2022-06-22 Meeting notes
Date
Attendees
- Craig McNally
- Jeremy Huff
- Tod Olson
- Julian Ladisch
- Marc Johnson
- Olamide Kolawole
- Philip Robinson
- VBar
- Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan
- Zak Burke
- Mark Veksler
- Ian Walls
Discussion items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
1 min | Scribe | All | Jeremy Huff is next, followed by Marc Johnson Zak Burke took notes last week for Jeremy |
< 5 min | Review outstanding action items | All | No outstanding action items |
1 min | TCR Board Review | All | |
5 min | Technical Council Sub Groups Updates | All | Technical Evaluation Process Subgroup: Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan Technical Evaluation Process Subgroup had a retrospective, they will have an update next week Technical Council Goals/Objectives: Tod Olson Gathering pain points have been a blocker for Technical Council Goals/Objectives, hopes to have an update next week Translation Subgroup: Zak Burke Nothing to report on Translation Subgroup, Craig McNally asks how we can move this forward. Jeremy Huff suggests reaching out to the community to find a champion to take ownership of the subgroup. Tod Olson Urges that we make time for this, to ensure that FOLIO supports non-english speaking communities. Marc Johnson provided some context, stating that KnowledgeWare is building FOLIO in the Middle East. He points out that this has resulted in a different version of FOLIO running in these communities. Zak Burke we need to manage technical concerns of communities who have concerns that are specific to their use cases. Jeremy Huff maybe an RFC is the right option for this? FOIO Scope Criteria: Marc Johnson this group had a soft reset last week. Once their activity was presented to the CC and the PC it revealed that there was a lack of alignment in the goals for this group. They are discussing what their goals are currently. Mark Veksler there has been no movement of the AWS Hosting Costs SUBGroup Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan No updates on New Developer OnBoarding |
5-10 min | RFCs | All | Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan No updates |
20-25 min | Kafka - revisiting topics per tenant or shared topics | Introduction of the subject - brief presentation: bumped to 2022-06-22 [Presentation Attached to this page] Olamide Kolawole presented on the current state of Kafka in FOLIO and why we should reconsider it. Marc Johnson This is very important topic, but we need to be very careful to understand that this proposal is intended to address the limitations of pricing models of certain hosting providers, and not the limitations of Kafka. He also mentions that there are two separate topics, one is the scalability of our current approach and the other is the security of our current approach. These should be addressed separately. Olamide Kolawole points out that finite partitions is a limitation of kafka Jeremy Huff we should address the request that an RFCs is created for this, and that we need to decide if this should be one or two RFC. Craig McNally agreed that the scope needs to be carefully defined. Marc Johnson We choose to either solve the whole world and we get stuck, or we solve one thing and our solution is not globally efficient. When decisions are made it takes a long time to enact them. Some people have suggested that we make more iterative smaller decisions that can be enacted more quickly. If we are going to do an RFC let's separate the goal (reduce the number of partitions per tenant) and the proposed solution. Olamide Kolawole is happy to take ownership of an RFC on the scalability issue. | |
10-15 min | Tool/Dependency Versions | All | Notes from previous meetings:
Today: Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan this has been left up for review, there were couple of comments. He is not sure if this is enough feedback. We will leave it open for more feedback. |
5 min | Morning Glory and Kiwi support periods | Julian Ladisch | See DR-000003 - Morning Glory support period Previous Notes:
Today: Jeremy Huff Which versions are LTS should be decided by the PC and how we handle LTS should be handled by the TC Marc Johnson The individuals who originated the proposal should put together a cross council group to address this Zak Burke We should not make a decision that is specific to morning glory, but a general decision about LTS support Julian Ladisch The LTS topic will take longer to discuss, this ADR was intended to get a quicker decision for morning glory Zak Burke A longer and more generalizable discussion now will save us time in the future Marc Johnson Agrees that we should have a policy concerning security back ports, but this may be something which should be managed by the POs (Oleksii Petrenko) and not the security group. Tod Olson Whoever drives this forward should get in touch with those who wrote the LTS recommendation. Craig McNally asked Julian Ladisch if he would want to drive cross council discussion on LTS. Julian Ladisch said yes. |
Time permitting | ADRs and TC processes | All | There are differing viewpoints for how ADRs should be used...
It would probably be helpful reach agreement and provide clear guidance on these |