That and the AWS Costs proposal could not be voted on because CC lacked a quorum. They did have a discussion about the developer advocate proposal. Still positive.
Controlling AWS Hosting Costs: Maccabee Levine We were supposed to have approval of the Community Council, but they did not have a quorum, so we do not.
Breaking Changes: Jeremy Huff I have drafted an ADR referencing back to the RFC that we accepted recently as a result of the breaking changes group. Let's take some time to look at that after the subgroup updates
Improve the TCR process: Jeremy Huff We are improving the TCR process. Craig McNally was intending to archive this row.
Architecture Review Subgroup: Jenn Colt It is essentially on hold until Vince is done with his review of his document. Should we put it back into TBD state?
Jeremy Huff described the Breaking Changes ADR, which is relatively short, and offered to review it with the attendees for potential suggestions and changes. Once approved, it will be put up for a vote to move it forward from the draft status. The ADR aims to define what constitutes a breaking change in various aspects of Folio development for stakeholders. Specific channels and individuals, including the development, DevOps, stripes, and SysOps channels, as well as Oleksii Petrenko for release management, will be notified about this ADR. The "Approvers" section is meant to list the people who voted in favor of the ADR. The ADR is a response to the approval of RFC three Folio breaking changes and is aligned with semantic versioning practices. The goal is to establish a shared understanding of breaking changes within the context of Folio development. Pros of the ADR include a common understanding for contributors, while a potential con is a need to change practices currently inconsistent with RFC three. The next step is to put the ADR up for a vote to change its status to accepted.
Marc Johnson When we vote to approve an RFC, we are implicitly voting also to create an ADR indicating that the RFC was approved.
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.
Todays notes:
Update on draft PRs
Jenn Colt provided an update during the meeting on the progress of the documentation. The content from a lengthy GitHub document has been successfully migrated to a draft page on the Wiki, specifically under the "GitHub documentation" subpage of the RFC process. The migration involved moving the background narrative into the Wiki while retaining the specific steps about branching in GitHub. According to Jenn, this approach seems to have worked well, as the first three narrative sections blend seamlessly with the existing content. She mentioned leaving the Lifecycle section in the Wiki to serve as a useful reference for GitHub tags, although it may be subject to changes. Jenn noted that they have not made any changes to the process pieces yet, as they await finalization of updates, especially with the new draft branching strategy. She indicated that Craig is also involved in the process-oriented updates, and both will collaborate to address that aspect. Jenn expressed readiness for the changes to be reviewed but realized that it might be best to hold off merging until the draft branching strategy receives approval. She concluded that once the approval is secured, the Wiki pages and the pull request will provide sufficient guidance for anyone to get started with their RFC.
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 Wolfson week is happening needs to be known soon.
Todays Notes
Jeremy Huff I'll be leaving on Friday. So I could do a Friday meeting if it was at eight or nine in the morning.
Jeremy Huff asked about the topics to talk about at the Friday meeting.
Jeremy Huff : I will pursue this in the TC internal channel for an early Friday shoulder meeting. Maybe I will do a doodle poll or something like that.
< 5 min
Officially Supported Technologies
All
Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists
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 about the Poppy release.
Zak: A handshake between developers, dev ops and the TC. Who makes that decision and how do 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.