| 10-15 min | Technical Council Sub Groups Updates | |
- 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.
- Radhakrishnan 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.
- Radhakrishnan 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.
- Radhakrishnan 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
- okapi: separate concerns of discovery and acting as a gateway
- dependency management is a major pain point
- 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.
- goal: have an architectural vision by WOLFCon, maybe even having concrete proposals to present to community
- 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: Radhakrishnan 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.
|