2024-12-09 Meeting notes

Date

09 Dec 2024

Attendees

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	CC: Maccabee Levine: No CC Meeting this week PC: Tod Olson PC functionality review process, trying to find the right role for influencing development and product direction without having control of any spending. Current thought is to act as a high-level coordinating with eye towards roadmap and market fit, though this thinking is still developing. PC Goals ranking results and next steps, closely related to above. Reframing PC role to monitor a flag new development for review, more communication across community, focus on some of the "boring" problems (i.e. not exciting to fund, but make an operational difference), and balance between maintenance/enhancing thin-thread functionality vs. new development. 2024-12-05 Product Council Agenda and Meeting Notes RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: No meeing Security Team: Craig McNally: Raising awareness of: Proposal for a Deprecation Policy for FOLIO Modules outside of the official supported set with a Severe Security Vulnerability. Please take a look and leave inline questions/comments. The TC will get the proposal for a formal vote then. Tri-council Application Formalization/Eureka: Jenn Colt Some homework to do, but other topics for wednesday Craig McNally still WIP, but some can be discussed on wednesday
1 min	Upcoming Meetings	All	09 Dec 2024 - Regular TC Meeting 11 Dec 2024 - Dedicated discussion: Eureka timeline 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
15 min	TCR documentation change PRs		https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/pulls 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: PR75 PR86 PR73 - there has been some discussion, subgroup did not agree PR79 Merged: PR71 Easy ones should be resolvable on next monday, others need a discussion next year.
5-10 min	TCR Board Review	All	TCR47: Feedback from Julian out of the scope of the review, devs will fix this before vote. TCR-46 Evaluation of library has to be done first, PC reviews functionality, Interface naming / API paths were fixed TCR-48: Nothing new TCR-49: Small library, we can vote probably next week. Maccabee Levine: we could use the library evaluations to discuss criteria for libraries in the TCR-process. TCR-50 and TCR-51 will be assigned to TC members after the meeting
5 min	Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates		Static code analysis: no meeting Developer Documentation: Jeremy Huff will not be able to run this group. Next update Jan 13.
1 min	GitHub RFCs Wiki RFCs	All	https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pulls has to be merged.
1 min	Decision Log	All
5 min	Officially Supported Technologies (OST)	All	Check Recurring Calendar... Craig McNally Jenn Colt clean up OST and calendar
*	Voting Rules	All	See proposals: Voting Rule Comparisons Jenn Colt added a feature comparison table Ingolf Kuss: calling a vote can be dangerous if there are only 6 or 7 members which hinders people from casting a vote. Marc Johnson: do we want to have a good decision or a fast decision Jenn Colt: we have no rules for bringing up a vote again or spamming the agenda. We do not need bad or slow decisions, but we need clear rules Marc Johnson: differences when a motion is not carried Florian Gleixner: re-voting on the same topic should not be allowed without changing content
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: 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 Visibility	All	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.
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. In my observations, I've found two problems: Schema linting does not occur if the schemas are in YAML format. There are issues with resolving some deeper references during API linting. 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. Regarding pr templates. From my perspective, pr template is not good idea. Even the biggest open source projects that are contributed by many people don't have any pr template. Currently what we have for acq modules https://github.com/folio-org/mod-orders-storage/blob/master/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md These pr template is inconsistent in different teams. 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.