2021-10-27 Meeting notes

1 min

Scribe

All

@Jakub Skoczen is next in the list, followed by @Raman Auramau

3 min

Meeting procedures

All

Briefly discuss trialing the use of hand raising, only speaking when called, and limiting the use of chat.

Worth a try today?  

• @Craig McNallyproposes we use hand-raising when wanting to speak and TC accepts

2 min

Review outstanding action items

All

• No updates

5 min

External Code Submissions

@Craig McNally

@Jakub Skoczen

• A proposal for module submission/evaluation/review/acceptance will be ready for review by next week's TC meeting (Nov 3, 2021)

  • The subgroup met twice since last TC meeting, and will do the same again in order to make this happen.   

  • The scope of the proposal is a process for acceptance into an official FOLIO release.

  • The subgroup acknowledges that a process also needs to be defined for acceptance into the FOLIO community resources (Hosted reference envs, CI/CD, platform-complete, etc.).  While related, and also important, this is viewed as out of scope for the Nov 3. proposal.

    • Any volunteers to generate a strawman for this?

• Acceptance criteria published in the tech-council repo, link: https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/blob/master/Acceptance_Criteria.md

• @Jeremy Huffraised the topic of including modules in the reference envs vs in the release

3 min

Council Goals/Objectives

All

Follow-up from previous meetings...

Previous notes:

From @Mike Gorrell:

I have created a clean copy of what the Community Council created to identify which FOLIO Goals/Objectives were under the purview of the CC. We also took a stab at what thought would be handled by PC or TC. Please feel free to give us feedback/etc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jVxW2XEK2bRSpXG9_FvdVtgqDfCTeKKM5h49IIhmRw/edit#heading=h.m2gdb67ibe1x. and use for your planning purposes.

Update from @Tod Olson, @Craig McNally who met to discuss this last Friday.

• The Friday meetings will be at 11am EST, please join if you can. Contact the above folks if you'd like to attend.

5 min

Decide 1 year/2 year terms

All

Deferred last week due to insufficient TC attendees.

Back in July we asked @Zak Burke to create a reminder for us to discuss this... 

• Should half of the TC serve an initial 1-year term, the rest full 2-year terms? Other councils do this to set up a staggered rotation.

  • If splitting, who would serve 1, who 2?

  • the idea is that we have a staggered membership where experienced members mix with new members

• Council seats will have term limits - no individual may occupy a seat for more than 4 consecutive years on any council (2 terms).

• @Jeremy Huff and @Zak Burke volunteered for 1 year.

  • Are there other volunteers?  If not, how should we decided?

  • @Dennis Benndorf@Steffen Köhler and @Chulin Meng have also volunteered which makes it the needed total of 5

• See: Technical Council Membership History

• @Jeremy Huffasked if 1-year member would qualify for a re-election and the answer seems to be yes

5 min

Upgrade/Migration Script Performance

@Raman Auramau

We've run into situations where migration/upgrade scripts take a very long time to complete, which is problematic.  The TC should consider defining some criteria around this... Possibly a phased approach over the course of the next few releases?   

It sounds like a couple groups have been working on this and that they're just recently syncing up. 

• @Raman Auramautalked about experiences with migration in Inventory storage, experiments with dropping indices help performance. There seem to be two areas for improvements:

  • rethink how data migration is done, including ideas from @Peter Murray

  • analyze why certain migration scripts are included in the release and establish a process for testing migrations early, prepare a list of guidelines for properly creating migration scripts, perform performance testing of migrations

• @Raman Auramauhas documented his ideas on the wiki page, link: https://wiki.folio.org/display/~Raman+Auramau/Data+migration+process

• TC is asked to review the above document

• Next steps: @Raman Auramauwill communicate the process and new requirements to the dev teams

30 min

Technical Decision Making Process

@VBar

@Jakub Skoczen

This is a carry-over from last week.

• The tech leads group not being a decision making body

• Whether it's realistic and/or desirable for the TC to make every technical decision

  • There was some overlap here with the external code submission topic

Additional Context: 

• 2021-10-13 Meeting notes

• 2021-10-20 Meeting notes

For Today:

• @VBar to walk us through the RFC process is documented here: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs

• (Time permitting) Review the document @Jakub Skoczen pulled together outlining what we're trying to accomplish.  See here

• @Zak Burkeasked about the scope of problems where th RFC process would apply, e.g would a breaking change to Stripes Components be a candidate for the RFC process?

• @Craig McNallythinks that it's primarily a judgement call and it will need to be handled on a case-by-case basis

• @Owen Stephensasked about next steps for moving the RFC process proposal forward

• @Craig McNallycommented that primary goal was to present the RFC as one alternative for the decision making process

• @Jakub Skoczenmentioned that the motivation part in the problem statement document should be extended to better define the scope of the problems which should be applicable to the decision making process

Time permitting

TC charter review

All