2022-01-12 Meeting notes

1 min

Scribe

All

@Jakub Skoczen is next followed by @Raman Auramau 

5 min

Review outstanding action items

All

@Zak_Burke will create a Slack channel to reach out to the Translation app devs regarding the TC review

5 min

TCR Board Review

All

• No new items for TC review

< 5 min

New Module Technical Evaluation

Previously: "External Code Submissions"

@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.

< 5 min

LTS & Versioning

@Mike Gorrell 

@Steffen Köhler 

Update on the formation of working group?

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

• No updates.

5-10 min

Quarterly Community Update

All

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

• @Jakub Skoczen will create a wiki page (a scratch space) for capturing thoughts from the TC members. The homework for the members it populate it for next week's meeting.

• Scratch page: Quarterly Community Update (Q4 2021)

???

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?

Previous notes from 2022-01-05 Meeting notes:

When creating a subgroup:

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

For today: let's take a look at the wiki page and try to fill in some of the gaps.

Reviewed:

• @Zak_Burke will be forming a group for translations.

• @Craig McNally Technical Evaluation Group has run its course, should we review the outcomes and decide on potential future tasks?

• @Jeremy Huff has created a "historical groups" page, groups that completed their work should be moved to that page

New modules

• 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

???

Council Goals/Objectives

All

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

???

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: 

• 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?

• @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

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?