Historical Sub Groups

Group NamePurposeDate StartedDate ConcludedOwnerMembersSlackDeliverables 
DRAFT REFINEMENT: 0005-application-formalization.md
  Craig McNally 

Tod Olson 

Ingolf Kuss 

Craig McNally 

VBar 

Jeremy Huff (question)



DRAFT REFINEMENT: Distributed vs Centralized Configuration RFC
  • An RFC is created and taken through at the DRAFT REFINEMENT stage.
  • Eventually, a DR is created
  Florian Gleixner 

Mike Taylor 

Julian Ladisch 

Olamide Kolawole 



DRAFT REFINEMENT:  Go Programming Language
  Jakub Skoczen

Jeremy Huff

Matt Weaver

Ingolf Kuss

Mike Taylor

Julian Ladisch



Improve the TCR Process
  1. Gather thoughts on areas that can be improved
    1. Via a retrospective
    2. Ensure that multiple perspectives are included, submitters and reviewers
  2. Align the template and the acceptance criteria
  3. Make clarifications to the process and acceptance criteria
  4. Ensure the rationale behind the TCR process has been effectively communicated
  5. Investigate:
    1. Is the criteria too exclusive?
    2. Is the process, either in design or implementation, transparent and communicative enough?
    3. Does this process allow for communication with all appropriate stakeholders?
    4. Is the process sufficiently collaborative? Is it too oppositional?

Deliverables:

  • Updated process documentation
  • Updated acceptance criteria
  • Updated review template

 

 

Jeremy Huff Zak Burke Craig McNally Florian Gleixner Jenn Colt Marc Johnson #module-tech-eval-subgroup
Breaking Changes

Goals:

  • Clarify what constitutes a "breaking change"
    • At the module level
    • At the interface level
    • etc.
  • Clarify if breaking changes can be "batched" into a single version bump.
  • Figure out how operational changes and breaking changes are communicated... via semver?  release notes?  both?  something else?

Deliverables:

  • RFC
  • ADR

 

 

#tc-breaking-changes
Technical Evaluation Process Subgroup

Come up with one ore more proposals for a technical evaluation process and bring these proposals to the TC for review.  They may borrow parts of the RFC process, etc.

Here's a document outlining what the process is trying to achieve: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UIahG77mreqTnnBN09Zpso5h4v2ZZxAOpgIZgqqqQOo/edit?usp=sharing

See 2022-01-05 Meeting notes and previous meeting notes for additional context.

 

 

NA

Evaluation Process
Application Technical Evaluation  Subgroup

To draft acceptance criterion and define the technical evaluation process for FOLIO applications 

2021-08-25

(approx)

See New Module Technical Evaluations
LTS / Versioning Subgroup

 Mike Gorrell / Steffen Köhler  to organize a community stance relative to the first LTS. Results of our effort were documented in product council Product Council Minutes:

LTR document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Un5OlutEh7M2p3AzxE8g20NmdeEhrC0KCNkfd_QLkRw/edit

FOLIO is not ready for a long-term release point because libraries are actively installing each new release to get needed functionality.  The recommendation of the task group was to revisit the decision at the end of calendar 2022.  The document linked above contains recommendations for PC to endorse regarding back-porting of functional and security fixes until a long-term release is established.

No objections from Product Council on adopting these recommendations.

 

January 27, 2022

See LTR document:

New Module Tech Evaluation (Revisions after last batch of evaluations)
  • Refine the Acceptance criteria based on the feedback from retrospective (and other feedback)
  • Update language to be consistent.
  • Update tech eval. process to be clear about who should be creating the TCR issues.
  • Provide an update to the three councils on the state of these processes (once the previous goals are completed)

 

 

New Module Technical Evaluations

FOLIO Scope Criteria (cross council)

Cross-council group for new module inclusion process

Whilst this group is not a sub-group of the TC, it is here to remind us to talk about it during the regular TC meetings.

  • determine sustainable and trustworthy process to evaluate functional criteria for accepting new apps/modules into FOLIO
  • Should complement the technical criteria developed by TC
  • Define acceptance criteria for new code to be added:
    • Consistent with community goals
    • Provides desired functionality
    • Will be appropriately supported

See Product Council Sub Groups.

 

 

NAWOLFcon presentation (link TBD) which led to a lot of discussion and eventually the dissolution of the group.
Technical Documentation / New Developer Onboarding

Deliverables:

  • Decision on where the onboarding documentation lives (docs site, dev site, wiki, etc.)
  • A plan for keeping this up to date.

 

 

Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan NA
DR process improvements

Goals:

  • Review the action items identified during the ADR retrospective and make the necessary process improvements

Deliverables:

  • Updated documentation, templates, etc.

 

  

NA
  • Decision Records
  • Migrated decisions from DD space
  • Renamed ADR → DR
  • Improved / clarified process, template, organization of the decisions, etc.
Tech Council Charter Revisions

Goals:

  • Identify inaccuracies/discrepancies in the document as it currently stands (in particular in light of the Governance changes)
  • Identify gaps and/or improvements 

Deliverables:

  • Draft revision of the TC charter for review by the rest of the group

 

 

NAAn updated, TC charter with formal approval from CC
Kafka Partitions RFC

From: RFC Process

  • A subgroup is formed (must-have community/TC members who are experts in the area addressed by the RFC)
  • The subgroup works with the submitter to refine the RFC by providing feedback
  • The submitter will be responsible for resolving all the conversations in the PR
  • TC will review the draft when it is ready
  • Any member of the TC will merge the PR in its current state to advance the PR to the next stage after ensuring that all conversations have been marked as resolved
  • TC votes to advance the RFC to the next stage

 

 

NA

RFC moved to the next phase (Public Review)

Communication to the community that the RFC is ready for public review and feedback. 

See:  #public-review-rfc-kafka-partitions

Technical Council Goals/Objectives
  • Further refine the Technical Council Goals & Objectives - DRAFT document into a concise set of TC goals, initiatives, and objectives. 
  • Have the necessary discussions about the topics where questions were raised
  • Incorporate additional elements from the Architectural Blueprint, and other places

Deliverable:

  • Goals, objectives, and initiatives are captured on the wiki - broken down by short/mid/long, or by quarter, or ...?

 

 

Tod Olson NAFOLIO Project Technical Objectives & Initiatives 
Translations SubgroupDescribe an approach for back-end modules to handle translation of runtime values, i.e. values attached to UUIDs and persisted in storage. This may include evaluation of TCR-9, or an RFC describing that or approach or an alternative.

 

 

Zak Burke NA
Onboarding Documentation

Scope:

  • Gather feedback, e.g. from recently onboarded developers
  • Ask the Documentation SIG if they'd like to be involved

Deliverables:

  • Feedback is gathered and shared

 

 

Maccabee Levine 
NAhttps://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1682943495526129
Java 17 RFC

Scope:

  • Work with the submitter of the Java 17 RFC to refine and provide feedback

See https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/9/files

 

NANAThis subgroup was formed to shepherd the Java 17 RFC through completion.  However, the decision was made that the RFC process was too heavy weight for this.  Instead a discussion was held by the TC and a decision was made & recording in the decision log.  See DR-000034 - Java 17 Support
Controlling AWS Hosting CostsCreate and publish processes that bring visibility to the project's AWS costs, provide a mechanism for approving major changes to AWS usage, and eliminate unnecessary spending. See expected deliverables.

 

Reformed:   

 

#folio-aws-costsThe new AWS Costs Review Group and related processes including the AWS Environment Lifecycle
TCR Process Improvements - Fall 2023

Another iteration of TCR process improvements

  • Consider the items listed in recent TCRs under "TCR Process Improvements".
  • Consider other feedback provided by recent TCR submitters.
  • Consider process issues raised at TC meetings (hopefully in the minutes) during our recent TCR discussions.  This would include "meta-process" issues such as communication around the TCR process, timing issues, interaction with the RFC process, etc.
    • Scope includes the deeper issues raised during recent TCRs about the effectiveness of the current process, criteria for failure, etc.
  Maccabee Levine

Jenn Colt 

Craig McNally (part time)

Tod Olson (part time)

#folio-tc-tr-processUpdated the TCR process doc (Jan/Feb).  Got reference to contacting TC before development into the new release schedules.