2024-11-25 Meeting notes

Marc Johnson is next followed by Jakub Skoczen

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
  • In person CC meeting planning. LOC (Caitlin) offered to host. Attendence suggestion of CC + other chairs + officers. Also the vendors? Talk about governance models?
  • ACRG update from Shawn. Teams doing a good job keeping under $30k cap/m with manual shutdown processes. Starting in March with Eureka as targeted platform, some environments will be reduced. Can keep to the cap even if Okapi infra is continued past March, but easier if not.  Subgroup discussing both short-term and long-term with EBSCO -- what should be considered central infrastructure. EBSCO sent a response today, agrees with principle that development outside of community work should be funded by those doing it. Discussing what community infrastructure looks like as we aim for sustainability.  Will ask Kat to re-present the budget with $30k/m AWS cost for remainder of year.
  • CC writing a proposal to get the two devs for better sample data tool.
• PC: Discussion about reading room functionality
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen:
• Security Team: Craig McNally: No updates
• Tri-council Application Formalization/Eureka:   Jenn Colt
  • Good productive  discussion last Wednesday, will have a part 2

• 25 Nov 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 27 Nov 2024 - Dedicated discussion: Cancelled for American Thanksgiving
• 02 Dec 2024  - Regular TC Meeting
• 04 Dec 2024  - Dedicated discussion: Eureka timeline continued
• 09 Dec 2024 -  Regular TC Meeting
• 11 Dec 2024  -  Dedicated discussion: New language adoption policy
• 16 Dec 2024 - Regular TC Meeting
• 18 Dec 2024 - Developer advocate retro
• 23 Dec 2024 - Regular TC meeting vs Cancel?
• 25 Dec 2024 -  Cancel
• 30 Dec 2024 - Regular TC meeting  vs Cancel?
• 01 Jan 2025 - Cancel

• Review of TCR-44 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • Marc Johnson raised a concern about marking the Sonar criteria as non-applicable, given the efforts to review the criteria in a sub-group
  • Mike Taylor stated that the module was run through Sonar and so the criteria passes, even though different means are now used
  • Accepted by lazy consensus
• Maccabee Levine raised awareness of this question
• Jenn Colt and Craig McNally advised that they hadn't made much progress on their evaluations

All

Go still needs work

Go still needs work

Check Recurring Calendar...

Craig McNally Jenn Colt clean up OST and calendar

Marc Johnson Asked which release Go would be included for Sunflower (by exempting ourselves from the process, and expect system administrators to accommodate it in shorter notice). Craig McNally advised that we have to accept Go for Sunflower, given the acceptance of mod-reporting for Sunflower

• Craig McNally has been updating Election Runner with nominations; will send out to TC members the morning of the 25th.

• See proposals: Voting Rule Comparisons
The TC discussed the proposals

suggested we take a goal oriented approach, and the primary trade off is between making decisions with few people vs. not being able to make a decision

raised a concern about the lack of distinction between

and

for option 3 and how that could lead to repeated votes. 

suggested that repeated votes are always an option at present and if

means that no future notes can happen on this topic, that raises the concern about when to revisit decisions

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

Currently there is a PoC, developed by Maccabee Levine, of a utility to catalog Github PRs that have been labeled with the "breaking change" label. We would like to get developer feedback on the feasibility of this label being used more often, and the usefulness of this utility. 

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.