2022-01-12 Meeting notes

Jakub Skoczen is next followed by Raman Auramau 

Zak Burke will create a Slack channel to reach out to the Translation app devs regarding the TC review

• No new items for TC review

Craig McNally

Tod Olson 

Marc Johnson Jakub Skoczen 

Quick update from the sub-group?

• No updates, the meeting needs to be resurrected for 2022

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

• The group has not met in 2022, Kristen Martin is working on writing up the proposal from the last meeting (before Christmas). The group will meet again on Friday.

Mike Gorrell 

Steffen Köhler 

Update on the formation of working group?

Mike Gorrell and Steffen Köhler will check back in about LTS.

• No updates.

Tentative plans for the next quarterly community update to be held on 11 Feb 2022 

We should start thinking about the TC update... What have we accomplished, what are our goals for Q1 2022?  Longer term goals worth mentioning?

Also, any ideas for a "main topic"?  For reference, the main topic of the last update was:  How dev resources (devs/POs) were leaving the project without being replaced.  The net result being orphaned modules.  Teams like Prokopovych were forced to bear the extra burden and pick up the slack.

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

Previous notes from 2022-01-05 Meeting notes:

Proposal

When creating a subgroup:

• • • Establish a rough charter for outcomes
    • Set some expectation for how often to meet
    • Set a time on the calendar to review progress
    • Record these expectations on Technical Council Sub Groups, with additional columns for details
    • If the TC cannot lay out these expectations, we do not form the subgroup until we have more clear expectations

Outcome

Trying above process with Technical Evaluation Process Subgroup. No volunteers to lead, interested parties have conflicts. Will revisit next week.

• mod-ldp and ui-ldp should be re-evaluated for meeting all acceptance criteria as the initial approval was preliminary – it's not clear who should request the re-evaluation, the TC or the team
• Jeremy Huff will reach out to Charlotte Whitt to establish re-evaluation of mod-ldp and ui-ldp for Lotus

Continue working through this...

Previous notes from 2021-12-22 Meeting 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?
• Tod Olson summarized the comments / input from TC members to date. Some of the dates needed to be pushed ahead as "near-term", "long-term" etc mean something different now than they meant when the document was drafted.
  • In some instances, the commenters felt that certain objectives were really under the control of the service providers rather than the TC (dependencies on hosting environments and such). In such cases, Mike Gorrell and Ian Walls believe we might want to remove those objectives.
  • Zak Burke proposed that the TC could structure some of the minimal performance requirements, while also ensuring that performance is a priority of the developers and tech architects (preventing things like memory leaks etc)
  • VBar asked whether the bullet in question (#6) was really a performance requirement.
  • Jakub Skoczen sees this as belonging to the realm of SLA terms. The TC should not have a defining role on point 6.
  • VBar indicated we should be able to provide performance metrics within the project.
  • Marc Johnson believes that the TC needs to clarify and agree on concepts like performance / stability requirements first before moving forward with this document. Also, for today, we're just trying to figure out which Council should own #6 and whether it should be the TC.
  • Ingolf Kuss offered to take this point to the SysOps SIG for discussion - to help define the requirements and report them back to the TC.
  • Craig McNally recommended that we first note the topics in the document that we agree on, then focus in later meetings on the topics in the document that need additional discussion. 
  • Tod Olson noted that the PC and TC would have input on FOLIO "roadmaps," just need to specify which roadmaps - a technical one vs a "shared roadmap"?

Discussion:

• Discussion around whether the goals and objectives are commitments for the TC and how should they be prioritised along with other tasks the TC participates in
• It's not clear if a commitment is needed
• Jakub Skoczen categorising objectives into short/mid/long term indicates certain level of commitment from the TC to complete them, it's not clear how would these items be aligned with other work the TC is involved in
• Craig McNally should the objectives from the document be distilled in to priorities/work items for the TC to make them actionable?
• Craig McNally we can turn the goals/objectives into a prioritised list and work our way through them rather than commit to a specific timeline
• Tod Olson short/mid/long term categorisation can be still useful to establish priorities

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: 

• 2021-10-13 Meeting notes
• 2021-10-20 Meeting notes
• 2021-10-27 Meeting notes
• 2021-11-03 Meeting notes
• 2021-12-08 Meeting notes

For Today:

Any updates on these two things from before the break?