Historical Sub Groups

Group Name	Purpose	Date Started	Date Concluded	Owner	Members	Slack	Deliverables

Group Name	Purpose	Date Started	Date Concluded	Owner	Members	Slack	Deliverables
Static Code Analysis	Review the current sonar cloud settings Propose a general set of guidelines for static code analysis that is platform agnostic Propose edits to our current documentation concerning static code analysis to make it less sonar cloud centric	May 13, 2024	Mar 10, 2025	@Ingolf Kuss	@Ingolf Kuss @Julian Ladisch @Jeremy Huff @Ankita Sen		Note: suspended
Developer Documentation	Review Current Developer Documentation Make a proposal to the TC for the consolidation, editing, removing and addition of developer documentation Oversee Developer Advocate's implementation of proposed changes with particular emphasis on documentation used to onboard new developers Develop procedures for continued maintenance of the developer documentation.	May 13, 2024	Mar 10, 2025	@Jeremy Huff	@Patrick Pace (Unlicensed) @Jenn Colt @Maccabee Levine		Note: suspended
Reference Data Upgrades	TBD	TBD	Mar 10, 2025	? @Ingolf Kuss ?	TBD		Note suspended, not started. See: Improved Handling of Reference Data During Upgrades
Developer Documentation		Dec 11, 2023	Mar 18, 2024	@Craig McNally	@Tod Olson @Ingolf Kuss @Craig McNally @VBar @Jeremy Huff
Reference Data Upgrades	An RFC is created and taken through at the DRAFT REFINEMENT stage. Eventually, a DR is created	Dec 7, 2022	Mar 18, 2024	@Florian Gleixner	@Mike Taylor @Julian Ladisch @Olamide Kolawole
DRAFT REFINEMENT: Go Programming Language		Feb 5, 2024	Mar 18, 2024	@Jakub Skoczen	@Jeremy Huff @Matt Weaver @Ingolf Kuss @Mike Taylor @Julian Ladisch
Improve the TCR Process	Gather thoughts on areas that can be improved Via a retrospective Ensure that multiple perspectives are included, submitters and reviewers Align the template and the acceptance criteria Make clarifications to the process and acceptance criteria Ensure the rationale behind the TCR process has been effectively communicated Investigate: Is the criteria too exclusive? Is the process, either in design or implementation, transparent and communicative enough? Does this process allow for communication with all appropriate stakeholders? Is the process sufficiently collaborative? Is it too oppositional? Deliverables: Updated process documentation Updated acceptance criteria Updated review template	Oct 12, 2022	Jul 19, 2023	@Jeremy Huff	@Zak_Burke @Craig McNally @Florian Gleixner @Jenn Colt @Marc Johnson	#module-tech-eval-subgroup	Processes Documentation Update Criteria Updates Process Update Video
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	Jul 20, 2022	Jul 26, 2023	@Jeremy Huff	@Marc Johnson @Jeremy Huff @Jakub Skoczen @Maccabee Levine @Zak_Burke @Ankita Sen	#tc-breaking-changes	0003-folio-breaking-changes rfc DR-000036 - 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.	Jan 26, 2022	Jul 6, 2022	@Chulin Meng	@Philip Robinson @Charlotte Whitt @Vijay Gopalakrishnan@Magda Zacharska @Raman Auramau	NA	Evaluation Process
Application Technical Evaluation Subgroup	To draft acceptance criterion and define the technical evaluation process for FOLIO applications	2021-08-25	Dec 31, 2021 (approx)	@Ian Walls / @Craig McNally	@Anton Emelianov (Deactivated) @Craig McNally @Ian Walls @Jakub Skoczen @Jeremy Huff @Marc Johnson @Raman Auramau @Zak_Burke	#module-tech-eval-subgroup	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.	Jan 24, 2022	January 27, 2022		@Mike Gorrell , @Hkaplanian , @kristin.olofsson , @Steffen Köhler		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)	Jan 26, 2022	Jun 15, 2022	@Craig McNally	@Jeremy Huff	New Module Technical Evaluations	Officially Supported Technologies https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/blob/master/MODULE_ACCEPTANCE_CRITERIA.MD (updated) https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/blob/master/NEW_MODULE_TECH_EVAL.MD (updated)
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.	Dec 10, 2021	Sep 21, 2022	@Kristin Martin	@Anton Emelianov (Deactivated) @Hkaplanian @Ian Ibbotson (Use this one) @Marc Johnson @Kirstin Kemner-Heek @Tod Olson	NA	WOLFcon 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.	Mar 16, 2022	Oct 5, 2022	@Vijay Gopalakrishnan	@Vijay Gopalakrishnan @Ian Walls @Maccabee Levine	NA	FOLIO - Developer Onboarding Index The plan for keeping the document up-to-date is to review the page on a periodic basis (frequency TBD)
DR process improvements	Goals: Review the action items identified during the ADR retrospective and make the necessary process improvements Deliverables: Updated documentation, templates, etc.	Nov 2, 2022	Feb 22, 2023	@Vijay Gopalakrishnan	@Craig McNally	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	Oct 26, 2022	Mar 1, 2023	@Jenn Colt	@Jeremy Huff @Craig McNally @Vijay Gopalakrishnan@Maccabee Levine	NA	An 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	Jan 18, 2023	Mar 15, 2023	@Florian Gleixner	@Olamide Kolawole @Jenn Colt @Julian Ladisch	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 ...?	Feb 16, 2022	Mar 8, 2023	@Tod Olson	@Vijay Gopalakrishnan @Jeremy Huff @Ingolf Kuss	NA	FOLIO Project Technical Objectives & Initiatives
Translations Subgroup	Describe 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.	Aug 3, 2022	Mar 22, 2023	@Zak_Burke	@Peter Murray @Julian Ladisch @Marc Johnson	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	Apr 5, 2023	May 10, 2023	@Maccabee Levine