2021-11-24 Meeting notes

1 min

Scribe

All

@Jeremy Huff is next in the list, followed by @Marc Johnson

• @Tod Olson will be scribe today since @Jeremy Huff isn't here and @Marc Johnson  isn't at a computer.

5 min

Review outstanding action items

All

• Stripe Architecture and auth token: Steve has proposed a solution, team thinks it straightforward depending on how we use specific headers. Document was shared in last week's TC meeting.

• Formation of Exec TC group: no action yet

• Wiki presence on TC repo and acceptance criteria - see agenda item below

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?

Ready for review, see TC comments on CC designation of leading council for FOLIO Vision, Strategic Objectives and Initiatives for PC and TC usage

5-10 min

New Module Technical Evaluation

Previously: "External Code Submissions"

@Craig McNally

@Tod Olson 

@Marc Johnson 

Quick update from the sub-group?

• Wiki presence for this, with links to resources has been added:  New Module Technical Evaluations and reviewed by the subgroup.

• Submission template has been created and in use. See https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/TEMP-17

• TCR board has been created:  https://folio-org.atlassian.net/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=236&quickFilter=1532

• Lotus deadline clarification from @Oleksii Petrenko - it seems we have until Dec 17, 2021 to complete evaluations for Lotus.  Was previously thought to be Dec 3, 2021 

Still some confusion on process, but Craig is sorting out with Oleksii.

Quick update from the cross-council group for defining the end-to-end process? 

• No update yet, still organizing. Probably a few weeks before the first meeting.

• Related: PC is sort of facing the same issue(s) that caused delay for TC .

5-10 min

TCR Board Review

All

Any new submissions?

• First submission has been received!

• mod-inventory-update : need volunteer to review, UPDATE: @Mikhail Fokanov has volunteered!

• Possibly recruit a team of potential volunteers, but need a solution for now.

  • TC will reach out to @Jeremy Huff to see if available, will reach out to others if not.

• PC still getting accustomed to process, and need better visibility on the development side.

5-10 min

WOLFcon

@Philip Robinson 

There’s a request for councils and SIGs to provide high-level WOLFCon topics and list them at FOLIO at WOLFcon 2022  by December 1. This will be a topic at our next TC meeting. Please think about some session topics to prep for the discussion next week. Thanks!

Ideas:

• Architectural blueprint and intersection with deployment

• Technical Debt regroup

Thought is 120 min. sessions with break in middle.

Need to get on schedule for space allocations. Please raise additional topics on Slack.

20 min (Depending on attendance)

Technical Decision Making Process

@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

• 2021-10-27 Meeting notes

• 2021-11-03 Meeting notes

For Today:

• We had homework to review @Jakub Skoczen's document and provide feedback/questions/comments.

  • Does the RFC proposal meet the purpose outlined here in this document?

  • Are there other proposals for a decision making process (maybe that borrow parts of the RFC process)?

• Last time discussed:  "need some feedback, will come back next week".  Skipped last week due to low attendance.

Postponing, need more feedback on document.

20 min

(Depending on attendance)

Participation and Attendance Expectations

All

• Low attendance/participation from some members is becoming concerning - it's probably worth aligning on expectations.  

• Use of proxies?

• How to handle low attendance

  • Cancel the meeting?

  • Still meet and make progress on things that don't require decisions to be made, e.g. review proposals and provide feedback, at least go through the usual updates

• ...

Discussion:

• Strong preferences for not cancelling meetings.

• Comments in favor of leaning on proxies, but not too much.

  • Some projects (e.g. NPM) have minimal requirements for attendance, not clear we want to formalize this.

• Need more participation outside of meeting, there is more to be done than 1 hour per week in meeting.

• How to set expectations about participation?

  • Probably best to set vague expectations to promote useful participation.

  • Examples of participation might be useful

  • Setting metrics is probably neither practical nor has the right tone.

• Baseline

  • Encouragement at all meetings is encouraged, and if cannot make a meeting send a proxy

  • Happy to use half-plus-one to make decisions, and lean on lazy consensus unless there is a call for a vote

  • Homework!

• Ideas for broad  expectations:

  • Keep tracking working groups that we spin up or champions for initiatives and use that to help load-balance across TC. See Folio Architectural Blueprint Strategic Changes

Time permitting

• Another meeting rules thing: should we have a formal policy/discussion about attendance, discussion, and decision making when attendance is low/less than half?