2023-12-04 Meeting notes

 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.

Convener today: Jeremy Huff 

All

Maccabee Levine Tod Olson  Jakub Skoczen  Craig McNally Jenn Colt 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
  • No CC meeting this week
• PC: Tod Olson
  • Main item was how to follow up the work of the Entity Management WG how that intersects with ongoing work on BIBFRAME as part of the LoC contract. Thought is the EM work and a Linked Data group could go under MM SIG, and MM SIG could be restructured in some way. Will explore restructuring with MM SIG, and a call for participants in a linked data group has gone out.
  • Meeting notes today: 

    Metadata Management SIG: Their scope is getting bigger. Adding Linked Data and the use of BIBFrame to the MM SIG. MM SIG needs restructuring. Linked Data has found a home for the time being at the MM SIG. Linked Data group helps to establish what the LoC is planning. Exploring BibFrame support in FOLIO. There are a lot of technical implications. #linked_data Slack channel.

• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen No updates.
• Security Team: Julian Ladisch Nothing important to report.
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt  The group finished the charter last week and will work on deliverables. Will come up with a spread-sheet.

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: Julian Ladisch : some progress with the text has been done. Near to getting this to the next stage. A PR for the RFC is open.

TCR process improvement. Maccabee Levine some progress: how to deal with exceptions ? Proposals have been made in the PRs. No "provisional acceptance" for fundamental changes. But put them on hold.

All

• Can we move either/both of these to the next stage?
  • 0004 Date-time values must comply with IETF RFC-3339

RFC Process Improvements:

• Application Formalization RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR:  https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/22
  • Form a subgroup
• Craig McNally: We need another RFC to update the metadata retroactively to reflect the new or adjusted statuses.
  • Any volunteers?
• PR "Ask for an implementation timeline" is still open
  • Anything preventing us from merging this?

Notes:

Previous Notes:

• DR-000038 - PostgreSQL Upgrade to 16 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.

Today:

• DR-000038 has been updated to Postgres 12 for Poppy Quesnelia and Postgres 16 for Ramsons...
• DR-000038 has been updated with the Postgres 13, 14, 15 and 16 module test results of the 35 biggest modules that access the database, FOLIO has 60 database accessing modules. Not a single issue has been found.

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?

Quesnelia Officially Supported Technologies discussion:

• React ^18.2 is correct (Zak Burke)
• Zak Burke will check RTL support for React 18
• Cypress ^9.1.1: Talk to the people who use it and find out what they would like to do
• Update Grails from 5 to 6:
  • Craig McNally: I would rather make the statement that we need to go to 6; otherwise, the longer we wait and deliberate and evaluate and so forth that means it's less time for developers to do the actual work.
  • Marc Johnson: 100% completely agree

Moved to the next meeting:

• 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.

• 06 Dec 2023 - Topic TBD
• 11 Dec 2023 - Regular TC meeting
• ...
• 02 Jan 2024 - Chairs Meeting (Tentative)

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.