2024-07-17 RFC Process Continued

Owned by Jenn Colt
Last updated: Jul 17, 2024 by Julian Ladisch
Translator


Date

Attendees 

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

Jakub Skoczen  is next, followed by Marc Johnson

Julian Ladisch took notes


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.

30 minEureka RFCsAll
  • Craig: Is the RFC format appropriate for this big change, or could it have been split into smaller RFCs with an overview document for all of them?
  • Jenn: Supporting diagramms are helpful. Other option: Overview RFC linking to detailed documentation.
  • Marc: RFCs can be used to have the discussion and investigating different solutions before the implementation starts; Eureka decisions and development has started before the RFC was created allowing for only yes/no decision.
  • Jason and Marc: Both ways are possible.
  • Jenn: Even if it's only yes/no decision the RFC process explains the reasons why the solution has been choosen and explains the details.
  • Marc: Eureka and Application Formalization might be independent decisions.
  • Craig: Wonders whether putting more details into the RFC text help the RFC process or is too much information.
  • Tod: Would like a high level RFC about Eureka. All low level details should be separate, whether as RFCs or in other form.
  • Marc: Most feedback is from TC members only. SysOps are trying to install Eureka.
  • Marc: mod-lists has been accepted before the architectural change RFC has been created.
    Eureka has huge architectural consequences so we should be careful.
  • Craig: I can provide an overview RFC. Whether to go this way should be decided by TC on Monday.

Meeting runs out of time. All following topics are moved to next Wednesday.

20 minRFCs in the wikiAll
  • adapt the RFC process to use the wiki
Time PermittingAdditional RFC process feedback Tod Olson

From Tod in slack:

I think we want to be clear about what kinds of communication and coordination we need to facilitate. That is, what kinds of agreements do we need about how FOLIO behaves at the technical level. And where have we had problems because of not having common agreements or breaking those agreements.

Notes:

  • ...
NAZoom Chat


17:21:23 Marc Johnson: Indeed, they aren’t independent decisions

17:29:22 Craig McNally: I think those sorts of questions will inevitably be raised during the RFC Process (or whatever process we come up with)

17:29:43 Marc Johnson: Reacted to "I think those sorts …" with 👍

17:29:52 Craig McNally: Also keep in mind that we want/need to get public/broad feedback on these things, not just the TC's feedback

17:30:23 Marc Johnson: Replying to "I think those sorts …" They likely will. I’m maybe suggesting we more actively moderate some of this because of the broader context

17:30:32 Root, Jason M: Reacted to "I think those sorts ..." with 👍

17:35:34 Root, Jason M: Reacted to "Also keep in mind th..." with 👍

17:37:05 Marc Johnson: Replying to "Also keep in mind th…" Who do we want that from?

17:41:08 Craig McNally: Replying to "Also keep in mind th..." Developers, system operators, etc. Really its "the community"

17:44:07 Marc Johnson: Reacted to "Developers, system o…" with 👌

17:44:31 Marc Johnson: Replying to "Also keep in mind th…" Is that beyond what we try to usually get as part of the public review?

17:46:41 Craig McNally: Replying to "Also keep in mind th..." nope

17:47:23 Jenn Colt: Bad example

17:47:33 Craig McNally: Replying to "Also keep in mind th..." just reminding that the public review stage of the RFC process is not limited to TC feedback.

17:51:49 Marc Johnson: Sorry, I wasn’t intending to criticise the example being brought up

17:52:23 Marc Johnson: Replying to "Also keep in mind th…" Sure, historically we haven’t gotten much feedback through that process

17:56:54 Marc Johnson: The difference IMO is that previously accepting an RFC is the final decision on the matter

17:57:38 Marc Johnson: Which council represents system operators?

17:58:49 Marc Johnson: I meant in respect to the timeframes aspect that Jenn referred to about trying it out before advising

17:59:51 Jenn Colt: It seems like we could work with Jason & Ingolf when we get to public review. We’ve already attended discussions where sysops were discussing

17:59:59 Root, Jason M: Reacted to "It seems like we cou..." with 👍

18:00:23 Marc Johnson: Reacted to "It seems like we cou…" with 👍

18:00:39 Root, Jason M: I’ve always thought the TC represented system operators the most closely in all respects 🙂

18:01:00 Tod Olson: Reacted to "I’ve always thought ..." with 👍

18:01:01 Marc Johnson: Replying to "I’ve always thought …" We’ve never properly figured that out

18:01:16 Root, Jason M: It’s also been my view that sys operators will go and operate systems and try stuff out informally

18:01:23 Jenn Colt: Replying to "I’ve always thought ..." Yeah. It gets confusing because PC runs SIGs

18:02:04 Marc Johnson: Reacted to "Yeah. It gets confus…" with 👍