Skip to end of banner
Go to start of banner

2021-11-17 Meeting notes

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 6 Next »

Date

Attendees

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

Dennis Benndorf is next in the list, followed by Zak Burke 

5-10 min

Review outstanding action itemsAll
  • auth-token discussion happened, but no clear deadline, and Jakub Skoczen is absent today; in progress
  • goals/objectives review expected to be complete by next week (Tod Olson ); complete
  • connect cross-council groups (Tod Olson ) this is in-progress; complete
  • update wiki with docs related to module acceptance criteria, new modules (Craig McNally ); in progress
  • meeting procedure review: please take note of the Technical Council Meetings and Notes page and provide feedback offline; in progress
3 minCouncil Goals/ObjectivesAll

Follow-up from previous meetings...

Previous notes:

From Mike Gorrell:

I have created a clean copy of what the Community Council created to identify which FOLIO Goals/Objectives were under the purview of the CC. We also took a stab at what thought would be handled by PC or TC. Please feel free to give us feedback/etc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jVxW2XEK2bRSpXG9_FvdVtgqDfCTeKKM5h49IIhmRw/edit#heading=h.m2gdb67ibe1x. and use for your planning purposes.

Update from Tod Olson?

Can we set a deadline for having something ready for the TC to review and discuss?

3 minUpgrade/Migration Script Performance

Raman Auramau

Quick update from Raman Auramau?

Action Items with deadlines?

  • documentation is drafted and tech team is reviewing, but delivery date is not specified
15-20 min

New Module Technical Evaluation

Previously: "External Code Submissions"

Craig McNally

Zak Burke 

  • JIRA workflow is ready for review
  • Process document has been updated and also ready for review
  • Evaluation template?  Zak Burke  to provide an update.
  • The applicable deadline is Dec 3.  See Lotus (R1 2022)#Timeline
    ---
  • The subgroup understands there are pending requests to add new modules to FOLIO (e.g. mod-inventory-update) but decided to defer all evaluation pending definition of the process. We now feel the processes are sufficiently stable to begin accepting reviews, if the TC agrees.
    ---
  • Craig McNally : review of the process document, Jira workflow, and evaluation template.
  • Marc Johnson : where will those evaluations be stored? Zak Burke to update the repo with a directory where those will be stored.
  • No objections from members who are present, but less than half the council is present today. How do folks feel about making a decision?
    • There is general concern about the low attendance today, though folks acknowledge the need to move forward so we can get stuff done.
    • Marc Johnson : let's not have provisional acceptance; either accept or reject. 
    • Everybody wrings their hands. 
    • Tod Olson : can we accept by lazy consensus, and let folks object/call for a vote next week? acknowledge that our process is a WIP.
    • Craig McNally : reminder that you can (should!) send a proxy when you cannot attend.
    • Marc Johnson : hearing folks want to get this done today despite our reservations, and ack this is supposed to be iterative. So: use lazy consensus to accept this, and commit to later reflection on how this went?
      • No objections.
15-20 min

Technical Decision Making Process

Jakub Skoczen

This is a carry-over from last week.

  • The tech leads group not being a decision making body
  • Whether it's realistic and/or desirable for the TC to make every technical decision
    • There was some overlap here with the external code submission topic

Additional Context: 

For Today:

  • We had homework to review Jakub Skoczen's document and provide feedback/questions/comments.
    • Does the RFC proposal meet the purpose outlined here in this document?
    • Are there other proposals for a decision making process (maybe that borrow parts of the RFC process)?
  • From last week:  "need some feedback, will come back next week"
    ---
  • Craig McNally : skipping this today

Time permitting



  • Another meeting rules thing: should we have a formal policy/discussion about attendance, discussion, and decision making when attendance is low/less than half? 

Action items

  • Craig McNally to create a place on the wiki where we can capture meeting rules/policies, how meetings are run, how agendas are formed, etc. - by 11/17
  • Tod Olson , Jeremy Huff , Anton Emelianov (Deactivated) to connect on the cross-council group for defining the larger process for new module acceptance - no clear deadline defined, but effectively should happen by 11/17
  • Jakub Skoczen and Stripes Architecture to devise a transition plan for auth token expiration, adoption of refresh tokens, etc.  - no clear deadline defined, but soon given that some of this is tentatively scheduled for Lotus
  • Craig McNally , Zak Burke , Jakub Skoczen , Raman Auramau to discuss the formation of an executive TC group for forming meeting agendas and how it might work - no clear deadline defined
  • Tod Olson to define a deadline for having a set of Goals/Objectives ready for the TC to review and discuss - by 11/17


  • No labels