TCR-27
-
Getting issue details...STATUS
- Zak Burke - will follow up with the technical team and get status updates. Marc Johnson - got updates and was informed that the discussed changes are in active development.
I've received positive feedback from several people about the video created by the TCR improvement subgroups. Nice work!
Updates about Release Management prompted questions about how CSPs are determined and how installed sites (and SMEs) learn what's affected by a CSP, so can figure out how it affects workflows and operations.
Other discussion: clarification of SIG liaison responsibilities, planning for PC WOLFcon discussions.
Breaking Changes: Jeremy Huff - RFC has been merged. The final decision on closing the group with or without ADR will be conveyed. Marc Johnson - The group did classify the breaking changes but the way how to communicate the changes is not yet decided, so another group should be spun off-or the same group continues? Final decision will be made next week.
Improving TCR process: Jeremy Huff - Work is almost done from the point of the Subgroup scope.
Distirbuted vs Centralised configuration - Florian Gleixner - found some new bullet points to add to the RFC, the next meeting will happen after 2 weeks.
Architecture Review Subgroup - benched until after WolfCon
The intent was to create the board now so cards can be added while this is fresh in our heads, but schedule the RFC sometime after WOLFcon. We just had an RFC retro and are still working on the action items which came out of it.
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.
Notes from today:
Craig McNally - not much window to carry on the shoulder meeting during WolfCon, till now 7 people will be attending WolfCon in person
Jenn Colt - also couldn't find a suitable time for a f2f meeting
Maccabee Levine - if shoulder meeting on the Friday of WolfCon week is happening needs to be known soon.
< 5 min
Officially Supported Technologies
All
Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists
Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep Process
Application formalization continued (Vince)
Application formalization continued (Vince)
WOLFcon 2023
Topic Backlog
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.
Today Notes:
Action Items
Craig McNally to create review board for next RFC process retrospective.