2024-02-26 Meeting notes

 Taras Spashchenko is next, followed by Jenn Colt

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
  • Discussion of the FOLIO devops/sysadmin work that ID needs to hand off. If funding can be found either ID may continue or EPAM may take over, proposals coming. Scope of work not defined until proposals come in. Confusion about scope is part of the delay, as it expanded from the original tasks that were to be handed off to included work that had been unmanaged/unmaintained. ID will continue until decision made.
  • Funding for dev advocate seems to still be available as well but details still being discussed
• PC: Tod Olson 
  • New Serials application, discussion and demo. PC approved application.
    • Time for TC review would be tight, will ask for Release Management for flexibility in deadline on release process.
  • Roadmap and Prioritization, working to surface roadmap views, test driving a prioritization process.
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen 
  • Request to move TCR deadline to March 15 to accommodate serials review
  • That date is owned by RMS so it is not up to TC to move.
  • Can it be the 18th so that we have our usual 3 weeks and it lands on the TC meeting day?
• Security Team: Craig McNally 
  • No important updates - business as usual
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt 
  • Continuing to work on questions, available in the tri-council channel for discussion

All

• TCR-37 (and TCR-35 and TCR-36)
  • These are ready to be passed
  • Some discussion of versions, but the versions that are currently possible are what is included
  • Passed
• TCR-33
  • Passed
• TCRs for Serials
  • Ingolf mod-serials-management
  • Macabee ui-serials-management
  • RMS would like to see decision before Q module deadline
  • Jeremy available to consult if folks need help

• 26 Feb 2024 - Folio chairs meeting
• 28 Feb 2024 - Criteria for evaluating existing modules
• 04 Mar 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 06 Mar 2024 - Ramsons OST:  Accepted → Active

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.

• Go Programming - some comments to resolve, then will go to public review, very close
• Configuration RFC - still some discussion. Mark's comment can be resolved
• Breaking changes - have moved from subgroup to Wednesday session, so will close subgroup
• Multi lingual
• TCR process - comm plan ready for encouraging RFCs. Passed on a couple of issues that this group didn't finish - naming conventions; dealing with existing modules.
• Application formalization - ready to move to public review stages

All

• Application Formalization RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR:  https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/22
  • Looks like we're ready to progress this to PUBLIC REVIEW.  Craig McNally will work on that this week.
• Go Programming Language for Backend Development RFC - PRELIMINARY REVIEW PR: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/25
  • Previous Notes:
    
    • Jakub Skoczen will finish steps on Preliminary Review, push to next phase, Draft Refinement.  Get feedback from TC members and others.
    • Subgroup volunteers: Jeremy Huff Matt Weaver Ingolf Kuss 
    • Ensure we have membership from people familiar and not familiar with Go.  Maybe post in #development
• Distributed vs Centralized Configuration RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/26
• Discussion:  Possible RFC candidate...
  • From Maccabee Levine:  Now that we have said our criteria should apply to existing modules -- and even though we are not defining any process for evaluating existing modules, or for retro-fixing any of them, given we want to do the application formalization first -- we should review the criteria to see if any of them should actually apply only to new modules, for whatever reason.  The subgroup suggests that this be an RFC, so the larger community can weigh in.
  • Do we want an RFC for this?  Dedicated discussion topic?  
  • RFC is for the values of evaluating existing modules and the importance of the criteria for them? Ideally what should apply to existing modules? What does it mean for existing modules?
    • Is the RFC to get to a decision record?
    • Just wednesday meeting to discuss what criteria would apply and then maybe someone will write an RFC for the process
    • Want to give dev teams a chance to weigh in
  • RFC about entire thing but sorting out criteria might be better for a wednesday. Public feedback during eventual RFC.
  • Craig McNally will schedule for wednesday, feb 28

RFC Process Improvements:

• We need another RFC to update the metadata retroactively to reflect the new or adjusted statuses. - Jenn Colt

From Maccabee Levine in Slack:

1. The naming conventions dev page needs some updates, per @marcjohnson and I think @Matt Weaver as well.  Not sure what updates are needed or who should do so.

Notes:

• should only have correct information
• very hard to maintain
• JSON API line is wrong,

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

See: DR-000038 - PostgreSQL Upgrade to 16

Notes:

• Craig McNally is still discussing with Yogesh Kumar and Oleksii Petrenko.  Stay tuned.

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 (1st party dependencies) and move from ACCEPTED → ACTIVE by 15 Mar 2024  
  • Maybe we should aim to start looking at this on 06 Mar 2024  so we have time for discussion/adjustments
• Other todo items: 
  • Review policies and reasoning on page with intent to vote on approval (Sunflower)

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.