2023-06-28 Meeting notes

Jeremy Huff is next, followed by Maccabee Levine 

All

• TCR-27 - Getting issue details... STATUS draft PR

TCR-27

Zak Burke Based on the criteria he feels that the module does not pass. These are minor things that could be remediated fairly easily. He has recently written up the report and will touch base with the development team and see what they want to do.

Craig McNally Should this go into review?
Zak Burke feels that it should be voted on and rejected, but is also ok with iterating with the team

Marc Johnson We need to be consistent in how we handle this because in the past we have iterated with teams

Maccabee Levine agrees with Maccabee Levine and feels that he and Zac should iterate with the team to resolve these minor issues. Also some of the comments pertained more for TC process improvements

Craig McNally How can we change our approach to utilize the rejection mechanism as part of our iterative process

Maccabee Levine / Tod Olson / Jakub Skoczen 

• Updates from CC:

  • CC considered ~8 proposals from PC and TC plus a few others brought up during the meeting.  Categorized as ongoing roles vs. ongoing programs subscriptions vs. one-time projects.  https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/display/CC/2023-06-26+Meeting+notes

    • Most CC support right now for the Community Developer Advocate proposal.  Asked TC and PC to refine responsibilities / requirements (messaged chairs).

    • Also interested in adding one of the one-time projects (Security Audit and Privacy Assessment discussed) or in the FOLIO Reference Environments proposal for support needs.  But no consensus yet.

    • Maccabee Levine Simion indicated that the chairs of the CC would focus on the community advocate proposal, which had the most traction across councils.
    • Craig McNally We might need a small group to represent the TC in the refinement of these proposals
    • Maccabee Levine will be happy to do this but would welcome other help
    • Craig McNally Who from PC will be working on refining this proposal
    • Owen Stephens This topic has not come back to the PC yet, but he imagines he and Alexis Manheim are likely to focus on this in the future
• Updates from PC:
  • No meeting last week.
• Updates from Release Management Stakeholder Group:
  • Jakub Skoczen no comment

All

Controlling AWS: Maccabee Levine they have not met and will update

Breaking Changes: Jeremy Huff The RCS will be ready for a vote next week

TCR Improvements: Jeremy Huff The video is in progress and will be done this week

Distributed vs Centralized Configuration Florian Gleixner created a doodle poll but needs to coordinate with members still

Architectural ReviewJenn Colt Initial meetings are discussing topic priorities

• Last meeting
  • Cleanup effort required:
    • filename prefix - all RFCs currently use 0000- defeating the purpose
    • conflicting process documentation between the wiki and github...
    • renaming can be done by RFC submitters, leave comments on the RFCs that still need it
    • Jenn will take on the documentation clean up, Work has started, some discussion in tc-internal slack.

Today:

• From Craig McNally via #tech-council slack: 

Here's the retro board for the RFC retrospective scheduled for July 10.  Please add your cards prior to the meeting.
https://easyretro.io/publicboard/dY8fCRqguiSDP3wtvSLhNzlULdM2/61b6d545-2d94-4007-93fa-d6263efb49a1

Jenn Colt no update on the cleanup processes

Craig McNally please add cards to the retro board 

Maccabee Levine/ Craig McNally 

• The deadline for submission ideas has past.
• No updates on shoulder sessions (TC or tri-council)
• Some agenda planning for the in-person meeting
• Expected in-person attendance of TC: 4 definitely, 2 maybe
• A Workflow SIG is being formed. Related to the work going on at TAMU on mod-workflow and mod-comunda. A kind of SIG-level guidance.

(New) Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists

Craig McNally this happened this week in a Slack conversation between Marc Johnson and Julian Ladisch concerning the removal of Java 11 from the Officially Supported Technologies

Craig McNally 

• 03 Jul 2023 Holiday for many, probably best to not schedule anything 
• 10 Jul 2023 RFC Retrospective
• 17 Jul 2023 Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep Process
• 24 Jul 2023 
• 31 Jul 2023 
• 07 Aug 2023 
• 14 Aug 2023 
• 21 Aug 2023 WOLFcon 2023

Tod Olson /Craig McNally / Jeremy Huff / Jakub Skoczen 

Craig McNally There were four of us there from the TC, Craig McNally  Tod Olson , Jakub Skoczen and Jeremy Huff . 

Craig McNally gives a summary of the events of the meeting:

• Discussed possible causes of tensions in the community, and approaches to ease these. Perceptions vs reality and how to encourage more trust and transparency
• Retrospective of how Data Import has been handled. Better communication would have helped. Extended inaction and loss of trust, followed by swift action resulted in community members feeling left out
• Recognition of very large role of EBSCO in the community, and how to understand their role and participation in the community
• Discussion of "FOLIO story" from different perspectives, a focus on what market-driven vs community-driven means, synthesis of a revised story, consideration of 5 year goals/dreams. Action - Simeon/Mike to raise for discussion in CC
• Idea to generate a menu of items to fix/add through a community prioritization process, and how to shop to funders/vendors. Action will be to take idea to PC first (Roadmap and prioritization group)
• Approach to generate a shared development plan/roadmap, compiled from individual plans. Funder/vendor representatives agreed to shared plans. Action will be to take idea to PC first (Roadmap and prioritization group)
• FOLIO project has reached a certain state of maturity, project size has increased significantly so some communications structures are not working well.
• Technical discussion following up on WOLFcon 2022 and subsequent discussions: expansion of bounded context to application, application descriptors, platform descriptors, roles/capabilities. Action is to bring conversations to TC and there will be presentations at WOLFcon 2023.
• Discussion of developer contribution options and challenges. Approaches to better onboarding and support. Action - Mike will take to CC, Ian will start discussion of Internal Developer Platform (IDP).

Marc Johnson Why are we announcing this summary? Are we intended to discuss these things?
Craig McNally There was some desire expressed last week that the TC be kept in the loop, so this summary is an attempt do that

Marc Johnson is really pleased that people are having these conversations. It is important to acknowledge that the private nature of the meeting presents challenges to topics like transparency. 

Jeremy Huff No new group was formed, it was an attempt to facilitate an efficient conversation between informed individuals

Maccabee Levine Appreciates the fact that the summary was shared and echoed the need for transparency, and feels that WolfCon would be a great venue for these conversations

Tod Olson and Craig McNally there were technical topics discussed that the TC needs to turn our focus to

Marc Johnson The TC is often put in a position to review proposals that have already been invested in significantly. He would encourage us to not delay in discussing these new technical proposals

Craig McNally Would VBar be willing to go over the concepts during a Monday discussion session of the TC

Jenn Colt Does the Architecture group need to be put on hold until after these things can be discussed?

Jeremy Huff It would be good for the Architecture subgroup to be informed about these topics prior to the meeting, but this does not need to take a long time

Marc Johnson Feels that the group should wait for the TC to get all the technical data concerning Application Descriptors

Jenn Colt Are we rubber-stamping predetermined decisions?

Jeremy Huff No, we should do a technical evaluation of any proposal put before council. 

Jenn Colt Is evaluating VBar 's proposal the scope of the Architecture group

Jeremy Huff does not think so, only that the architecture group should be mindful of the proposal as potential development in FOLIO

VBar  This conversation is going to take some time

Craig McNally asked VBar to share a link to the proposal 

Previous Notes:

• A workflow for these pages. When do they transition from one state to another. Do we even need statuses at all ?
• Stripes architecture group has some questions for the Poppy release.
• Zak: A handshake between developers, dev ops and the TC. Who makes that decision and how to we pass along that knowledge ? E.g. changes in Nodes and in the UI boxes. How to communicate this ? We have a large number of teams, all have to be aware of it.  TC should be alerted that changes are happening. We have a couple of dedicated channels for that. Most dev ops have subscribed to these channels. How can dev ops folk raise issues to the next level of community awareness ? There hasn't been a specific piece of TC to move that along.
• Craig: There is a fourth group, "Capacity Planning" or "Release Planning". Slack is the de facto communication channel.  There are no objections to using Slack. An example is the Java 17 RFC. 
• Craig: The TC gets it on the agenda and we will discuss it. The TC gets the final say.
• Marc Johnson: We shouldn’t use the DevOps Channel. The dev ops folks have made it clear that it should only be used for support requests made to them.
• Jakub: Our responsibility is to avoid piling up technical debt.
• Marc: Some set of people have to actually make the call. Who lowers the chequered flag ?
• Craig: It needs to ultimately come to the TC at least for awareness. There is a missing piece. Capacity Planning needs to provide input here. 
• Marc: Stakeholders / Capacity Planning could make that decision. Who makes the decision ? Is it the government or is it some parts of the body ?
• Marc: the developers community, the dev ops community and sys ops are involved. For example the Spring Framework discussion or the Java 17 discussion. But it was completely separate to the TC decision. It is a coordination and communication effort.
• Marc: Maybe the TC needs to let go that they are the decision makers so that they be a moderating group.
• Jakub: I agree with Marc. But we are not a system operating group. Dependency management should be in the responsibility of Release management. There are structures in the project for that.
• Jason Root: I agree with Jakub and with Marc also. Policies should drive operational/release/support aspects of Folio.
• Jason Root: If the idea of “support” is that frameworks are supported, then of course the project should meet that.
• Marc Johnson
  Some group needs to inform OleksAii when a relevant policy event occurs.
  These documents effectively ARE the manifestation of the policy.
• Craig: This is a topic for the next Monday session.

• Craig to see if Oleksii Petrenko could join us to discuss the process for updating the officially supported technologies lists.