2025-02-10 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: 
  • Community DevOps update from Mike.
    • Index data participating in eureka early adopters. Trying to get a Eureka environment up by end of March, then fine-tuning/optimizing. Ultimately reference environments community can rely on, replacing okapi environments. Finding some EBSCO-specific things that don't necessarily work in other environments, issues to help make platform more stable, and documentation, including a single-server deployment.
    • Energies on getting eureka up, rather than retiring jenkins to GitHub actions on Okapi
    • CC intending to renew the agreement next FY
  • Draft revisions to governance model document. Mostly clean-up, non-substantive. But there are new lines about voting. CC generally hoped for consistent voting rules across councils. I shared that TC had been discussing these issues, as the only council to regularly (ever?) have contested votes. Recommended cross-council discussion on the issues TC raised.
    • existing rules: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMMUNITY/pages/4231779/FOLIO+Governance+Model
    • draft (word doc) but the diff is not accurate, the "before" includes some new things: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/709754881/2024%20FOLIO%20Governance%20Review%20-%20Clarficiations%20Proposal%202025-02-03.docx?api=v2
      • Draft proposed language, bolded wording is new:
        Council decisions are made by “lazy consensus” (http://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html), when possible, and documented to the public. If necessary to reach a decision, any council member may call for a vote. Votes require a simple majority at a scheduled meeting where a quorum is present. A quorum of any council is a majority of the membership of the council (ie. 8 if a council has 14 members, 7 if the council has 13 members). Alternatively, votes that are carried out asynchronously require a simple majority of the entire council membership.
  • WOLFcon agenda, will include Developer Advocate discussion.
    • Was there supposed to be a post-mortem analysis after the first person?  Was there?  CC interested to see it. 
    • CC wants TC input on whether/how to continue position.
  • WOLFcon agenda: more members?
    • EBSCO for large customers, paying for the first few years of membership.
    • Discussion about how to community track new customers, perhaps outreach.  CC drafting a letter from the community for the vendors to send to new customers.
• PC: Tod Olson:
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: 
  • Oleksii Petrenko shared a draft of the Trillium roadmap. Moved 1 sprint. Go-Live date would be November 10th. A final version will be shared at the next group meeting.
• Security Team: Craig McNally:
  • No updates.
  • Onboarded Tom Gorman
• Eureka Early Adopters:  Craig McNally:
  • Met with early adopters last week, updated the shared spreadsheet for tracking progress

• 12 Feb 2025 - Dedicated Discussion: Trillium OST
• 17 Feb 2025 - Regular TC meeting
• 19 Feb 2025 - Dedicated Discussion: TBD
• 24 Feb 2025 - Regular TC meeting
• 26 Feb 2025 - Dedicated Discussion: TBD
• - Tri-council meeting - follow-up on Eureka Adoption?
• Dedicated Discussion Topics:
  • Eureka after Trillium OST
  • Developer Documentation
  • Voting rules
  • Evaluation of the Eureka Components
  • Developer Advocate

All

• Craig will flesh out evaluations and adoption of Eureka platform. Will work with Jenn.
  • Action item from prior meeting... I think some clarification would be helpful.

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?

• Craig McNally: start with code coverage, code smells ; not doing the full analysis
• Marc Johnson: we shouldn't do anything. It must generate useful feedback for the development teams. It's not useful time spent either for the development teams or for us.
• Maccabee Levine: I agree. We have implicitely approved all of these modules. But there is an opportunity. We also review existing modules, now. These are existing modules. We can review them. This could give us a slow entry into these reviews.
• Marc Johnson: Do we actually have capacity for that ? Currently, it is outside the scope of our review process.
• Craig McNally: The feedback about interfaces is helpful for dev teams. How much bandwidth do we have to review existing models in addition to the new modules ? We don't have much leverage for exsiting modules. We could raise it as Technical Debt.
• Craig McNally: All new modules are maintained by the Eureka Team. It (our feedback) will also hit their bandwidth.

From liaison updates... 

• Developer Advocate
  • a write-up of the developer advocate. CC was generally in favour of continuing.
  • The PDF is going to be shared
  • we want to continue discussion on a Wednesday.
• Governance Model
  • Voting Rules
    • Does the CC "dictate" those rules for all councils ? Do all have to agree to it ?
    • Doesn't mention abstentions, leaves room for interpretation
    • Jenn Colt and Craig McNally will check in with the Chairs to talk about the Voting Rules. The TC has spent a lot of time on this, already. The CC draft misses details.

• 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?

Craig McNally  an  Alle 17:13
https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/TC/pages/5052355/Improved+Handling+of+Reference+Data+During+Upgrades

Craig McNally  an  Alle 17:22
Link to Early Adopters spreadsheet:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E6mjwFCGzvv-B-exkvH5g6zwR4VR6Maoei7KL89nP4s/edit?usp=sharing

Jenn Colt  an  Alle 17:28
Let them have a turn lol

Maccabee Levine  an  Alle 17:39
The question for the tri-council chairs is about extending the document.

Day, Kevin  an  Alle 17:40
Waiting for clarity makes sense to me.

Jenn Colt  an  Alle 18:00
Agreed about dev teams, was just trying to say TC members have limits too

Maccabee Levine 18:00
Even initially we could spread it out.

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.