30 min | External Code Submissions | @Jeremy Huff @Zak_Burke @Ian Walls @Mike Taylor | *** @Ian Walls will continue to shepherd the Acceptance Criteria toward perfection weekly meeting for the subgroup? publish this ... somewhere! (Git, Wiki, dev.folio.org...?)
mod-ldp evaluation continuing discussion POST with read permission seems odd? should maybe be a GET? @Nassib Nassar to follow up ref data? not applicable. .mvn can (should) be removed; it isn't sensitive but committing it was just a mistake tenant segregation: LDP is not multi-tenant the same way that FOLIO is. Current understanding is that mod-ldp cannot be configured in a multi-tenant manner ATM; @Nassib Nassar to follow up with developers. @Tod Olson: documentation about how to configure multi-tenancy to protect data in transit and at rest would be helpful. TC note to self: we need to make our criteria WRT DB schemas clear here; they apply specifically to modules with storage, not to external systems. tolerance of missing/bungled config is a WIP discussion about probationary acceptance rather than pass/fail was spirited. must-meet requirements: multi-tenancy, /admin/health concern that we are making must-meet decisions on the fly
@Jeremy Huff TC perceived the implicit desire to get LDP into Kiwi, but at the same time was asked to develop the acceptance criteria at the same time. Time was short.
ui-ldp: make sure we incorporate UX guidelines discussed on Slack into the AC github home for the code: @Jeremy Huff : should be folio-org, or alternatively should be developed like an SDK that anything can use in the manner of a third-party app. 12:11, folks need to drop for other meetings, we are running late, and uncertain about the next steps @VBar: I think of eval as transactional. Project submit a module, gets the eval, then can resubmit. Process we are discussing is more like an open ticket, which may/may not be desirable. There is some agreement. @Jeremy Huff: process with LDP is justifiably different than the ideal. @Marc Johnson: points out there is not, yet, a deadline in the Kiwi release schedule. Many folks are thinking of it as 2021-09-24, but not all. General agreement that later dates should be reasonably considered.
@Steffen Köhler: what is the push to have this in Kiwi? Why don't libs who want this just deploy it even if it's not official? @Nassib Nassar community, through the PC, has expressed strong desire to have this app included in the distro. @Craig McNally: we agreed on pass/fail. Are we intending to question that? @Jeremy Huff: in this particular instance extenuating circumstances apply. @Zak_Burke, @Jakub Skoczen agree. @Mark Veksler: plan a "must have" list for the next release (Lotus)? Folks would rather use full criteria for Lotus; some willing to consider "must have" criteria for Kiwi. Bugfest deployment starts 2021-10-11; testing starts 2021-10-18. @Ian Walls: Some folks feeling is that kiwi is possible depending on evaluation of criteria as features/bugs and how the kiwi feature/bug deadlines hit @Jeremy Huff and @Zak_Burke to provide a must-have list to devs today as an exercise, understanding TC is still evaluating its process/vote/deadline/etc. Post criteria to #tech-council (X by Friday, Y by bugfest) today; ask TC to vote on criteria and deadlines.
|
Time permitting | Check-out Performance | @Marc Johnson | ** 2021-09-22: deferred ** Proposal: Check Out Performance @Marc Johnson was asked to make a proposal for checking out performance; draft document is available by the link above. Feedback is appreciated There's a link to PTF analysis from the mentioned doc Debate regarding cache/caching as a term.. @Ian Walls "we could revisit the concept of a Shared Storage module that can allow for data from all these different modules to be retrieved live instead of maintained in duplicate" Agreed to add a placeholder for the next meeting to continue the discussion. |
Time permitting (likely deferred) | Technical Decision Making Process | All | ** 2021-09-22: deferred ** (this was deferred) This is a carry-over from two weeks ago week. It was a tangent of the min.io/S3 conversation that started to delve into topics of NOTE: We need to frame this conversation and agree upon what we're trying to accomplish and how much time we want to dedicate to it before diving in. |