2025-10-06 Meeting notes

2025-10-06 Meeting notes

  •  

Time

Item

Who

Notes

Time

Item

Who

Notes

1 min

Scribe

 

@Julian Ladisch followed by @Maccabee Levine

Reminder:  Please take attendance. Please 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.

5-15 min

Liaison Updates

@Maccabee Levine

@Christie Thomas

@Craig McNally

  • CC:  @Maccabee Levine:

    • No CC meeting this week.

  • PC: @Christie Thomas

    • Selected three priorities to focus on this year.

      • Continue to build out community priorities dashboard

      • Define relationship between PC and RMS

      • CDD work

    • A sub-group will be formed to support each of the priorities.

  • RMS Group:

    • Waiting on us for support proposal

    • Canceled today

    • NLS no longer need backporting of features from Trillium to Sunflower, will go live on Trillium work. Announcement of Trillium GA date expected Sprint 229 (mid November 2025)

  • Security Team:

    • Agreed to extending Ramsons triage to end of March 2026. Triage will be on a best effort basis only. No fixes. This means that the Ramsons CSP support (= patches) ends 2025-12-31 but institutions that continue running Ramsons can better evaluate their risk. If there's a critical issue they need to shut down their Ramsons FOLIO.
      This will be added to the Support Period proposal.

  • Eureka Early Adopters:  @Craig McNally:

    • Latest status updates can be found here

  • Community Driven Development (@Jenn Colt / @Maccabee Levine):

    • Subgroup will have a meeting on Oct 10, 2025.

5 min

Upcoming Meetings

All

 

  • Oct 6, 2025 - Regular TC meeting

  • Oct 8, 2025 - FOLIO Support Periods for Ramsons… @Oleksii Petrenko requested to delay this discussion. @Olamide Kolawole will post another topic.

  • Oct 13, 2025 - Regular TC meeting - Olamide & Jenn are both out

  • Oct 15, 2025 -


  • Dedicated Discussion Topics:

    • https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/x/VQBTR

    • FOLIO API Standardization & Documentation

      • Surface current issues with API documentation and discoverability. API versioning ability and access by release/module?

      • Validation standards

      • API usage for bulk operations

      • Breaking changes notifications

        • Dedicated channel for breaking changes announcements (forwarded from #folio-development)

        • Tag breaking changes in Jira; auto-populate wiki page for external monitoring

    • Define FOLIO Core: Establish clear definition of what constitutes “core” FOLIO vs others.

      • what should integrate vs what needs to be in FOLIO

      • Simplification opportunities

    • Cost Reduction & Resource Optimizations

      • Sidecar proliferation

      • Kafka usage visibility and optimization

      • AWS cost analysis

    • wOLFcon Technical Track Planning: Proposal for technical conference track alongside general wolfcon. Ensure non-developer access

      • Format options: virtual conference, two-day technical overlay, hybrid

      • Employer outreach for developer/operations engineer participation

      • FOLIO contribution vehicle

    • Environment Variable Management

      • Inconsistencies in environment variable usage

      • Best practices and standards

      • Documentation requirements

      • Migration strategy for existing modules

    • Technology Visibility & Scanning: Automated scanning and reporting on FOLIO technology stack

      • leverage existing work by David Crossley

      • Language and framework scanning

      •  

  • Topics from Wolfcon sessions that could get into dedicated discussion

    • Folio “Core” definition

    • Estimating support costs

    • Getting People to contribute to Folio

    • Working costs of supporting modules

    • Costs of development environment (AWS)

  • Security team DR for support periods- Sep 17, 2025

0 min

TCR Board Review

All

3 min

Existing Module Evaluation

ALL

  • @Maccabee Levine created a spreadsheet

    with some information like age of repository on existing modules which could be used to see which modules need review. Julian also had the idea in slack to use sonar metrics to decide which modules get picked.

  • mod-ebsconet and ui-export-manager has been chosen to be first modules.

  • Criteria is being drafted at Create WIP criteria doc for existing module evals by maccabeelevine · Pull Request #98 · folio-org/tech-council

    • @Maccabee Levine can be merged.

Contact POs of modules
Selection of module reviewers by co-chairs : @Florian Gleixner +. @Ingolf Kuss people who volunteer and have not done it before. Need additional assigned, others moved to current module (these will be assigned once the modules are ready.)
Perform evaluation
Select back end module

10 min

Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates

All

Licensing Subgroup

  • To help to the license evaluation, subgroup considered both Semgrep and local tooling. Decided at 2025-09-18 meeting to focus first on local tooling. Several roadblocks with using Semgrep for license evaluation: admin account management problems, beta would be a request (no guarantee on acceptance or timing), and would still need a separate solution for UI modules, Go modules. Subgroup gave ourselves a two-month limit.

  • Olamide built a great tool. GitHub - folio-org/tc-module-eval: FOLIO Module Evaluator Already works for java module evaluation, soon for JS, great reporting, will be easy to run for all TC members. And can grow to help us automate other TC criteria.

  • LGPL questions discussed with CC. Added follow-up to TC recurring calendar. Thanks Julian for the good news about Hibernate licensing.

  • Subgroup will be finalizing MVP of the tool, documenting eval process, and documenting answers to our original questions. Wrap up this month.

1 min

GitHub RFCs

Wiki RFCs

All

 

15 min

Decision Log

All

  • We need to discuss the distributed configuration timeline. Going from mod-configuration to mod-settings. RFC-0006. We extended the deprecation timeline to Umbrella Leaf. A Decision Record seems like the right place to do this. @Florian Gleixner : We can modify the Decision Record. I wanted to wait for the teams to give a timeline when they will be able to do the switch. But we can switch it if we decide to do it in Umbrella Leaf. → We will adapt the change in Umbrella Leaf.

@Florian Gleixner : Talked to @Oleksii Petrenko: We have to find all settings, that are not part of a backend module like language settings and propose a solution for that.

@Wayne Schneider and @Florian Gleixner will start a subgroup to do this work.

 

Need input on capacity before making any decisions on RFC-0006.

  • https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/TC/pages/1187348628

    • Starts with general availability (GA).

    • End determined by Technical Council based on support period of officially supported technologies.

    • Current release support periods end:

      • Ramsons support period ends Dec 31, 2025

      • Sunflower support period ends Jun 30, 2026

      • Trillium support period ends Dec 31, 2026

    • This proposal has not been presented anywhere else.

    • Concerns about acceptance by the community because of the reliance on CSPs.

    • Also noted that the support period for Ramsons may be impacted by the delay in the Trillium release.

    • Migrating from Ramsons to Sunflower is complex and is still under development for some providers and communities. There may not be a critical mass of implementers on Sunflower by the time the proposed support period ends.

    • RMS group should be consulted on this proposal.

5 min

Officially Supported Technologies (OST)

All

Create a communication plan for OST. “When we make changes to the OST, how do we inform the FOLIO community?”

@Wayne Schneider : With the delay of Trillium, do we have to look at the OST pages of Trillium also?

@Olamide Kolawole : We probably have to look at the OST pages from Ramsons and Sunflower also

NA

Zoom Chat

 

00:25:30 Ingolf Kuss: I also think that there should not be too many exceptions (otherwise it does not make sense to re-evaluate a module)
00:30:01 vbar: Should non compliant modules receive a “use at your own risk” note?
00:31:26 Julian Ladisch: Replying to "Should non compliant..."
What kind of risk?
00:32:57 Jenn Colt: z39.50 is pretty important
00:35:17 Tod Olson: Reacted to "z39.50 is pretty im..." with 💯
00:35:35 Julian Ladisch: Replying to "Should non compliant..."

I don't see a need for such a notice. If there are security issues the security team will flag them and a fix will be provided. Other risks don't need a notice.
00:38:22 Tod Olson: Replying to "z39.50 is pretty im..."

Z39.50 is still critical for ILL discovery.
00:38:51 Charlotte Whitt: Reacted to "I don't see a need f..." with 👍
00:38:58 Charlotte Whitt: Reacted to "z39.50 is pretty im..." with 💯
00:43:54 Tod Olson: Must drop, thank you all.
00:49:08 Maccabee Levine: https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/blob/master/NEW_MODULE_TECH_EVAL.MD#review

 

 



Topic Backlog

Decision Log Review

All

Review decisions that are in progress.  Can any of them be accepted?  rejected?

Translation Subgroup

All

Since we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?

Communicating Breaking Changes

All

Currently there is a PoC, developed by @Maccabee Levine, of a utility to catalog Github PRs that have been labeled with the "breaking change" label. We would like to get developer feedback on the feasibility of this label being used more often, and the usefulness of this utility. 

Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep

All

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.



Dev Documentation Visibility

All

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.

API linting within our backend modules

All

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713343461518409



Hello team, I would like to discuss API linting within our backend modules. Some time ago, we transitioned our linting process from Jenkins to GitHub Actions as outlined in https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/FOLIO-3678. I am assuming that this move was done via some technical council decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In my observations, I've found two problems:

  1. Schema linting does not occur if the schemas are in YAML format.

  2. There are issues with resolving some deeper references during API linting.

Although I'm unsure about how to improve the existing linting implementations within Folio, I propose to consider an open-source solution that handles OpenAPI linting effectively and allows us to define custom rules. For your reference: https://stoplight.io/open-source/spectral A test of this solution can be found in this PR: https://github.com/folio-org/mod-search/pull/567. The same PR also provides an example of custom rule definition: https://github.com/folio-org/mod-search/pull/567/files#diff-d5da7cb43c444434994b76f3b04aa6e702c09e938de09dbc09d72569d611d9ab.Also, by employing 'Spectral', I discovered AsyncAPI (https://www.asyncapi.com/en), an API design tool similar to OpenAPI but for asynchronous interactions. I suggest that we consider using AsyncAPI in FOLIO to generate documentation for Kafka interactions.



PR Templates

All

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713445649504769

Hello team, Small request to consider.
Regarding pr templates.

  1. From my perspective, pr template is not good idea. Even the biggest open source projects that are contributed by many people don't have any pr template. Currently what we have for acq modules https://github.com/folio-org/mod-orders-storage/blob/master/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

  2. These pr template is inconsistent in different teams.

What I suggest is that, pr template shouldn't be any instructions, because most developer who are creating pr have already understand the rules. If we put just two section into template, it will encourage developers to write more about their work and that lead to knowledge  sharing among developers.

Proposed Mod Kafka

All

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1714471592534689

Mike Taylor

Proposal. If and only if a FOLIO instance is running Kafka, it should insert and enable a module called mod-kafka, which consists entirely of a module descriptor that says it provides the interface kafka. The purpose is so that other modules can use the standard <IfInterface> and similar tools to determine whether they should attempt Kafka operations. Rationale: the FOLIO ILS depends absolutely on Kafka, but other uses of the platform will not. One such example: a dev platform that includes only mod-users, used as a source of change events for Metadb.