2024-03-11 Meeting notes

Marc Johnson is next, followed by Ingolf Kuss

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.

Maccabee Levine

Tod Olson

Jakub Skoczen

Craig McNally

Jenn Colt 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
  • Developer Advocate offer made.  CC figuring out hiring logistics.
  • Index Data's proposal for doing system administration and CI/CD work was approved, pending budget check.
  • PC 6-month review of functional evaluation process.  Re-raised request of MOU for module contributors defining their commitment to the module.
• PC: Tod Olson
  • No PC meeting due to Tri-Council meeting, see 2024-03-07 Tri-Council Meeting notes.
  • Planning for a periodic (quarterly?) meeting at an Asia-and-Austrailia-friendly time in order to be more inclusive.
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen 
• Security Team: Craig McNally 
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt 

• 13 Mar 2024 - Proposal to RSMG for language in the release schedule template suggesting RFCs
• 18 Mar 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 20 Mar 2024 - Dedicated Discussion - Topic TBD
• 25 Mar 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 27 Mar 2024 - Dedicated Discussion - Topic TBD
• 01 Apr 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 03 Apr 2024 - Dedicated Discussion - Topic TBD

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.

Go Programming Language: Some comments from Julian Ladisch

Distributed vs. Centralized: Moved to Public review. Subgroup closed

TCR Process Improvements: Maccabee Levine and Jenn Colt will talk about suggestions for the release process at the next release stakeholder meeting. Subgroup can be wrapped up then.

• Maccabee Levine and Jenn Colt presented this morning to RSMG.  Many questions.  Main one was about timing, would the RFC be completed in time.  RSMG wanted specifics.
• Proposal:

This is written as if an updated to the Quesnelia schedule just to understand the timeline, even though obviously we are not editing the Q schedule at this point.

All

• Application Formalization RFC
• Go Programming Language for Backend Development RFC
• Distributed vs Centralized Configuration RFC - is in public Review

RFC Process Improvements:

• We need another RFC to update the metadata retroactively to reflect the new or adjusted statuses. - Jenn Colt

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?
• Next Important Milestone:  Review Ramsons (1st party dependencies) and move from ACCEPTED → ACTIVE by 15 Mar 2024  
  • Maybe we should aim to start looking at this on 06 Mar 2024  so we have time for discussion/adjustments
• Other todo items: 
  • Review policies and reasoning on page with intent to vote on approval (Sunflower)

Today:

On the Quesnelia OST Page:

• Comment on Groovy2 Marc Johnson Groovy version depends on Grails. This combination is not possible. Grails 6 needs Groovy 3. Switch the OST Page to Groovy 3 or just remove the version.
  • Version removed and replaced with a comment suggested by Tod Olson
• Comment on Folio-spring-base Version. Changed.

Same changes done on Ramsons page.

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.