2025-02-03 Meeting notes

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

• CC: Maccabee Levine: 
  • No CC meeting this week
• PC: Tod Olson:
  • Vote on statement in support of Eureka, with emphasis on confidence of hosting providers. No officially announcement of outcome at this time, but looks favorable at this writing.
  • Continued discussion of ways to use Jira to support PC workflows, especially reviews.
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: 
  • Updates for dates for sunflower
• Security Team: Craig McNally:
• Eureka Early Adopters:  Craig McNally:
  • Jenn Colt: Are community devops also attending? Craig McNally: Yes
  • CC and PC approved early adopters timeline

• 05 Feb 2025 - Dedicated Discussion: OST pages
• 10 Feb 2025 - Regular TC Meeting
• 12 Feb 2025 - Dedicated Discussion: Trillium OST
• - Tri-council meeting - follow-up on Eureka Adoption?
• Eureka after Trillium OST

All

• Craig will flesh out evaluations and adoption of Eureka platform. Will work with Jenn.

No changes

Need to colocate all in a single place. Craig will work w/ Jenn 

Check Recurring Calendar...

Need to update OST categories to add Eureka technologies (keycloak, kong, etc.)

At Sunflower these new technologies will be approved so they need to be added, especially with delay of Sunflower.

Should OST pages be changed now because there is ambiguity with decision WRT other councils?

• See proposals: Voting Rule Comparisons

Straw vote about whether we should require at least 6 yes votes to accept a proposal: 4 yes, 4 no.

Last week's notes:

• Review options around quorum and whether we use majority of members present or votes cast.

Straw poll (non-binding): do we accept majority of cast (yes) or majority of TC members present (no):

• Yes: 3
• No: 6
• Abstentions: 2

Next step: define a set of straw polls we want to ask, then we can execute those all at once and hopefully narrow in on a decision.

Discussion today:

Marc Johnson problem with straw polls when the number of votes minus abstentions is less than 6

Ingolf Kuss we should think about deciding first weather we want to have slack votes or not

Jenn Colt should we enable slack voting by request before the conduction of a vote?

00:06:59	Maccabee Levine:	Tod is here now
00:08:32	Maccabee Levine:	CC does indeed meet next Monday.
00:25:28	Ingolf Kuss:	Can we have a straw poll if we want slack voting at all ?
00:26:49	Marc Johnson:	Reacted to "Can we have a straw …" with 👍
00:33:51	josh greben:	What is the number for quorum?
00:34:39	Marc Johnson:	Replying to "What is the number f…"

Prior to all of this, it was 6
00:34:48	Tod Olson:	Not yet decided. Typically, a quorum is over 1/2 present, though 2/3 is the most common alternative.
00:35:15	Ingolf Kuss:	Reacted to "Not yet decided. Typ..." with 👍
00:36:40	josh greben:	Half of 11 + 1 = 6.5. So is quorum 6 or 7?
00:37:08	Tod Olson:	Over half, so 7.  6. (The +1 language was messing me up.)
00:37:25	Marc Johnson:	Replying to "Half of 11 + 1 = 6.5…"

Half of 11 is 5.5, then add 1 l, so it’s 6.5 which is currently rounded down to 6
00:37:40	Ingolf Kuss:	Reacted to "Half of 11 is 5.5, t..." with 👍
00:38:12	Day, Kevin:	Replying to "Half of 11 + 1 = 6.5..."



I agree that the term "Over Half" is more accurate and descriptive.
00:38:22	Maccabee Levine:	Reacted to "I agree that the ter..." with 👍🏻

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.