2023-07-12 Meeting notes

1 min

Scribe

All

@Tod Olson is next, followed by @Ankita Sen 

5-10 min

TCR Board Review

All

• https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/TCR-27: no specific update, ball is in team's court

5 min

Liaison Updates

@Maccabee Levine / @Tod Olson / @Jakub Skoczen 

• Updates from CC:

  • New folio.org website coming, been in pipeline for about a year, list of partners on current site is way out of date, need a mechanism to keep up to date;

  • talk about budget, intent is that there will be a surplus of roughly $200K going into the reserves;

  • sense that the community developer advocate could be possible, waiting on actions from PC & TC; and

  • talk about controlling AWS costs but not taken action, Tom volunteered to be CC liaison to the group, there's a question of which council should own this process over time (CC thinks TC should, but TC does not control funds), to be discussed by council chairs.

• Updates from PC: No meeting last week; will give update to PC on Controlling AWS Hosting Costs subgroup and AWS Cost Review Group tomorrow

• Updates from Release Management Stakeholder Group: No update

5-10 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates

All

Breaking Changes: public review phase is concluding, ready to go to TC for approval.

Improvements to TC process: have a presentation recorded, another is approved for WOLFcon, need to publicize. This will be the conclusion of the subgroup. Need to determine appropriate channels: #product-owners, #development, #product-council, #tech-council. Need to get presentation onto appropriate YouTube video, @Jeremy Huff will reach out to @Peter Murray for advice. (Update: Recommendation is to publish on OLF YouTube channel.)

Centralized vs decentralized configuration: work is beginning on defining scope, some subgroup members have been on holiday.

0 min

Decision Log

All

Nothing new.

< 5 min

RFCs

All

• Previous notes:

  • 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.

  • 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

Today:

• We had the RFC Retrospective on Monday.  The board has been updated with several action items.  @Jenn Colt also took some notes

1 min

WOLFcon Planning

@Maccabee Levine/ @Craig McNally 

• Looks like a (tentative?) schedule has been posted: https://wolfcon2023.sched.com/

< 5 min

Officially Supported Technologies

All

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

• No new comments

5 min

Upcoming Meetings

@Craig McNally 

• Yesterday's chairs meeting was cancelled due to vacations/etc.

• Jul 17, 2023 Application formalization (Vince)

• Jul 24, 2023 Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep Process

• Jul 31, 2023 Application formalization continued (Vince)

• Aug 7, 2023 

• Aug 14, 2023 

• Aug 21, 2023 WOLFcon 2023

It sounds like we need a third Consortia tenant checks discussion.  Should we try to fit that in before WOLFcon?  

• @Craig McNally will reach out to Security Team members who had concerns and see whether further discussion in TC is needed, or whether can handle in Security Team.

5 min

AWS Hosting costs

@Maccabee Levine 

Previous Notes:

See Controlling AWS Hosting Costs subgroup

• @Maccabee Levine summarized the four deliverable documents (also listed on the subgroup page):

  • AWS Environment Lifecycle addresses deliverables #1, #2 and some of #3.

  • AWS Cost Review Group addresses the remainder of deliverable #3.

  • Off-hour Environment Downscale addresses deliverable #4.

  • AWS Budgets, Budget Alerts, Cost Anomaly Detection, and Rightsizing Recommendations addresses deliverables #5 and #6.

• @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?

  • @Maccabee Levine Subgroup has goal of defining these processes, so can end once the processes are approved by TC and CC.  And maybe PC.  After this subgroup ends, the ACRG would have the ongoing role.

• @Craig McNally Was @Peter Murray ok with being the TC designee on the ACRG?

  • @Maccabee Levine Yes he was ok with it.

  • Consensus: no disagreement as long as @Peter Murray is willing and able.

• @Maccabee Levine PC involvement likely needed only if the budget is so limited that we have to prioritize which environments to fund.

  • @Craig McNally change to PC involved "as needed".  @Tod Olson agreed.  

  • @Maccabee Levine agreed.  Will mark PC "as needed".

• @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.

Today: No further updates today.

Breaking Changes RFC

@Jeremy Huff 

Public Review: Breaking Changes (PR#10)

• Minor language changes to clarify definitions of breaking changes, especially around operational changes, required infrastructure, consumed Okapi APIs, changes to HTTP status codes, changes to data model (and related assumptions).

• No substantive changes, focused on being explicit about scope and definitions.

• In this case, seems Final Review Stage is redundant given the input received so far, can vote on Final Review and acceptance in quick succession.

Decision #1: voted to move to Final Review stage.

Decision #2: voted to accept RFC

WOLFcon

@Jenn Colt 

Could we move the TC shoulder meeting to a time during conference when there's not much of interest to TC, use that for face-to-face meeting? Will need to look more closely at schedule.

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.