2025-03-24 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:  Maccabee Levine: 
  • CC will do another revision of the governance doc, responding to PC's feedback.  (It was a very short meeting no quorum.)
  • reference to some notes or minutes to the on-site meeting, not clear if this is going to be shared.
• PC: Tod Olson:
  • No meeting last week.
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: 
  • new timeline for bugfest was posted
• Security Team: Craig McNally:
  • no news
• Eureka Early Adopters:  Craig McNally:
  • Latest status updates can be found here , spreadsheet there is up-to-date
  • some progress across the board
  • some participants are a little behind; they will follow up on this this Wednesday

• 24 Mar 2025 - Regular TC meeting
• 26 Mar 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - Evaluation of Eureka Components
• 31 Mar 2025 - Regular TC meeting
• 02 Apr 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)
  • Wolf Con Planning
  • OST discussion around the Grails 7 and Java 17 issues; get to talk to the stakeholders

TCR-39 - Getting issue details... STATUS

ui serials management

• provisionally accepted
• code coverage was ~ 80%
• put back for TC review
• approved by TC by lazy consensus

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

Anything needed with Grails issue?

• Maintain Java 17 support for Sunflower. Extend Java 17 support into Trilium.
• We have little opportunities here. The teams have no capacities for this. When will this become a really big problem ?
• It can't be upgraded without also upgrading Grails.
• We might shut down our Jenkins pipelines for Java 17, if Grails can switch to the github Actions pipeline.  It should be do-able, but it need more work to investigate this.
• Is this going to be addressed in an Umbrella-Leaf ? This is the big question.
• Owen: I appreciate the discussion. We as a team need to know if we need to take actions to take the path of using github Actions. Ethan looked at this, it can't be immediately progressive.
• Owen: The responsibility lies at Knowledge Integration. We should invite e.g. Ethan to get more details. Owen has no information about the timeline. Is it the right move to move to Grails 7 ? There is an active discussion within Knowlegde Integration, but not yet a firm plan.
• Jason: There are plans to upgrade the Jenkins pipeline. It will not go away unexpectedly without prior approval. A lot of the Ranche pipeline things are related to this. The snapshot environments. Something more in line to what the Kitfox team does is under works. I don't foresee any huge changes and costs there.
• Julian: We evaluated the postgres 16 and Java 21 migration without using Jenkins. We have Go-modules that use github Actions. I do not see that there is really a big effort to test this. The longer we have Jenkins the longer we have to support it.
• Marc J.: For the time being we should continue support Java 17 on Jenkins on Ramsons and Sunflower release. We have other tools that support going to github Actions.  - An early adopter of the Java based process could be one of the Grails modules. We don't need to rush the removal of the Java 17 pipeline from Jenkins.
• Jason: There is no sense of urgency in the sense of getting rid of something. But there is some urgency to get a solid plan.

____

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

Jenn Colt 16:08
I haven’t listened to last week yet!

Jenn Colt  an  Alle 16:29
https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1742462754854239

Owen Stephens  an  Alle 16:39
I don’t want to drag out the discussion but would still very much appreciate knowing how to move forward the Jenkins pipeline discussion re Java 17 vs Java 21

Owen Stephens 16:46
OK - that seems to answer my question. We can just monitor announcements for the moment and discuss if there is a proposal to deprecate Jenkins Java 17 pipelines at any point

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.