2021-12-08 Meeting notes

1 min

Scribe

All

@Steffen Köhler is the next in the list, followed by @Chulin Meng 

5 min

Review outstanding action items

All

@Zak Burke no progress on "identify categories of decisions the TC makes and suggest applicable processes"

3 min

Dec 29th Meeting

All

Given vacations/holidays, should we just cancel the meeting on Dec. 29th?

10-15 min

TCR Board Review

All

• 2 new Submissions

  • both incomplete, both about multiple modules (package deal), postponed yet

• @Zak Burke therefore TCRs should be split, each per module

• @Owen Stephens , @Marc Johnson , @VBar mention a timing issue with these process

10-15 min

mod-inventory-update Evaluation Review

@Mikhail Fokanov All

I hear that the evaluation is completed, to be presented by @Mikhail Fokanov 

• evaluation results are stored in tech-councils git-repository

  • missing integration-tests written in karate (unacceptable)

• moreover some comments about this module

  • could be integrated in another backend module...

in addtion proposals for evaluation process in general (see comments on TCR-5 on issues.folio.org) :

• new stage "architectural fit" after the technical evaluation

• check for module doing the same thing / avoid duplication

• check, whether the functionality should be implemented inside one of existing module

• check for data consistency issues

Discussion:

@Owen Stephens , @Marc Johnson , ... 

• some points (duplication checks) in responsibility of other councils (product council)

• has mod-inventory-update functionality that are better served elsewhere?

• special use case for libraries not using source record storage, so now (@Charlotte Whitt )

• @Marc Johnson Should we decide according to our guide line which has been developed during the review of the ldp?

  • So the conclusion for today should be "Failed, because of the missing karate tests"

• @Jakub Skoczen indicates that the tests must be in karate if they exist, needs to be cleared

Vote about this: 6 yes, accepted

5-10 min

New Module Technical Evaluation

Previously: "External Code Submissions"

@Craig McNally

@Tod Olson 

@Marc Johnson 

Quick update from the sub-group?

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

3 min

Council Goals/Objectives

All

Previous notes:

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

• Has everyone (anyone) had a chance to review this yet?

20 min (Time permitting & 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.

@Jeremy Huff  asked which decisions would be covered by this topic? @Craig McNally agreed that a policy on which decisions fit into this process is an important part of this topic.

@Jeremy Huff suggested that we form a working group to define more detail around this topic. @Craig McNally  agreed that was a good idea or alternatively, we need other proposals

@Tod Olson stated that he felt the RFC process is a good fit for our needs.

@Zak Burke suggested it would be good to have a workflow for what kinds of decisions need which decision making process and guidelines for expectations around our decisions. @Craig McNally agreed, and acknowledged that one of the challenges with each process is deciding on it's applicability

 @Zak Burke volunteered to identify categories of decisions the TC makes and suggest applicable processes

20 min

(Time permitting and 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

See 2021-12-01 Meeting notes for additional details.

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?