| | | |
|---|
1 min | Scribe | All | @Tod Olson is next, followed by @Ankita Sen @Ankita Sen is taking notes today, followed by @Tod Olson |
15-25 min | TCR Board Review | All | N.B. Deadline for Poppy is May 19, 2023. TCRs submitted after May 3, 2023 (prior to the TC meeting) may not be completed in time. @Zak_Burke - Presenting TCR-25,
Relies on TCR-26, which has already been approved. More discussion needs to be followed before approval. Split Vote for approval. Meeting on Dedicated TC meeting on Monday to vote for approval. TCR-26 (mod-consortia-settings) -Approved @Ingolf Kuss - Presenting the TCR-26. Starting with the backend mod-consortia-settings. The module perfoms overall correctly. Few secutiry concerns related the login tokens. Concerns on how to enable/manage cross tenant access in consortia so the architectural decisions needs to be made.
Do we need an RFC or an architectural decision if needed how can it be made? The RFC should be separable from the review itself. |
5 min | CC / PC Updates | @Maccabee Levine / @Tod Olson | Any updates from the PC and/or CC? |
1 min | Elections | All | |
5-10 min | Technical Council Sub Groups Updates | All | Skipping this weeks. |
5 min | Upcoming meetings | @Craig McNally | N.B. Check your profile settings to ensure the timezone is configured appropriately. Events in the TC calendar will have incorrect times if your not configured correctly. |
5-10 min | RFCs | All | @Olamide Kolawole is still out. Update on Breaking Changes RFC? |
5-10 min | Possible Budget Surplus | @Maccabee Levine | Moved to 08.05.2023 TC meeting discussion
From @Maccabee Levine in #tc-internal slack: From this morning's CC meeting: CC is looking at a possible budget surplus next FY due to discontinuing the developer position (Mikhal) and expected reductions in AWS costs (details). There was discussion about asking the other councils for input on possible spending priorities, and CC would discuss again at their next meeting in 2w. From the minutes:
Previous Notes: Action: @Maccabee Levine and @Jeremy Huff will compile ideas and present to TC next week, to get ok before sharing with CC at their next meeting.
Today: @Jeremy Huff and @Maccabee Levine drafted two proposals, shared on Monday to #tc-internal. Goal today is to see if we have TC approval for one or both, as DRAFTS, i.e. we support the general idea. For presentation to CC as a potential proposal, as PC did about AirTable a few meetings back. If CC is willing to hear more, then we can discuss on TC how to proceed.
|
5-10 min | Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep | All | A process was proposed for how to keep these pages up-to-date, we need to revisit and put some processes into place. As it stands right now, we have members of the community making changes w/o consulting the TC. Previous Notes: @Florian Gleixner advised that he added a header including page properties for some of the release pages for folks to review @Craig McNally asked what states do we want for these pages e.g. Draft, Final? @Jeremy Huff suggested Active (for actively being defined by the TC), Supported (for after initial version is finalised, yet may still change) and No longer supported (for after the support period for the release has ended) @Marc Johnson wondered how we would come up with the list of statuses, without figuring out the process for maintaining these policy documents @Jeremy Huff asked how we determine during the module evaluation process, which release's supported technologies they should be judged against? @Marc Johnson and @Craig McNally advised that this would be the release currently ongoing at the time of submission @Jeremy Huff suggested that we could use Confluence's page restrictions functionality for limiting who can change these documents and add some clarifying text to advise folks contact the TC to submit changes. @Craig McNally volunteered to investigate this @Craig McNally asked for volunteers for defining a list of statuses and adding a description of the process to the top level page. @Jeremy Huff volunteered to take these on
Action: @Craig McNally will start that conversation. Why it would be easier to manage this on our own. Action: @Jeremy Huff Capture this on the wiki, including intro language. Add metadata to each page as well.
Today: Could be handled in slack channel. |
5-10 min | Browser Support | All | From slack: There's a conversation in the PC channel about browser support... I don't want to stick our collective nose into other's business, but is this something the TC should be weighing in on? It feels like it's somewhat of a grey area. Thoughts? See https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CTYQZ7PF1/p1682096515922269
Today: |
time permitting | Terminology Document | All | From @Jenn Colt in slack: @cmcnally for the TC agenda next week, this is what I think we need: a vote on whether to accept the document as it is now (with our deletions) but with a statement adding that there are other definitions of platform in use. I believe Simeon/Kristin/me will get that statement in before the meeting. I think that vote is what we need to give CC. After that we should discuss whether people want to participate in a new group to talk more about the definition of platform. I think people may also indicate that there are other definitions they would also like to revise. After this vote, I think it will be the end of my involvement with the doc on this level and someone else should consider coordinating TC proposing some definitions. Right now it seems like we are not happy with existing definitions but don't have alternatives to propose, but that is just my assessment of where things are.
Notes: We get a lazy consensus to accept the document as it is. Maybe the best thing we can do is to form a TC subgroup which is open to other members of the community. All the councils have accepted the draft document as-is. Except specifically for the "platforms" definition(s), TC is invited by CC to keep that going. @Craig McNally : Better for a regular TC meeting.
RAN OUT OF TIME |
|
|
|
|
|