2024-12-09 Meeting notes
Date
Dec 9, 2024
Attendees
@Craig McNally
@Jenn Colt
@Florian Gleixner
@Tod Olson
@Kevin Day
@Ingolf Kuss
@Jakub Skoczen
@Jason Root
@Joshua Greben
@Julian Ladisch
@Olamide Kolawole
@Marc Johnson
@Maccabee Levine
Discussion items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
1 min | Scribe | All | @Florian Gleixner is next followed by @Marc Johnson 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 min | Liaison Updates | @Maccabee Levine @Tod Olson @Jakub Skoczen @Craig McNally @Jenn Colt |
|
1 min | Upcoming Meetings | All |
|
15 min | TCR documentation change PRs |
| @Julian Ladisch: All TC members should review these pull requests @Marc Johnson: This is unusual, subgroups were used before, but if this is the way we should update documentation is OK. @Maccabee Levine: very good and helpful PRs. Some need discussion, a wednesday would be great. Or a subgroup. TC members should take a look at the PRs before. Fast overview: Needs discussion:
Merged:
Easy ones should be resolvable on next monday, others need a discussion next year. |
5-10 min | TCR Board Review | All |
|
5 min | Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates |
|
|
1 min | All |
| |
1 min | All |
| |
5 min | All | Check Recurring Calendar... @Craig McNally @Jenn Colt clean up OST and calendar
| |
* | Voting Rules | All | |
NA | Zoom Chat |
| 17:22:28 From Ingolf Kuss To Everyone: PR#75 goes back to my evaluation of mod-record-specifications . I don't quite remember the reasoning, but I discussed it with Julian and eventually approved this pull request. 17:37:27 From Marc Johnson To Everyone: The API docs is entirely legitimate IMO
The paths aspect I consider to be out of scope (as I consider it to be design)
Marc4j is known to possibly contravene license compatibility yet is actively used
That said, I’m glad the teams were receptive. It’s unfortunate that other teams have not received similar feedback because of confusion about the process 17:54:26 From Florian Gleixner To Everyone: Most clear rules are 4 ;-) 17:57:36 From Florian Gleixner To Everyone: We should use common naming in the table -> option 3 fail - no decision 18:00:53 From Ingolf Kuss To Everyone: ++Florian |
Topic Backlog | ||
Decision Log Review | All | Review decisions that are in progress. Can any of them be accepted? rejected? |
Translation Subgroup | All | Since we're having trouble finding volunteers for a subgroup, maybe we can make progress during a dedicated discussion session? |
Communicating Breaking Changes | All | 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. |
Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep | All | Previous Notes:
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 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 Visibility | All | Possible topic/activity for a Wednesday session: Discuss/brainstorm:
|
API linting within our backend modules | All | https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713343461518409
Hello team, I would like to discuss API linting within our backend modules. Some time ago, we transitioned our linting process from Jenkins to GitHub Actions as outlined in https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/FOLIO-3678. I am assuming that this move was done via some technical council decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Although I'm unsure about how to improve the existing linting implementations within Folio, I propose to consider an open-source solution that handles OpenAPI linting effectively and allows us to define custom rules. For your reference: https://stoplight.io/open-source/spectral A test of this solution can be found in this PR: https://github.com/folio-org/mod-search/pull/567. The same PR also provides an example of custom rule definition: https://github.com/folio-org/mod-search/pull/567/files#diff-d5da7cb43c444434994b76f3b04aa6e702c09e938de09dbc09d72569d611d9ab.Also, by employing 'Spectral', I discovered AsyncAPI (https://www.asyncapi.com/en), an API design tool similar to OpenAPI but for asynchronous interactions. I suggest that we consider using AsyncAPI in FOLIO to generate documentation for Kafka interactions.
|
PR Templates | All | https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1713445649504769 Hello team, Small request to consider. What I suggest is that, pr template shouldn't be any instructions, because most developer who are creating pr have already understand the rules. If we put just two section into template, it will encourage developers to write more about their work and that lead to knowledge sharing among developers. |
Proposed Mod Kafka | All | https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1714471592534689 Mike Taylor Proposal. If and only if a FOLIO instance is running Kafka, it should insert and enable a module called mod-kafka, which consists entirely of a module descriptor that says it provides the interface kafka. The purpose is so that other modules can use the standard <IfInterface> and similar tools to determine whether they should attempt Kafka operations. Rationale: the FOLIO ILS depends absolutely on Kafka, but other uses of the platform will not. One such example: a dev platform that includes only mod-users, used as a source of change events for Metadb. |