The TC will lay the groundwork and launch anRFC processin the next 1-2 months
Craig, Jeremy, Maccabee, Tod will marshal together the non-technical questions, considerations, implications, and scope issues that can be used for structured discussions with the wider community, including PC and CC. This will be done in 6 weeks
We will have a Tri-Council meeting on Thursday, October 12 at 9:30 AM ET to discuss the application bundling (Zoom =https://zoom.us/j/867230970)
The heart of this work will be in TC for the next couple of months. CC should name 1-2 liaisons who can work with TC and the volunteers named above as needed, so we can be sure there is good communication to and from CC. (PC is considering naming a couple of reps as well.)Are there 1-2 CC members who would volunteer to be coordinators and liaisons for this phase of architectural work?
?
Continued Discussion on Process Concerns in the wake of Vince's presentations
All
Questions/concerns were raised in #tc-internal about what the next steps are (after WOLFcon) for the topics recently presented by Vince...
Craig McNally : the presentation is not viewed as a formal proposal (yet). So far it has been presented to the Council chairs (during the Chicago "summit"). There is an expectation that the presentation will be turned into a formal proposal/RFC.
Marc Johnson : not clear what is the TC role until a formal proposal is available. It makes more sense to discuss the next steps.
Owen Stephens : the proposal is too abstract to let the PC and people responsible for the product understand what the impact is. For any approvals it is essential to understand what the impact on the product is and what the work entails, etc.
Tod Olson : operational and sys-ops related concerts.
Jakub Skoczen : can we split the proposal into two parts/phases: 1. Proposal regarding new functionality for managing permissions/capabilities. 2. Architecture/design to support the needed functionality. Part 1. to be reviewed by the parties responsible for product.
Tod Olson: sys-ops mentioned permission-management challenges. Concepts similar to "capabilities" are being implemented? back at Chicago.
Jenn Colt : the problem is with the scope, the proposal is very high-fidelity and top-down. It would make sense to focus on smaller pieces.
VBar the goal was to inject the conversation with some "big ideas"
There wasn't much interest in continuing the discussion in a dedicated Monday session.
Do we want/need to discuss more?
Marc Johnson we should revisit this topic after WOLFCon
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.