2024-01-22 Meeting notes

Florian Gleixner 

Reminder:  Please copy/paste the Zoom chat into the notes.  If you miss it, this is saved along with the meeting recording, but having it here has benefits.

Maccabee Levine Tod Olson  Jakub Skoczen  Craig McNally Jenn Colt 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
  
  • Two applications for the developer advocate position, group decides to invite one.
  • IndexData is dropping back from some adimistration tasks. Maybe Ebsco will take over some.
• PC: Tod Olson 
  • PC meetings slot was used by the Tri-council meeting
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen 
  • No updates
• Security Team: Craig McNally No updates, triaging issues.
  • No important updates - business as usual
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt is not here.

All

• TCR-33 - Getting issue details... STATUS - update from Tod Olson No meeting
• TCR-35 - Getting issue details... STATUS - Jeremy Huff not yet started
• TCR-36 - Getting issue details... STATUS - Jeremy Huff as well
• TCR-37 - Getting issue details... STATUS   - Jeremy Huff Ingolf Kuss Meeting scheduled

• 24 Jan 2024 - Topic either Officially supported technologies or Poppy database upgrade scripts? But Ingolf Kuss will first talk to the development teams. Decision will be made offline.
  31 Jan 2024 - TCR Process Improvements 

All

Quick updates only.  If we can't find volunteers for groups, we'll need to add the topic to our backlog and address it during dedicated discussion sessions.

• Configuration group - Nothing new, Olamide Kolawole will take a look at it and will provide comments.
• Breaking changes - Ankita is not here today
• Translations -
  • Craig McNally will try to raise topic at the chairs meeting again
  • Maccabee Levine Dropping it when other councils show no interest is OK, but we should note that.
  • Can be pushed as a DEI (Diversity, equity, and inclusion) issue
• TCR process improvements
  
  • Maccabee Levine
    •  Will present the draft to the TC on Jan. 31
    • Discussion how to get more people to participate in evaluations
  • Update next week
• Application formalization RF draft
  
  • Craig McNally is working on discussions/comments/questions. Some are resolved, but still work in progress

All

• Status/Updates:
  • Application Formalization RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR:  https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/22
  • Go Programming Language for Backend Development RFC - PRELIMINARY REVIEW PR: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/25
    
    • questions and comments are resolved
    • can advance to the next stage(s) probably up to the DRAFT REFINEMENT stage. Jakub Skoczen will work through the process
  • Distributed vs Centralized Configuration RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/26 - Olamide Kolawole will help the group

RFC Process Improvements:

• We need another RFC to update the metadata retroactively to reflect the new or adjusted statuses. - Jenn Colt will do this, hasn't finished yet
  
  • nothing new today

Notes: see above

The announcements were made before the holidays.  No objections. Probably need to ask testing people explicitely. 

See: DR-000038 - PostgreSQL Upgrade to 16

Notes:

Craig McNally will reach out to the test manager to check if the postgres testing environments are ready to use 12 and 16.

Standing agenda item... is there anything in the decision log requiring attention?

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

• Check in on progress... does anything else require attention?
• Next Important Milestone:  Review Ramsons (3rd party dependencies) and move from DRAFT → ACCEPTED by 16 Feb 2024 
  • Maybe we should aim to start looking at this on 05 Feb 2024 so we have time for discussion/adjustments.
• Versions for the components:
  • Resume discussion at an upcoming dedicated topic discussion?

Notes:

Craig McNally Some entries have versions, some not. Last discussion did not lead to a conclusion. Sometimes versions come from dependencies and they are redundant. Probably we should remove versions on some to make things easier?

Marc Johnson Differentiate between infrastructure and other. We cannot support multiple postgres versions at once. Languages and build tools should be the same to make development easier.

Owen Stephens Developers should decide which version to use, TC should give guidelines like the software should be supported.

Marc Johnson For some things no versions work fine, but for some we have to have a common version, for example for stripes and postgres.

Craig McNally Maybe replace the versions on spring and so with links to the support lifecycle of the project

Marc Johnson noone is reviewing modules concerning used versions, so we should remove versions on some.

Tod Olson List supported technologies in flower release pages?

Owen Stephens Maybe list reasons, why a version is written, also helps to decide if we want to remove the versions

Marc Johnson will add reasons and links to Ramsons page.

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 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.

Possible topic/activity for a Wednesday session:

• Discuss/brainstorm:
  • Ideas for the type of developer-facing documentation we think would be most helpful for new developers
  • How we might bring existing documentation up to date and ensure it's consistent 
  • etc.