2025-02-24 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: Jenn Colt for Maccabee Levine: 
  • Voting discussion:
    • simple majority not counting abstentions
    • async rules up to the councils
    • proposal will come to us for a vote
  • In person meeting draft agenda discussion
• PC: Tod Olson:
  • Eureka updates.
  • Coordinating transition to Eureka permissions.
  • Review PC goals for 2025.
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: 
  • Discussion regarding Trillium release schedule and the proposal will be discussed at the next PC meeting.
• Security Team: Craig McNally:
  • No updates.
• Eureka Early Adopters:  Craig McNally:
  • Met last Wednesday as usual, some updates in the spreadsheet.  We continue to work through issues with GBV, IndexData, Texas A&M

• 26 Feb 2025 - Dedicated Discussion: Communication after recent TCR process changes.
• 03 Mar 2025 - Regular TC meeting
• 06 Mar 2025 - Dedicated Discussion: RFC retrospective (tentative)
• 10 Mar 2025 - Regular TC Meeting
• - Tri-council meeting - follow-up on Eureka Adoption?
• Dedicated Discussion Topics:
  • Eureka after Trillium OST
  • Developer Documentation
  • Voting rules
    • Jenn and Craig did meet on Friday to review action items, one was to touch base with CC.  Are they dictating all voting rules, or setting basics and then councils can go further.
    • Simeon has sent proposal
  • Evaluation of the Eureka Components/evaluating exiting modules
    • How does TCR process change with Eureka/applications?
  • Developer Advocate
  • Communication after recent TCR process changes
  • Evaluating existing modules
  • OST issues with Java21 and Gradle
  • RFC retrospective
  • Communication plan to promote updates to OST pages
  • FQM RFC (when ready)
  • Retrospective on Eureka process (when ready)

The board is clear.

The list of modules approved for inclusion into Sunflower was provided to Oleksii P.   See Approvals by Release

• One idea was to add the "Release" field to TCRs so we can leverage filters for this going forward.  This wasn't a straightforward as hoped.  Craig McNally was made an admin of that project and will continue investigating.
• Oleksii P. suggested that instead of having a dedicated wiki page for this, add this to the FOLIO Module/JIRA project-Team-PO-Dev Lead responsibility matrix  page.  We should discuss.
• Decisions:
  • Craig McNally will add the Release field to TCRs
  • Will defer decision on dedicated wiki page vs. responsibility matrix for now.

All

Action items from last week:

• Eureka RFC
  • Craig McNally will close the RFC.
  • Craig McNally to create a decision record
    • Cross-link to the RFC
    • Provide an explanation of why the RFC was closed
    • What decisions have been made.
      • including waiving formal TCR evaluation of Eureka components
  • Craig McNally/ Jenn Colt will schedule a retrospective on the decision making process - related to the Eureka adoption decisions. 
    • Let's try to use a Wed. time slot if possible.
    • Need to create a Retro board too
• FQM manager RFC
  • • Still waiting on this.  An RFC does exist (in a private space?) 
    • It keeps coming up, we still want it.
    • Last time we discussed this we decided to ask Vince/Matt to update the RFC to reflect the current design, which is different from the initial design.
    • Let's discuss this more in a future meeting
      • Jenn Colt/ Craig McNally to add this to the topic backlog
      • VBar to move FQM RFC to RFC Log space, update and link to WOLFcon presentations
      • Suggestions:
        • Skip first couple steps of RFC process, move straight to public review stage.
        • Need to be very explicit about exactly what decision is being made about sharing database access across applications.

On hold for now, pending clarification from the CC.

• 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?

10:04:48 From Maccabee Levine to Everyone:
Thanks Jenn for covering CC this morning, I had a conflict.

10:07:16 From Jakub Skoczen to Everyone:
Guys, I am in a listening-only mode today. Re RMS group there’s been discussion regarding Trillium release schedule and the proposal will be discussed at the next PC meeting.

10:07:51 From Jakub Skoczen to Everyone:
Sure, thanks

10:21:17 From Julian Ladisch to Everyone:
FOLIO Module/JIRA project-Team-PO-Dev Lead responsibility matrix has a "First Release" column where a new module is listed with its first flower release.

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.