2024-02-28 - Criteria for evaluating existing modules



Discussion items

1 minScribeAll

Taras Spashchenko followed by Florian Gleixner (Jenn Colt took notes on Monday)

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. 

*Criteria for evaluating existing modulesAll

Background/Context:  The TCR / New module technical review process was created to evaluate new modules.  It has long been discussed that we should also consider reviewing modules already part of the official Folio releases (Both those which predate these processes, and possibly those which were evaluated, but not reviewed recently).  

Goal:  Review the existing criteria and see which if any need to be removed/adjusted/added for evaluation of existing modules.  The idea is that this will feed into a larger RFC which covers not just the criteria, but also the process, timing, who's respsonsible for what, grace periods, etc.


  • aim to avoid mixing it up with "and" to prevent any confusion with the new module evaluation process.
  • focus on the evaluating criteria and discussed potential changes that could be made
  • it is suggested that this work might feed into a larger RFC, but also it should be kept separate from the new module evaluation process.
  • proceeded to go through the list of criteria one by one, noting potential adjustments or additions for each one when evaluating existing modules. The rationale behind this decision was to avoid any overlaps or confusion between the two processes, ensuring they can be understood and applied independently.
    • include removing certain criteria or adjusting them to account for the specifics of existing modules
  • touched upon the potential consequences of the existing module assessment and how the process will feed into an RFC that covers the process in general
  • specific language/frameworks may not apply for existing modules but could still be relevant for new ones.
  • Suggestions for grandfathering certain modules or creating exemptions based on the date of module creation. This would involve creating exceptions for modules based on their date of creation and allowing them to bypass certain criteria.
  • Agreed that the 'module must use approved technologies' criteria should be kept, but recognized this could be seen as a moving target.
  • plans to discuss further adjustments to the criteria at the next meeting. Agreed to go through the list of criteria individually, determining potential changes for each as it applies to existing modules

NAZoom Chat

Jenn Colt 11:14 AM
At the risk of hopeless quagmire some of the existing module stuff could almost be owned by PC, like accessibility and privacy concerns.

Tod Olson to Everyone 11:34 AM
I need to drop off. I do think these late bullet points are really good for review, checking the QA gates.

Jenn Colt to Everyone 11:50 AM
This was from the lists app thing. Maybe someone already said that.

Maccabee Levine to Everyone 11:50 AM
Like mod-camunda requires camunda :)

Maccabee Levine to Everyone 11:50 AM
if it were submitted for TCR

You 11:53 AM