| | | |
|---|
1 min | Scribe | All | @Maccabee Levine is next, followed by @Tod Olson |
1 min | Elections | All | As of July 1, member-elect @Taras Spashchenko is now officially a TC member, replacing @Raman Auramau. Welcome Taras, and thank you for your service Raman! Wiki pages have been updated to reflect this change. |
5-10 min | TCR Board Review | All | |
5 min | Liaison Updates | @Maccabee Levine / @Tod Olson / @Jakub Skoczen | |
5-10 min | Technical Council Sub Groups Updates | All |
|
1 min | Decision Log | All | Nothing new. |
< 5 min | RFCs | All | 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
Today: |
< 5 min | WOLFcon Planning | @Maccabee Levine/ @Craig McNally | Previous notes: 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-camunda. A kind of SIG-level guidance.
@Craig McNally Has heard that there are more sessions proposed then there are slots for presentations @Tod Olson and @Maccabee Levine confirmed this @Mark Veksler How will decisions be made, which sessions will be accepted @Tod Olson This has not been determined yet @Marc Johnson Cautions against combining sessions, as the widening of scope may inhibit the ability of the session to come to a useful conclusion
Today: |
< 5 min | Officially Supported Technologies | All | (New) Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists |
5 min | Upcoming Meetings | @Craig McNally | Jul 10, 2023 RFC Retrospective Jul 17, 2023 Application formalization Jul 24, 2023 Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep Process Jul 31, 2023 Aug 7, 2023 Aug 14, 2023 Aug 21, 2023 WOLFcon 2023
|
10-20 min | AWS Hosting costs | @Maccabee Levine | See Controlling AWS Hosting Costs subgroup @Maccabee Levine summarized the four deliverable documents (also listed on the subgroup page): @Maccabee Levine Goal was to replace the current lack of any oversight with a process that corrected that while still being efficient for both the dev teams who need the environment(s) and the AWS Cost Review Group who would be exercising oversight. @Craig McNally asked about checks & balances, if the dev team does not do their self-review of ongoing environments.
@Maccabee Levine The environment lifecycle document expresses that the dev team is supposed to review their estimates at least monthly and update them if no longer correct. So if they don't do that, the ACRG will catch it on a periodic (but less frequent) basis, checking those same three factors about end date and costs. If that happens, the ACRG will remind dev team to do it ASAP, and if they still don't, then escalate to CC. We hoped that people will behave responsibly and this was reasonable carrot/stick.
@Craig McNally can we stop tracking / checking in on this subgroup? @Craig McNally Was @Peter Murray ok with being the TC designee on the ACRG? @Maccabee Levine PC involvement likely needed only if the budget is so limited that we have to prioritize which environments to fund.
@Tod Olson this is ready to hand over to CC. No disagreement. @Craig McNally will keep the subgroup on the page just until CC also approves the process.
|
| Application Formalization |
| @Ingolf Kuss had some questions about specifics about the applicatoin formalization discussion. Will miss three of those Monday discussion meetings. What will be the structure of discussion? @Ingolf Kuss Will have comments and questions. Made comments in the document, but was told to erase them. @VBar It's a point-in-time document, and will add notes from the Chicago meeting. @Ingolf Kuss Has comments. On the single platform-complete vs multiple platforms. Bugfest testing just for one platform or multiple? Not enough to test just the core. Maybe by region, or by groups of modules? @VBar No specific plan yet. Questions bring up these tactical concerns. Right now addressing the strategic points to get us to a point where we can make those decisions. Exact conversations we'll have in those meetings. Important for everyone to get up to speed first.
@Craig McNally this is the beginning of the conversation. Upcoming Monday sessions to bring TC up to speed, and then will be discussed at WOLFcon. @VBar should it be open to comments now? Had shut it down to read-only because comments can get out of hand once distributed wide.
|
|
Discuss during a Monday session | Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep | All | 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.
|
|
|
|
|