2025-03-10 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: 
  • Logistics of in person mtg. Challenges with USG (LOC). New welcome letter(?) Waiting on PC for notes and acceptance for rewording of voting doc.
• PC: Tod Olson:
  • Eureka updates: learning curve is steep but all seem to have core components (Kong, KeyCloak, application manager) in place now, moving next to the functional modules. Iteratively working through obstacles. UM SIG had first lab with Eureka permissions. Currently early adopters seem on timeline for Sunflower. 
  • Governance model: have been some minor changes to Charter; expect to approve current documents, then review Charter specifically as a follow-up step.
  • PC goals: alignment of Goals with Charter and with what PC can control
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: 
  • Jakub not in attendance / RMS meeting was cancelled in any case
• Security Team: Craig McNally:
  • Nothing to discuss
• Eureka Early Adopters:  Craig McNally:
  • Latest status updates can be found here.

• 12 Mar 2025 - How does TCR process change with Eureka/applications?
• 17 Mar 2025 - Regular TC meeting 
• 18 Mar 2025/19 Mar 2025 - In-person summit (Jenn Colt to represent the TC)
• 19 Mar 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - TBD
• 24 Mar 2025 - Regular TC meeting
• 26 Mar 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - TBD
• 25 Apr 2025 - Folio Community Update
• 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
    • We had question about the Slack voting. Should we ask to add Slack as a voting option?
  • Evaluation of the Eureka Components/evaluating exiting modules
    • How does TCR process change with Eureka/applications?
      • Craig McNally: We should get to this sooner than later.
      • Start discussion on Wed. and move to Mon for approval
  • Developer Advocate
  • Communication after recent TCR process changes
  • Evaluating existing modules - Overlaps with the Eureka evaluation, consider combining.
    • Are we going to evaluate Eureka components or not? How are we going to evaluate Eureka applications?
  • OST issues with Java21 and Gradle
  • RFC retrospective - How much more time is needed?
  • Communication plan to promote updates to OST pages
    • Need to update OST pages with communication plan changes
    • Need a retro on changes to OST(?)
  • FQM RFC (when ready)
  • Retrospective on Eureka process (when ready) - Is this the same as the RFC retrospective item above?
  • TC Roles and Responsibilities (RFC)

All

Previous:

• FQM RFC Update
  • VBar Original proposal was from Wolfcon 2023. The FQM is now up to date as per Ramsons release.
  • Marc Johnson We should start at public review for the FQM.
  • Maccabee Levine We should be more open and public about the delays and opening this for public review.
  • Jenn Colt We are starting the public review clock.

Today:

• N/A

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?

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.