10-15 min | Technical Council Sub Groups Updates | All | New module tech eval: @Craig McNally and @Jeremy Huff continue to chip away at this. Looking at acceptance criteria found many criteria that should be backed by a wiki-page that describes the specific version requirements for specific FOLIO flower releases in order to be able to assess fitness of a given module at a given time. @Jeremy Huff also working to identify to criteria that are important but not explicitly technical. Will check in next week. Tech eval subgroup: @Chulin Meng : will work on getting i18n RFC ready to present to the TC next week. @Vijay Gopalakrishnan : how operational does the RFC need to be? e.g. there are jillions of i18n-related Jira tickets. @Craig McNally : want to separate decision from implementation; don't think we need a UXPROD to have an RFC. @Marc Johnson : link RFCs and UXPRODs if possible, but should not be a requirement, otherwise we're saying TC can only discuss things that are have already been decided. It would take tons of stuff off the table. @Jeremy Huff : module eval process, esp if it applies to existing modules, gives us an avenue to push on direction of development.
@Vijay Gopalakrishnan : trying to winnow UXPRODs into the RFC; what level of detail is necessary? @Marc Johnson this feels a bit upside down; given we have already made a decision about server-side i18n and this was going to be a pilot, then we're no longer using the RFC to gauge feedback. To me, RFC is a policy decision: e.g. here this should describe behaviour but not necessarily implementation. Discussion of tradeoffs could be valuable. @Vijay Gopalakrishnan : that would mean this particular RFC should be limited to "respect the HTTP request's accept-language header" @Marc Johnson : yep @Craig McNally : discussion of tradeoffs, design notes, etc are valuable here. Devil is in the details: shouldn't be too high-level, shouldn't get lost in the details. @Jeremy Huff : RFC is a PR, so this can be iterative. @Craig McNally : let's send this back to the subgroup to grapple with this
TC goals and objectives: @Tod Olson : seems hard to look out further than 12 mos at present. Current goals: publish tech roadmap publish architectural blueprint there is a feeling that some tech decisions really need to be made WRT tech debt management ongoing conversations with @Jeremy Huff , @VBar . 12-month goal: articulate frustrations (including above), discuss with folks in tech-lead rolls to identify/articulate other concerns and how to address them; this becomes a driver to describe what we want to do over the next year. @Jeremy Huff : level of detail for any given goal needs to be sufficient for spinning up a subgroup. don't want to get into nitty-gritty here. Lots of priorities; gotta rank 'em and figure out what is actionable in a given timeframe. @Craig McNally : can this group start that prioritization and bring it back to the full TC for feedback? @Ingolf Kuss : include me in this subgroup please, and be sure to solicit feedback from sys-ops. Maybe try to get a short-list of priorities? @Tod Olson : so, we have a process goal to generate this list. @Craig McNally : reviewing the subgroup's charge: wiki page refines the goals; discussions are ongoing; incorporation of arch-blueprint is less clear. @Tod Olson has become clear we need to update the blueprint @Jeremy Huff navigating relationship between blueprint and goals has been challenging @Tod Olson blue print is old-ish now; needs to be revisited to make sure it is still the right blueprint @Jeremy Huff subgroup should facilitate discussions with stakeholders to assess their priorities, pain-points in order to assess the community's feeling WRT tech debt
@Tod Olson : want to facilitate discussions to make sure we have buy-in on these goals
i18n: @Zak_Burke : no progress thus no update FOLIO scope/cross-council: no progress expected before end of April controlling AWS hosting: @Peter Murray : haven't completed a draft of the charge yet; will aim to post a draft to Slack this week. @Craig McNally : note to all: would be really helpful to have end dates/accurate check-in dates for these groups! tech doc: @Vijay Gopalakrishnan : no great traction so far; posted to Slack#documentation-wg @Marc Johnson : during the release window (which we are in at present) many of folks have basically no spare time. Many: yep.
|