2022-05-11 Meeting notes

Jakub Skoczen is next in line, followed by Raman Auramau (Philip Robinson was skipped but will be scribe next week)

Update from Zak Burke (can you please update the status, I missed what was it for your outstanding task)

All

All

• New module tech eval: Jeremy and Craig did not meet last week (New Module Tech eval)
• Technical Eval process subgroup: no updates
• TC Goals and objectives (Tod): continue to solicit feedback from developers and devops, plan is to streamline the document and prioritise the pain points. 
• Translations: no updates
• FOLIO Scope criteria: the group has shrunk the scope and the plan is to have something ready within the next couple of weeks
• Controlling AWS host – new member Steffen Köhler 
• Technical documentation – Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan Marcia is reviewing provided content

Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan/All

RFC process adjustments here:  RFC Process

• Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan needs to reach out to Julian Ladisch regarding ICU i18n
• Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan Question about thoughts on the layout for the RFC
• Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan let's have a separate PR for distinct stages of the RFC
• Marc Johnson we should get a second RFC to address the remaining issues, we didn't do scope questions
• Zak Burke no other standard for string i18n besides ICU seems to be out there, let's not waste time on researching this
• Marc Johnson I thought we agreed that the first RFC will be internal to the TC to get an understanding of the process
• Craig McNally too late, there are comments from non-TC members to effectively this a public RFC at this point
• Jeremy Huff might be a good idea to identify specific people as reviewers when the RFC is created
• Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnanthe group behind the RFC should understand who should be asked for feedback, it doesn't matter if it's internal/external as only folks interested in the discussion will comment on the PR
• Marc Johnson concern that there's little awareness, folks interested in leaving feedback may not be aware of the RFC. How can we help people become aware of this process?

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

Craig McNally has started a thread in the #tc-internal channel, if you have feedback please post it there

Today:

• Any ideas for topics?

Tod Olson

Marc Johnson  

PC: No update, PC did not meet last week.

• Tod Olson mentioned the "pain points" work, PC is interested and it may help to get some of the pp addressed
• Note: Tod out next week, can someone attend?
• Owen Stephens there's a report from Marshall Breeding with support from EL

  • Open Systems in the age of Library Services Platforms: Meeting expectations for interoperability and extensibility

• Technical Eval process: no updates

CC: 

• AWS costs taking most of the budget which leaves no budget for developers

Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan / Marc Johnson 

• 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.

Today:Decision Records

• Proposing ADRs with naming conventions
• preserve decision history including decisions that have been revised/made obsolete
• Proposal to do this in Confluence (alternate would be Github)
  • where are they most findable. Github is closer to where developers work, wiki is easier to search.
• When an ADR is related to an RFC, would link to RFC. RFC is the process, ADR is the result.
• Feedback desired!