2025-03-17 Meeting notes

Date

17 Mar 2025

Attendees

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	CC: Maccabee Levine: ... PC: Tod Olson: New dev & PO from Five Colleges for LDLite, vision document: Eureka early adopters running into trouble with details, delay looks possible Governance: discussion of voting similar to ours about gaming the voting system No meeting later this week RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: No meeting last week. Security Team: Craig McNally: Nothing to discuss Eureka Early Adopters: Craig McNally: Latest status updates can be found here
	Eureka Timeline	Marc Johnson	Marc Johnson asked about the timeline referred to by Tod Olson during the PC update Tod Olson described the concerns around the early adopters reduced confidence in adopting Eureka during Sunflower. This perspective is supported by spampell, who also suggested that the timeline is likely to slip Marc Johnson suggested that, if the PC / CC have concerns about the Eureka for Sunflower timeline, they may want to consider what needs to be delivered by when, and what the fallback plan is if that does not happen. Craig McNally suggested that there are limited options for contingency and that the EBSCO folks are continuing to support the early adopters. Julian Ladisch advised that part of this work is improving the documentation
5-10 min	Upcoming Meetings	All	18 Mar 2025/19 Mar 2025 - In-person summit (Jenn Colt to represent the TC) 19 Mar 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - Eureka application / module evaluation 24 Mar 2025 - Regular TC meeting 26 Mar 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - TBD 25 Apr 2025 - Folio Community Update Dedicated Discussion Topics: Evaluation of the Eureka Components/evaluating exiting modules (continued) How does TCR process change with Eureka/applications? Developer Advocate Evaluating existing modules Communication plan to promote updates to OST pages Need to update OST pages with communication plan changes Need a retro on changes to OST(?) TC Roles and Responsibilities (RFC)
0 min	TCR Board Review	All	Nothing to discuss today
0 min	Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates	All	Nothing to discuss today
15 min	GitHub RFCs Wiki RFCs	All	Craig McNally still in the process of closing the Eureka RFC and documenting the decision wrt Eureka adoption. Meeting notes need to be updated from recording first, and can then link to them from the DR Craig McNally asked for volunteers to help update the RFC process documentation and update the existing RFCs to include stub entries. None were forthcoming Craig McNally will reach out to RFC proposer to create stub wiki pages that refer to the github RFCs
1 min	Decision Log	All	Nothing to review. Draft Eureka Adoption decision record has been created; Is work in progress. See update above
15 min	Officially Supported Technologies (OST)	All	Craig McNally asked about whether we could update the calendar page. Marc Johnson advised that we are waiting for a Trillium timeline. Craig McNally will follow up with Oleksii Petrenko about when the schedule might be published To Do: Updated Recurring Calendar page dates and document statuses
NA	Zoom Chat		No chat entries

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.

2025-03-17 Meeting notes

Date

Attendees

Related content