2023-07-19 Meeting notes



Discussion items

1 minScribeAll

Ankita Sen  is next, followed by Jakub Skoczen 

5-10 minTCR Board Review


  • 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!
5 minLiaison Updates
  • Updates from CC:
    • No CC meeting this week.
  • Updates from PC: 
    • Reviewed Controlling AWS Hosting Costs subgroup document, general feedback is that it all sounds good.
    • 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.
  • Updates from Release Management Stakeholder Group
  • Updates from the Security Team:
    • Two critical security vulnerabilities have recently been discovered in Folio. 
    • Due to the severity and exploitability of these vulnerabilities, they have been embargoed.  As such, details cannot be provided at this time.
    • Notifications have been sent to the sys-ops community giving them a heads up.
    • Fixes have been implemented, and are being tested now
    • Patch releases for Orchid and Nolana are expected to be available tomorrow  
5-10 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates


  • Controlling AWS Hosting costs : Maccabee Levine - Awaits approval
  • 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
1 minDecision LogAll
  • NA
< 5 minRFCsAll
  • 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.


1 minWOLFcon Planning
  • A schedule has been posted: https://wolfcon2023.sched.com/
  • Idea from Jenn Colt last week:  
    • 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 minOfficially Supported TechnologiesAll

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

No updates today. 

5 minUpcoming Meetings
  • Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep Process
  • Application formalization continued (Vince)
  • Application formalization continued (Vince)
  • WOLFcon 2023

Topic Backlog

Discuss during a Monday sessionOfficially Supported Technologies - UpkeepAll

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.