/
2021-12-15 Meeting notes

2021-12-15 Meeting notes

Dec 15, 2021

Date

Dec 15, 2021

Attendees

  • @Raman Auramau, @VBar, @Zak_Burke, @James Fuller, @Mike Gorrell, @Jeremy Huff, @Steffen Köhler, @Marc Johnson, @Craig McNally, @Chulin Meng, @Tod Olson, @Philip Robinson, @Owen Stephens, @Mark Veksler, @Ian Walls

Discussion items

Time

Item

Who

Notes

Time

Item

Who

Notes

1 min

Scribe

All

@Chulin Meng is the next in the list, followed by @Tod Olson 

5 min

Review outstanding action items

All

@Craig McNally: Created and shared retrospective board to review our process.

10-15 min

TCR Board Review

All

TCR-9: 

Should TC review this module? using current criteria? Yes, TC should review it.

Scope?: ensure the technical integrity of FOLIO (Jeremy), need to acknowledged we may adjust the criterias along the way.

Related: Process for TC to review and provide feedback high-impact changes to FOLIO?

Action: Craig/TC will craft a message to PC and developers later.

5-10 min

New Module Technical Evaluation

Previously: "External Code Submissions"

@Craig McNally

@Tod Olson 

@Marc Johnson 

Quick update from the sub-group? No update

Quick update from the cross-council group for defining the end-to-end process? No update

3 min

Council Goals/Objectives

All

Previous notes:

To review this in the meeting next week.

5-10 min

Log4shell

All

Placeholder... I'm assuming someone will want to discuss this.  If not, we can skip it.  Ideally any conversation has a clearly defined goal, and we can time box this. 

  • Who should communicate the needed changes/fixes

  • How do we (security team) response and provide guidance more promptly

  • Backporting security fixes, need to clarify LTS process : FOLIO Release Numbering Policy

  • Action: a sub-group to look at backporting approval process (steffen Kohler and Mike Gorrel to bring this to PC for discussion and decide the first LTS release)

5-10 min

Technical Decision Making Process

@Jeremy Huff 

@Zak_Burke 

This is a carry-over from previous weeks.

  • 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: 

For Today:

Any updates on these two things from last week?

  • @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

  • @Zak_Burke volunteered to identify categories of decisions the TC makes and suggest applicable processes

 

 

5-10 min

Participation and Attendance Expectations

All

@Jeremy Huff created a page to track working groups... Should we take a look together and see if anything should be added/adjusted?

  • Is there anything else we want to do for this topic?

  • Is it enough to ask those in sub groups to add them to the page?

Action: we should discuss at next meeting about appointing sub-groups when there are not enough volunteers.

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?

Action items