2024-01-29 Meeting notes



Discussion items

1 minScribeAll

Marc Johnson is next, followed by Ingolf Kuss 

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.

5-10 minLiaison Updates
10 minTCR Board Review


  • TCR-37 (and TCR-35 and TCR-36)
    • Jeremy Huff advised that he and Ingolf Kuss had an initial meeting with the submitting team
    • Marc Johnson raised that it was mentioned in the PC that the TC had met with the team and discussed functionality (which is out of scope of our process).Jeremy Huff stated that information is useful, yet would not affect the review
    • Jeremy Huff mentioned that the module currently does not supporting deletion, which would make him uncomfortable to run it, however does not effect the evaluation
  • TCR-33
1 minUpcoming MeetingsAll
  • - TCR Process Improvements 
  • - Regular TC meeting
  • - Dedicated Topic Discussion - Topic TBD
5-10 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates


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
    • Ingolf Kuss advised that Olamide Kolawole submitted some comments and he and Julian Ladisch met to discuss them
    • Marc Johnson raised that it seemed unusual for a contributor to be raising suggestions on the pull request (rather than making edits) and could consider guidance on this as a possible topic for the next process review
  • Translations
    • Craig McNally bumped the topic in the folio chairs channel and suggested it could be important to make progress on this before the next WOLFCon
  • TCR Process Improvements
    • Maccabee Levine advised that this would be discussed at Wednesday's meeting and feedback / attendance from the TC would be appreciated
    • And that the group are also working with the PC chairs to improve the hand off process and to provide a communication plan for the changes
10 minRFCs


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
1-5 min

Postgres Messaging


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

See: DR-000038 - PostgreSQL Upgrade to 16


  • Craig McNally - reached out to the test manager (Yogesh Kumar) today to check alignment on the plan for testing this and will follow up in a call
1 minDecision LogAll

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

Craig McNally Advised that we might have another source. Marc Johnson advised that space was created by the Tech Leads, prior to decision records were introduced 

20-30 min

Officially Supported Technologies (OST)


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  
    • Maybe we should aim to start looking at this on so we have time for discussion/adjustments
  • Notes from this meeting:
    • Maccabee Levine described updates to the process examples and walked through the example with Craig McNally who raised minor amendments
    • Marc Johnson suggested that there will only be 2 releases in 2024. Owen Stephens  and Craig McNally asked if anyone was aware of an official announcement on this
    • Craig McNally asked when there would be 4 active flower releases? Marc Johnson advised that there will be 4 releases when the previous 2 are in support, the current one is being released (and has not become generally available) and the next release has started development (after the feature freeze for the current release)
    • Marc Johnson shared the draft inclusion of policy decisions and reasoning for each type of technology in the Ramsons OST page
      • Craig McNally asked TC members to provide feedback on these changes
1 minRemindersAll

Quick reminders to TC members...

  1. Please review the PR for proposed changes to the TCR process:  https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/pull/55
    1. This will be the topic of discussion on  
  2. Please review Marc Johnson 's changes to the Ramsons OST page (see above)
NAZoom Chat

11:04:33 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
    If you mean the slack thread that was just me asking  tri council
11:05:09 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
    I thought of it in PC but didn’t want to drag into a rabbit hole
11:10:33 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
    @Marc Johnson can you say\
11:10:53 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
    Replying to "@Marc Johnson can yo..."
    Sorry - can you say what the comments were about functionality that came up at PC?
11:12:05 From Marc Johnson to Everyone:
    Replying to "@Marc Johnson can yo…"
    It was mentioned that the TC had discussed the virtual item and patron lifecycles 
    Which confused me because I was completely unaware and it’s not part of our remit
11:12:25 From Marc Johnson to Everyone:
    AFAIK there is also no way to find / list the transactions either
11:13:10 From Maccabee Levine to Everyone:
11:13:45 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
    Replying to "@Marc Johnson can yo..."
11:14:00 From Craig McNally to Everyone:
    Reacted to "https://github.com/f..." with 👍
11:14:04 From Craig McNally to Everyone:
    thank you @Maccabee Levine
11:17:54 From Marc Johnson to Everyone:
    It’s worth noting that IIRC the product folks we did have in the last localisation / translation working group didn’t consider multi-lingual support in the same tenant to be a high priority which might explain why it hasn’t garnered a lot of attention
11:24:57 From Craig McNally to Everyone:
11:26:14 From Marc Johnson to Everyone:
    That space also has team / module level decision documentation in it as well
11:29:24 From Marc Johnson to Everyone:
    Many folks have found the 4 concurrent releases aspect of this to be challenging
11:29:42 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
    Reacted to "Many folks have foun..." with 🤯
11:31:32 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
11:33:49 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
    Do we know who would do it?
11:34:43 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
    If we were to do 3 releases this year (which is the cadence we aim for in theory) then Sunflower will be late 2024. However last year the Poppy release was pushed back a long way so we only got 2 releases
11:35:57 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r..."
    … in 2023
11:35:58 From Marc Johnson to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r…"
    I thought 2024 was only getting 2 releases. Though I’m not sure where I got that understanding from
11:36:15 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r..."
    I’d not seen that anywhere but could have missed it
11:36:28 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r..."
    It seems more realistic tbh
11:38:36 From Huff, Jeremy T to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r..."
    Wasn’t two releases what was decided on during the trip council meeting?
11:38:53 From Huff, Jeremy T to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r..."
    Tri, not trip
11:39:30 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r..."
    Was that a decision or a discussion? I didn’t get the sense that was anything other than a recommendation?
11:39:53 From Huff, Jeremy T to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r..."
    That’s true, I do not recall voting or anything like that.
11:40:09 From Tod Olson to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r..."
    I had the same impression as Jenn.
11:40:13 From Huff, Jeremy T to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r..."
    But it did seem to be an uncontested suggestion.
11:41:02 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
    It looks like RMS met this morning but I don’t see notes, just a recording
11:41:05 From Marc Johnson to Everyone:
    Replying to "If we were to do 3 r…"
    I didn’t get the sense that was an official decision, rather that the conversation reached a point where folks had mostly coalesced
11:48:01 From Tod Olson to Everyone:
    I need to drop and get ready for the next thing, thanks everyone.

Topic Backlog

Decision Log ReviewAll

Review decisions which are in progress.  Can any of them be accepted?  rejected?

Translation SubgroupAllSince we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?
Communicating Breaking ChangesAllSince we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session?
Officially 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 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.

Dev Documentation VisibilityAll

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.

Action Items

  • TC members to review policy guidance in Ramsons OST page and provide feedback