2022-12-21 Meeting notes

1 min

Scribe

All

@Jakub Skoczen is next, followed by @Raman Auramau 

@Marc Johnson to capture notes post-meeting via recording.  Thanks Marc!

10 min

TCR Board Review

All

Reminder:  27th January is the Deadline for acceptance of new modules by Technical Council

• https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/TCR-21 (Submitted)

• https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/TCR-22 (Draft)

• https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/TCR-23 (Draft)

@Craig McNally asked if the PC evaluation of mod-entities-links (TCR-21) used the new evaluation process?

@Marc Johnson advised that it did not because this was considered approved (despite not existing at the time) as part of the MARC authorities work that had been discussed some time ago

@Craig McNally  stated that the self evaluation did not tick module is internationalized  criterion, however that could be ok given it is a back-end module.
@Marc Johnson suggested that we add the internationalization topic to the scope of the working group, because since that criteria was defined, we have agreed that back end modules should translate error messages
@Craig McNally added a note for the sub-group to consider this topic
@Vijay Gopalakrishnan volunteered to conduct the review. The TC agreed that him working with the Spitfire team was not considered a conflict of interest. @Maccabee Levine volunteered to shadow this evaluation to learn the process

@Craig McNally stated that we would evaluate shared libraries (e.g. S3 client used in mod-bulk-operations) during the evaluation of a module

@Marc Johnson expressed that typically evaluators do not evaluate shared libraries e.g. RMB or spring base, during the review of a new module

@Craig McNally suggested that opens the door for folks putting the majority of code into a library to avoid some aspects being reviewed. @Marc Johnson agreed with this concern. @Zak_Burke asked why we would consider a shared library any differently to modules? @Craig McNally acknowledged that the current process is not explicit about this and shared a concern that much of the criteria might not apply to a shared library.
@Marc Johnson suggested that thought he recalled we decided not to evaluate new libraries when the topic of folio-vertx-lib came up previously
@Craig McNally added a note for the sub-group to consider this topic

10-20 min

RFCs

All

New RFC to review from Olamide

• https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/4

@Craig McNally advised that this RFC could now enter the preliminary review phase

@Vijay Gopalakrishnan suggested that the first step would be for TC members to start commenting on the RFC@Craig McNally will remind folk to start giving feedback

10-15 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates

All

@Marc Johnson advised that whilst @Ankita Sen works on the RFC defining breaking changes, the breaking changes group started discussing how to communicate those changes. This process will start with considering example situations where audiences for different changes might differ
@Marc Johnson advised that the TCR process group had started to categorise and evaluate the initial feedback we got from the retrospective and decide which feedback is most relevant
@Craig McNally advised that the charter group would be considering the feedback given by the TC and try to schedule the use of a Monday discussion session to continue the conversation
@Vijay Gopalakrishnan advised that the ADR process group has migrated most of the decision records. Revisions to the workflow are ongoing
@Vijay Gopalakrishnan and @Marc Johnson advised that the new working groups have not started yet
@Tod Olson volunteered to join the architecture working group once the the goals and objectives group wrapped up

TC Communication Channels

@Vijay Gopalakrishnan 

As part of the review of the ADR process, it was recognised that the communication mechanisms for the TC could be outdated.

@Craig McNally asked if folks are still using the discuss forums for communication? @Marc Johnson advised that it has low traffic and that the Community Council has an active proposal for deprecating discuss and potentially replacing it (and some uses of Slack) with a variety of (new) mailing lists
@Craig McNally noted that the TC mailing list had a request from a developer to join FOLIO. @Ingolf Kuss agreed to contact the developer, because their skills with SQL might mean they are well suited for the reporting area
@Craig McNally advised that discuss and the mailing list will be removed and slack will be added

5-10 min

Meeting Schedule / Holidays

@Craig McNally 

Dedicated Topic Discussions:
@Craig McNally advised that the first meeting went well

• Next two meeting (26th December and 2nd January) are cancelled. Next occurrence will be Monday 9th January

•  Topics:

  • Tools/Dependencies Versions (see previous notes for details)

  • Goals & Objectives (see previous notes for details)

  • Review proposed charter changes

Regular TC Meeting:

• Next week's meeting (Wednesday 28th December) is cancelled

*

Topic backlog

All

@Craig McNally asked if there is a need for the TC to continue with the reporting topic?

@Maccabee Levine advised that the first objective, to have a better understanding of the landscape had been achieved, and that folks agreed that we would not pro-actively get involved unless the solution proposed by the team is intended to be generalised.
@Tod Olson suggested we wait until the reporting need is surfaced by another party
@Tod Olson advised that the optimistic concurrency control topic could be removed from the backlog. @Craig McNally removed it

20 min

WOLFcon Hot Topics

All

An overview was provided of the "hot topics" at WOLFcon.  It seems clear that the TC ought to be involved in these discussions/efforts;  what is the best way to participate?

• Platform minimal

• Applications/bounded contexts & application management

• Blue/green deployments

• Kafka/messaging improvements

• FOLIO governance

• API technical debt

• ???

Notes: Deferred

Cyber Resilience Act

@Craig McNally /All

From @Craig McNally in #tech-council:

This was brought to my attention earlier today...
https://blog.nlnetlabs.nl/open-source-software-vs-the-cyber-resilience-act/
While it's still just a proposal, I think FOLIO should keep an eye on, and maybe even try to get ahead of in anticipation of this.  I will add it to the agenda for next week's meeting.  This is a short read that does a decent job of laying it all out.  Please take a look prior to next Wednesday.  Thanks! 

• Have folks had a chance to read through any of this?

• What, if anything do we think the TC should do about this?

  • Raise awareness among other councils?

  • Seek legal advice in anticipation of this being passed?

  • Is there anything else we want to do to be more prepared for this in the event it does get passed?

Today: Deferred

Ease of Installing FOLIO

All / @Ian Walls 

From last week:

• Ease of installing/deploying FOLIO - @Ian Walls , @Marc Johnson , @Jeremy Huff

  •  Primary task the Tc would take on by making FOLIO easier to get up and running. Would also reduce AWS costs so that the money coming from Membership groups can be flowed to other aspects of FOLIO. Tc is the best equipped group to decide on how to make installing and deploying Folio easier and cheaper.

  • @Craig McNally - Brainstorming open ended session with @Ian Walls and then discuss further before or after WOLFcon depending on the brainstorming session. @Ian Walls and @Tod Olson to frame the topics of discussion for the brainstorming. 

Today:

• Probably defer, but keep on the agenda so we don't lose track of this...

Revisiting FOLIO Governance

All / @Ian Walls 

Slack discussion:  Revisiting FOLIO Governance