/
2024-06-03 Meeting notes

2024-06-03 Meeting notes

Jun 03, 2024

Date

Jun 3, 2024

Attendees 

  • @Jeremy Huff

 

Discussion items

Time

Item

Who

Notes

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

@Maccabee Levine

@Tod Olson

@Jakub Skoczen

@Craig McNally

@Jenn Colt 

  • CC: @Maccabee Levine 

    • no meeting this week

  • PC: @Tod Olson

  • RMS Group: @Jakub Skoczen

    • Quesnelia R1 is considered GO

    • RFC wording  to be added to the release timeline starting from Sunflower

  • Security Team: @Craig McNally

    • Updates regarding planned penetration testing

  • Tri-council Application Formalization: @Jenn Colt

    • Met last week but no firm conclusion on the next steps

    • the group is going to meet over the summer on a lighter schedule

1 min

Upcoming Meetings

All

  • Jun 5, 2024 - 8pm EST meeting for China and Australia topics

  • Jun 10, 2024  - Regular TC Meeting

  • Jun 12, 2024  - Dedicated Discussion - Topic TBD

  • Jun 17, 2024  - Regular TC Meeting

  • Jun 19, 2024  - Dedicated Discussion - Topic TBD

  • Jun 24, 2024  - Regular TC Meeting

  • Jun 26, 2024  - Dedicated Discussion - Topic TBD

1 min

TCR Board Review

All

  • @Jeremy Huff action item regarding TCR-41 (mod-reading-room) to reach out to the PC: the item is not on the PC's radar so TC should wait and hold off with assigning the evaluator

  • Discussion if the TC should head start on the evaluation without PCs approval

  • @Maccabee Levine: one of the evaluation criteria requires that the module is approved by the PC before the TC can accept it

5 min

Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates

All

  • @Maccabee Levine: TCR process improvements no updates

  • @Jeremy Huff: static code analysis: update scheduled for next update.

1 min

RFCs

All

  • Application Formalization: When will we do the final review?

    • The following Monday Jun 10, 2024 

1 min

Action Items

@Jeremy Huff

  • @Jeremy Huff:

    • Reach out to the PC concerning TCR-41 

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

  • @Jakub Skoczen: summarized the RFC and updates that were made to the RFC

  • @Craig McNally: general concerns about extending the OST list, tooling (especially CI/CD tooling like static code and security analysis like Snyk or SonarQube)

  • @Maccabee Levine: should we first identify what the CI/CD tooling requirements are?

  • @Jakub Skoczen: the proposal is that we discover this as part of the module PoC

  • @Maccabee Levine: proposed to update the RFC so that the iterative nature is explicitly mentioned

  • @Jeremy Huff: there are benefits if the project is open to new technologies

  • @Craig McNally: underlines that Snyk or similar is supported

  • @Jakub Skoczen: a security scanning tool must be supported but it's unclear if it needs to be Snyk

  • @Taras Spashchenko: Go may not support libraries or extensions required for building business logic in FOLIO. FOLIO community may be missing Go knowledge to support projects written in Go

  • @Marc Johnson: Go may increase the cost for maintaining infrastructure, etc 

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

Officially Supported Technologies (OST)

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:

  • 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:

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.

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
https://www.infoq.com/presentations/netflix-java/ (edited)

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.

Action Items