2024-06-03 Meeting notes
- Jeremy Huff
- Jakub Skoczen
Date
Attendees
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 min | Scribe | All | Jakub Skoczen is next, followed by Jenn Colt 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 min | Liaison Updates |
| |
| 1 min | Upcoming Meetings | All |
|
| 1 min | TCR Board Review | All |
|
| 5 min | Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates | All |
|
| 1 min | RFCs | All |
|
| 1 min | Action Items |
| |
| 10-15 min | Go Language RFC | Jakub Skoczen | We will begin the final review of the Go Language RFC: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/33
TC voited in favour of the RFC with 6 votes for, 1 vote against and 2 abstained |
| 5- 10 min | Developer Advocate Service Board Preview | Patrick Pace (Unlicensed) | Patrick will demonstrate the new Jira Service board for interfacing with the Developer Advocate, to solicit feedback from the TC. https://folio-org.atlassian.net/jira/servicedesk/projects/DA |
| 10 - 15 min | Topics For upcoming dedicated discussion | All | Review the suggested topics from SHL and NLA |
| 1 min | Decision Log | All | |
| Time Permitting | All | Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists | |
| NA | Zoom Chat |
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:
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 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:
|
| API linting within our backend modules | All | https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713343461518409 |
| PR Templates | All | https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713445649504769 Hello team, Small request to consider. Regarding pr templates.
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. |
| Java 21 | All | https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713445764285349 Is Tech Council considering to update to java 21, I head good things from Netflix engineering teams about Garbage collector |
| 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. |