2022-06-15 Meeting notes

Jeremy Huff  is next, followed by Marc Johnson 

Zak Burke will take notes today

All

All

• Translations: Julian Ladisch will participate
• FOLIO Scope Criteria: Marc Johnson : feedback from CC is significant, could mean the group needs to significantly change its proposal. Meeting on Friday 2022-06-17. Were hoping for a quick delivery here, but there is not broad agreement about that. 
  • Discussion of App Store and what that means
  • CC: Qs about content of MOU WRT ownership of a module. Presently official FOLIO modules are owned by OLF; problem of abandonment of modules after donation to OLF. MOU may need clarification, may not be valuable, if ownership does/doesn't transfer since it's not a legally binding contract. 
  • Concentric circles module for diff't distributions of FOLIO: put forward as (1) short-term "deal with this now" process, and (2) long-term "how we really want things to work" process
• AWS: Peter Murray not present; no update from Mark Veksler 
• Developer onboarding: Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan planning to work with David Crossley but no plans yet

Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan/All

Almost complete. The language/country code mismatch of front-end and back-end needs to be addressed.

• Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan has no updates yet

Notes from previous meetings:

The question was raised in slack by Marc Johnson 

How do we make tool version decisions? I’m asking because FOLIO is currently on Java 11. I imagine it could be prudent to move to 17 (the next LTS) at some point, and it seems that the #stripes-architecture group made the decision to move the project from Node 14 to 16 recently.I don’t think there is an equivalent group for the back end. How do we envisage the project making these kinds of decisions?

Some feedback was given, but it's probably worth discussing as a group.

Should we form a sub-group to define policies/processes?

Julian Ladisch 

See DR-000002 - Tenant Id and Module Name Restrictions

• Marc Johnson documentation is split across places, which may be confusing. Tod Olson shares this concern; wants to see better integration possibly with more information in the ADR itself since the other page can change. Craig McNally true, but then the ADR becomes less of a concise record; it's a balance isn't it? 
• Jeremy Huff : note it is possible to link to a specific version of a wiki page (zb: just like linking to a git-commit instead of to /master/...)
• Marc Johnson notes we are formalizing an ADR to capture existing practice, not actually making a new decision
• Craig McNally any objects? There are none. This is accepted by lazy consensus.

Olamide Kolawole 

Introduction of the subject - brief presentation: bumped to 2022-06-22

See DR-000003 - Morning Glory support period

• Julian Ladisch : see background/context for the motivation. 
• Zak Burke : we should have an ADR for designated and LTS, but not one for Morning Glory in particular. Jeremy Huff , Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan , Mark Veksler : agree
• Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan : this amounts to a support policy; Tod Olson : yeah, and also intersects with support policy recommendation that has been made; does the TC really get to make this decision for MG? 
• Mark Veksler  : also looking for guidance from security group about when to do/not do security investigations ; LTS designation should be done by PC, not TC; there are cost implications. Guidance from PC was to revisit this in late 2022. 
• Julian Ladisch : security fixes need to be evaluated for criticality and how long they should be backported. Want a decision WRT how far back security issues should be backported?
• Mark Veksler we don't have an LTS now, but have "current and previous" guidance and should stick to that for now.
• Owen Stephens fixing security updates to a flower release, vs to the release of the component itself (stripes, raml, spring) seems awkward.
• Craig McNally : Put this to a vote next week? 
• Ingolf Kuss : what feedback are you looking for from sysops? Julian Ladisch endorsement, which can come via lazy consensus
• Craig McNally but is this our decision or the PC's? Marc Johnson but it's landed in our court for now. All: let's briefly discuss moving it forward next week. 
• Jeremy Huff : if not deciding about MG specifically, TC certainly can/should be involved in the general criteria for LTS designation.