2022-05-04 Meeting notes

Tod Olson is next in line, followed by Philip Robinson 

Zak Burke To be completed next week

All

• TCR-7 - Getting issue details... STATUS : minor issues, some technicalities, not ready for vote yet
• TCR-9 - Getting issue details... STATUS : still pending, waiting to finish review of RFC for back-end translation, then tackle the review

All

• New Module evaluation:
  • Craig McNally drawing up a list of approved technologies for TC review, will update language,
  • Jeremy Huff identified some non-technical criteria which should move
  • Still chipping away, missed target end-date, but close to wrapping up
• Technical Evaluation subgroup: no updates
• Translation Subgroup: no update
• FOLIO Scope Criteria: group has come back to original scope, reviewing draft of process that Kristin Martin  has put together documents describing a process, expect that this will go out to other councils within a month.
• TC Goals & Objectives: reaching out about technical pain points
• Controlling AWS costs: first meeting scheduled for Friday. Currently just two people, could use help. Please reach out to Peter Murray or Mark Veksler 
• Technical Documentation

Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan/All

See RFC process adjustments here:  RFC Process

Goal:  move the RFC out of the "Preliminary Review" stage.

• TC votes swiftly on whether there is any merit to the RFC

Notes: revised language, have questions to resolve about use of ICU format for values, Julian Ladisch is investigating alternatives. This is an implicit question about what is in-scope and out-of-scope for this RFC

Decision: This RFC is now in  Draft Review.

From Mike Gorrell :

Simeon Warner and Harry Kaplanian are running this year’s elections for all councils. Please let them know if anyone from PC or TC wants to help out. Also, they ask that you let them know whether you want to change description/qualifications from last year as well as confirm how many seats will be open (should be 5 for each council but not sure whether anyone has/is stepping down).Reminder that 6 seats on the TC/PC were supposed to be 2 year terms, and 5 seats were supposed to be 1 year terms - those 5 seats are the ones open for election this year. The announcement/request for candidates should go out May 9th. Our timetable is:

1. Call for Nominees May 9, 2022
2. Nominees due/finalized May 20, 2022
3. Voting opens May 30, 2022
4. Voting ends June 17, 2022
5. Results announce June 20, 2022
6. New Councils formed/start July 1, 2022

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

Tentative date:  May 27

TC needs to start preparing their update:  Accomplishments in Q1 2022, Goals/plan for Q2 2022

Craig McNally will present at next community update

Today:

• Any ideas for topics?

Philip Robinson / All 

• WOLFcon Registration is OPEN! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/wolfcon-2022-registration-298014518447
• Anything other updates or things need to discuss?

Tod Olson

Marc Johnson  

Kafka has been a part of FOLIO for some time now, and is used by several (~15-18) modules.  However, to the best of my knowledge has never received formal acceptance as part of the FOLIO infrastructure.  As we make progress with the Localization RFC and iron out wrinkles in the RFC process, maybe we should start thinking about creating an RFC to make Kafka an officially approved FOLIO technology.  This will put the improved process through it's paces, and seems to be an easy win for the TC – It would be great if we could say something like: "Not only are we putting processes in place, but we've also started making some technical decisions." at the next community update.

• Do we agree this is the right approach, and worthwhile?
  • This is a retro-active RFC, codifying a decision that we have already made.
  • There seem to be conflicting uses of Kafka, need to define conventions for the messages that are passed around in Kafka
  • Why not just making an agreement in TC notes that Kafka is part of FOLIO?
    • Decisions documented only in the TC notes are buried, hard to find.
    • RFC process makes for a central place for recording decisions and provide documentation over the longer term.
    • Could use ADRs (Architectural decision record) for documenting decisions, would make it easy to document decisions that do not require the whole RFC process. Installing that would probably delay the Kafka process while we define an ADR process. (See Documenting Design Decisions using RFCs and ADRs, Documenting Architecture Decisions)
    • Much discussion about how much overhead for a decision that seems to have been made. But also a strong desire to have one place to look for decisions so we have one complete record somewhere.
    • Leaning towards ADR, will need two distinct tasks
      • someone to lay out process, propose a place to live, design templates.
      • a pilot for the process, Kafka is probably a good candidate
• Any volunteers to write this up?  
  • Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan and Marc Johnson 
  • Proposal (Marc Johnson) : keep it out of the technical decision process. The RFCs are to facilitate the act of making a decisions, ADRs are for recording the decisions; ADR may or may not require the RFC process, but if an RFC is needed they should be linked.

Mark Veksler