2023-12-18 Meeting notes

Jakub Skoczen is next, followed by Taras Spashchenko 

Taras will take notes today.  Thanks!

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  
  
  • Kristin Martin will run the meeting this week
  • Continuing to work through the lists of questions

• 20 Dec 2023 - Officially Supported Technologies → Quesnelia: review and move to ACTIVE
• 25 Dec 2023 - Cancelled
• 27 Dec 2023 - Cancelled
• 01 Jan 2024 - Cancelled
• 02 Jan 2024 - Chairs Meeting (Tentative)
• 03 Jan 2024 - Topic TBD - will likely cancel, but keeping as a placeholder in case something comes up

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.

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
  • 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?

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.

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.