvement to proposals
RFCs could also illuminate what aspects of module reviews need to be updated
Abstracts for RFCs already exist, going forward with them allows any disagreement to get worked out
However RFCs aren't really designed to deal with large strategic upheaval
Upcoming tri-council meeting
We could recommend councils endorse movement toward Eureka as well as given an update with reasons why, talk about alternatives, ask for vote
Would we want RFCs squared away first?
Are the councils representative enough of the people most affected?
Do people understand enough of the implications to vote for an endorsement?
If we do not move along with the Eureka team we could end up stuck in the transition period of supporting two "platforms" longer