2024-04-29 Meeting notes



Discussion items

1 minScribeAll

 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.

5-10 minLiaison Updates
  • CC: Maccabee Levine 
    • no meeting today
  • PC: Tod Olson (for last two weeks)
  • RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen
    • a request for potential rfcs
  • Security Team: Craig McNally
  • Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt
    • Week off in favor of attending TC meeting on Wednesday
    • things have been repeated incorrectly. Straightening things out.
10-15 minTCR Board ReviewAll
  • TCR-38: Florian Gleixner
    • ready for review by the TC
    • does it have to be in the main platform distribution ? → question for release planning group
    • if we approve it, it will be in the Ramsons release
    • some confusion because of naming: edge-erm wraps mod-agreements, but FOLIO EBSCO ERM is something completely different.
    • TC members voted and this module was accepted into Ramsons
5 minUpcoming MeetingsAll
  •  - Dedicated Discussion - Communicating Breaking Changes
    • cancelled because of international holiday
  •  - Regular TC meeting
  •  - Dedicated Discussion - Architectural PoC Q&A continued
  •  - Regular TC meeting
5-10 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates


Action:  (From ) Jeremy Huff: a subgroup to be formed regarding static code analysis as a potential SonarCloud replacement

5 minRFCs


PUBLIC REVIEW: Distributed vs. centralized configuration : Final review
1 minDecision LogAll

Action:  Jenn Colt to investigate why the decision log isn't showing as it's supposed to.  Seems like an issue related to migration to Atlassian cloud. 

???Consolidation of Developer DocumentationAll

Currently, Developer Documentation exists in several locations:

  • dev.folio.org
  • the folio wiki
  • within GitHub repositories

During last Wednesday's dedicated discussion, there seemed to be a loose consensus around the idea of consolidating this documentation into a single location. We should discuss if this is a course of action that we would like to take, and if so, how this can be done.

  • Marc: should this be the decision for the DA to make?
  • Maccabee: it seems that there is a general conflict about general documents on the dev site vs the wiki, arguments for not losing specific contents from the website
  • Jeremy: the TC could define some goals for the DA but not prescribe how
  • Jen: since the migration to the Cloud, the quality of results from the wiki is not great
  • Jen: it might be a big project so it should be considered if that's what the DA should focus on
  • Macabbee: docs are a time-sink, 


  • Patrick gave us a brief introduction and is in the process of coming up to speed.
  • We did not get into details of the topic above
Time Permitting

Officially Supported Technologies (OST)


Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists

:30FOLIO topics from the China community,
  • old version of FOLIO: Goldenrod
  • problems supporting CNMARC; Problem with marc4j or with the FOLIO code ? Owen: A marc4j issue: github.com/marc4j
  • some of these things might have been fixed in later versions, already; we won't fix them in Goldenrod
  • Chinese community ready to move forward to some more recent version, if there is enough reason to do so
  • significant changes in circulation and orders
  • things about authentication that might be addressed through Keycloak
  • will the Chinese community update their fork or will they get back to the mainline development branch ?
  • Tod will be able to bring that (feedback) back
  • Marc: some things not in the TC purview. Significant changes in circulation. It will be a lot of work to get back.
  • Marc: We haven't touched some fundamental things which presented them challenges. There were process differences.
  • Maccabee: Why did they fork years ago ? It makes no sense to speculate here.
  • Craig: Let us get the fundamental questions answered first, otherwise it will be a waist of time.
  • Jenn: Let us have a Wednesday meeting about that and have Patrick there.


Tod Olson to bring some of these questions back to the PC and the group being formed around this topic.

  • Will the Chinese community update their fork or will they get back to the mainline development branch ?
  • Is the expectation that we'd backport some of these enhancements to Goldenrod?  Or that they will upgrade to a newer version of Folio?

Update: Gang Zhou confirmed the Chinese FOLIO community would like these to be addressed in current FOLIO development, not back-ported. 

Time Permitting

Topic Backlog Grooming


Review the topics on our Topic Backlog to remove those that are no longer relevant, modify those that require change, and add topics that might be missing.

NAZoom Chat

Marc Johnson 17:10
The only reason to seek a review is for it to be included in a flower release
There is no middle ground

Platform core is effectively not used anymore

Owen Stephens an Alle 17:13
However that endpoint does pull data from Agreements AND Licenses

Marc Johnson an Alle 17:15
Any team can build / submit a module, there is no exclusive access to a particular area of the system

Owen Stephens an Alle 17:15
So `edge-erm` is interacting with a mod-agreements endpoint which is acting across mod-agreements and mod-licenses

Sie an Alle 17:15
ebsco erm is not mod-agreements

Craig McNally an Alle 17:16
This has nothing to do with the eholdings module
I think that's what you're referring to @Ingolf Kuss

Sie an Alle 17:18
edge-erm wraps mod-agreements, but "erm" in FOLIO (so far) relates to EBSCO erm. I find the Name of the edge modul somewhat confusing.

Owen Stephens an Alle 17:19
1st May is a public holiday in many places

Marc Johnson an Alle 17:16
Boundaries and naming are out of scope of the TC’s evaluation

Sie 17:22
ok, acknowledged

Owen Stephens an Alle 17:30
Goldenrod I thought too

Owen Stephens an Alle 17:33
@Tod Olson I thought this in marc4j was an issue https://github.com/marc4j/marc4j/blob/de23419f06d2152de4488c312ccd402015dd6341/src/org/marc4j/MarcPermissiveStreamReader.java#L1152

Tod Olson 17:45
I have passed this on to Gang Zhou.

Tod Olson an Alle 17:34
Aha! I missed that, thank you!

Owen Stephens an Alle 17:38
I agree Maccabee

Owen Stephens an Alle 17:44
Link to the call for volunteers for a PC group on this https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CTYQZ7PF1/p1714397760381039

Jenn Colt 17:47
Performance was where it started? yeah

Topic Backlog

Decision Log ReviewAll

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

Translation SubgroupAllSince we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?
Communicating Breaking ChangesAllCurrently 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 - UpkeepAll

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 VisibilityAll

Possible topic/activity for a Wednesday session:


  • 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.

Action Items

TC members to review policy guidance in Ramsons OST page and provide feedback