2025-03-31 Meeting notes

Date

31 Mar 2025

Attendees

Time	Item	Who	Notes
1 min	Scribe	All	Maccabee Levine is next, followed by Tod Olson 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: No meeting this week PC: Tod Olson: Early adopter updates. Continued discussion about DC summit. Voting rules discussion. CC will change their revision about abstentions, TBD. CC reached out to TC chairs. Confirmed they agree with changes. WOLFcon planning. Matching council charges with what they have ability to do. RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: not here today 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 Can't provide a realistic timeline with any confidence, since work is incremental with solving issues, waiting for Slack help, repeat. Kitfox and Eureka teams committed to respond in 24h to any posts (generally happening already). Back to logging issues on a wiki page, how it was addressed – for info sharing with others who run into similar issues. Jason Root: Mike G. working with others to set up some work sessions to get more traction
5-10 min	Upcoming Meetings	All	02 Apr 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - TC Roles and Responsibilities 07 Apr 2025 - Regular TC Meeting 25 Apr 2025 - Folio Community Update Dedicated Discussion Topics: 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) Wolf Con Planning OST discussion around the Grails 7 and Java 17 issues; get to talk to the stakeholders
? min	TCR Board Review	All	#94 Notify RSMG after approval: Should we specify the specific flower release? It's implied, but change ok as is. Should merge #95: Add criteria to specify the application this module is part of There is a template in Jira itself, "Request for Technical Evaluation a Module" (temp 17). It's redundant with what's in NEW_MODULE_TECH_EVAL.MD, but allows us to version track changes. Maccabee Levine should add a link to "Create with Template" button, and a note that TC itself should change the template when updating criteria. We may just call an API to validate an application Charlotte Whitt What about modules that touch on multiple apps / modules? Craig McNally This criteria tests just does this module appear in only one application descriptor. Doesn't validate that application's dependencies. This is not adequate for where we want to be eventually, but a step towards incorporating Eureka into the criteria. Charlotte Whitt Mark then as preliminary? Marc Johnson Different things. 1) "module must be part of one app" is fundamental to Eureka architecture, so non-negotiable. 2) Evaluation of the app itself, incl the app descriptor, including dependencies among apps. How those are expressed technically, we have actively excluded from our process at the moment since doing incrementally. Tri-council group didn't manage to sort this, that the technical expression of an app is not the same as product expression. But this criteria isn't up for review later. It's just not the only one we're going to need. Worth writing down that we've not chosen to open app evaluation itself for the time being. Maccabee Levine Agree that "for the time being" we're not doing app evaluation beyond this. Incremental process. Craig McNally We can just add a line to the wiki page on New Module Technical Evaluations, in 'out of scope'. That addresses Charlotte's concerns. Craig McNally Are we ok adding this criterion while we don't know yet how to evaluate it? Maccabee Levine We could either delay the merge until we had a process, or could mark it as effective once it's actionable, or just merge now. Craig McNally Could be very simple: evaluator asks the dev team which application descriptor it appears in, then look at the application descriptors and make sure it's not in any others. Later on there might be other criteria about the application descriptor, i.e. avoiding circular dependencies. Marc Johnson Just do a search on the folio-org organization and make sure the module name only appears in one application repo. This becomes actionable in Trillium, and there's no timeline there yet. I would put the basic wording in today that Craig suggested. Consensus agreed. Maccabee Levine edit the PR. Ingolf Kuss Do we need to specify the "FOLIO Community LSP Platform"? Craig McNally FOLIO community project providing this one platform. Other providers may come up with their own platforms, but that would be too much.
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 This is done. Craig McNally asked for volunteers to help update the RFC process documentation and update the existing RFCs to include stub entries. None were forthcoming Still need to do this Craig McNally will reach out to RFC proposer to create stub wiki pages that refer to the github RFCs Still need to do this
1 min	Decision Log	All	Nothing to review. Draft Eureka Adoption decision record has been created; Is work in progress. See update above Craig talked through the ADR, mostly links to the RFC and other docs. Clarified that what we waived was specifically "new module evaluation". Continuing discussion of evaluating those modules as part of existing module evaluation.
15 min	Officially Supported Technologies (OST)	All	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
5min	Wolfcon	Maccabee Levine	Does the TC want to run any sessions this year? To discuss at next Monday's TC: 07 Apr 2025
NA	Zoom Chat

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.

2025-03-31 Meeting notes

Date

Attendees

Related content