2022-02-02 Meeting notes

Date

02 Feb 2022

Attendees

Craig McNally

Discussion items

Time	Item	Who	Notes
1 min	Scribe	All	Jeremy Huff is next, followed by Marc Johnson
5 min	Review outstanding action items	All	Jakub Skoczen to contact Peter Murray concerning a dev/sysops group to review Zak Burke met with Jeremy Huff and Philip Robinson
5-10 min	TCR Board Review	All Jeremy Huff Zak Burke	Jeremy Huff reviewed TCR-10 and TCR-11, both modules were approved Zak Burke no update on TCR-7
15-20 min	Technical Council Sub Groups Updates	All	Philip Robinson met with Chulin to reach out to POs. The goal is to gather participants and meet late this month. Zak Burke to fill in Translation Subgroup documentation Mike Gorrell LTS subgroup has closed, the outcome has been documented Marc Johnson Posed the question about the technical evaluation process subgroup: Is there overlap between Zak's subgroup and Chulins? Craig McNally says there is overlap, in that the module evaluation is one of the types of decisions that the TC will make, we should make sure that we are focusing on the goals expressed in the subcommittee. Tod Olson expressed similar confusion about the purpose of the two groups. Maccabee Levine, Chulin Meng 's proxy, expressed that Chulin Meng did not confine the goals of the subgroup to new module evaluation.
5-10 min	Hosted AWS environments	Jakub Skoczen	No update, to be discussed in the future. 2022-01-26 discussion Jeremy Huff open question is to whether this is really under TC's purview? TC Charter explicitly says "resourcing" is not our thing, so this feels like a bit of a gray area. Mike Gorrell but ... if not TC then who? By process of elimination, feels like TC is best suited to offer advice here. Jakub Skoczen we have also been asked to review requests for new envs. Feels like this could/should be handled by a dedicated group from devops/sysops. Maybe Peter Murray and OLF sysops group is in a place to offer good info here? Folks on TC don't look at the bills, so not the best-placed group to make decisions. Jeremy Huff we can describe usefulness of different envs, but leave decision to a group that actually deals with bills/funding. But we probably need a somewhat systematic way to keep these evals fresh so is not laborious every time we are asked for input. Tod Olson soliciting input from outside TC is likely crucial here. Jakub Skoczen to ask Peter Murray to help organize such a group. Update from Tod Olson / Jakub Skoczen ?
1 min	Quarterly Community Update	Jeremy Huff / Craig McNally	Review: Quarterly Community Update (Q4 2021) Jeremy Huff and Craig McNally to work on the slides and will share them with the TC via slack for review/feedback. Mike Gorrell to deliver slide deck to TC this week Jeremy Huff and Craig McNally to meet on this topic Friday Tod Olson mentioned that his product council regular updates notes would be a very useful
Check in on this next week. 09 Feb 2022	Council Goals/Objectives	All	Goal: continue working through this... 2022-01-26 discussion Jeremy Huff : lots of great insight in this document, but some open questions too. Where do we want this document to go? Tod Olson : 1. internally facing; this is our own strategizing/prioritizing. 2. externally facing, allows other councils to understand what we do so we can better-align our efforts. The community council originally tasked us with responding to the draft they provided. Mike Gorrell : no implied responsibility of TC to "reply", but wanted PC to and the larger community to have a sense of the TC's own goals. Jeremy Huff : end game for this doc is, in fact, to respond in order to establish expectations TC has for itself (its goals, its role in the broad context of FOLIO). Tod Olson : strip it down to TC-only items, explain discrepancies. This will take some time; possibly deliverable by 2022-02-09.
	Code Library Evaluation Process	ALL	This concerns a library Adam Dickmeiss created to abstract functionality for use in multiple modules. Mike Gorrell observes that this was done for the use of modules that already relied on this functionality, and the library will not need to be used by other modules in the future if that is not desired. Marc Johnson no libraries have been evaluated as to now because their creation predates the evaluation process. Do we want to evaluate libraries? Jeremy Huff feels we should evaluate modules (and possibly libraries) that preexisted our evaluation process. Craig McNally The rationale behind having the TC recommend a specific approach keeps us caring for antiquated stacks. Marc Johnson The language of "recommendation" is significant. Some people are using RMB due to difficulty in adopting Spring-Way Tod Olson Agrees that Self Evaluation is a good idea for existing modules, but not libraries Marc Johnson observes that everyone who has voiced an opinion said we do not wish to evaluate libraries and asked if the TC is ready to make that decision today VBar observes that the blanket statement that the TC does not evaluate libraries could lead to "mischief" Craig McNally We will implicitly evaluate a library in the context of its use in a module. He suggests that this is handled by the tech eval subgroup
Time Permitting	Meeting rules/policies	All	Craig McNally reviewed previous meeting notes, we have discussed many of these issues in the past (December 8th) Previous Notes: Another meeting rules thing: should we have a formal policy/discussion about attendance, discussion, and decision making when attendance is low/less than half? Do we even have formal TC policies?!? Zak Burke : don't make decisions, by vote or lazy consensus, with less than half the members present. Charlotte Whitt is there a general FOLIO policy about decision-making the TC can simply follow? Owen Stephens : there is documentation about making decisions; we should dust it off and enshrine it and make it easily accessible to people. Jeremy Huff : capture this beyond just mentioning it in meeting notes.

Action items

TBD: To review previous meeting notes to identify process decisions that have been made.