2025-04-07 Meeting notes

Kevin Day is next, followed by Jakub Skoczen

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: 
  • No meeting this week
• PC: Tod Olson:
  • Eureka early adopter updates
  • Preparing for PC elections and continuity planning
  • PC Google calendar for meetings
  • Planning for WOLFcon sessions
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: 
• Security Team: Craig McNally:
  • no news
• Eureka Early Adopters:  Craig McNally:
  • Latest status updates can be found here , spreadsheet there is up-to-date
• Notes:
  • Posted some slides describing the current state of the Early Adopters Program.
    • Describes state of GBV and their critical issues.
    • Describes state of TAMU and their critical issues.
    • Suggests needed more access to environments to better investigate problems.
    • GBV has 5 remaining steps:
      1. Entitle rest of applications, deploy associated modules.
      2. Build UI.
      3. Reindex.
      4. Fine-tunning of service points.
      5. Consortia setup.
    • TAMU has 8 remaining steps:
      1. Installation of core components and their fine-tunning.
      2. Entitlement of all applications.
      3. Create users.
      4. Assign capabilities.
      5. Build UI.
      6. Reindex.
      7. Fine-tunning of service points.
      8. Consortia setup.

• 07 Apr 2025 Regular TC Meeting
• 09 Apr 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - Continue TC Roles?
• 14 Apr 2025 - Regular TC Meeting
• 16 Apr 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - FQM RFC
• 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
• Notes:
  • Craig McNally, Who will take on the chair duties following the upcoming transitions?
    • Jenn Colt is willing to co-chair for the remaining year.
  • For continuing the TC Roles meeting, a table should be created and one more meeting is needed, however, the RFC should take priority.

#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

• • Consensus agreed.  Maccabee Levine edit the PR.

Notes:

• The Add criteria (and template line) to specify the application this module is part of (PR 96) has been merged without addressing any of the remaining comments.
  • The reason being that by the time the council gets back to this topic there will have been significant changes in the TC membership.

All

• FQM RFC Status - Public review period closed, not all comments resolved. Schedule a Wednesday to finish up?
• 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
• Notes:
  • Folio Query Machine RFC
    • The RFC has been under review and comments are made but not all have been either handled or resolved by the submitter.
    • There are questions regarding whether the submitter should resolve all of the comments and what the expectation for resolving these comments are.
    • Several of the comments are merely suggestions.
    • The TC should reach out to the commenters.
    • The TC is neither likely to ask for already approved modules to be removed or ask for substantive changes.
      • The TC continues to reserve the ability to do so however unlikely.
      • The TC approval may end up being more or less effectively a documentation of the approval as a result.
    • There are some strongly worded or opinionated comments that need to be addressed or looked over.
    • The TC should be cognizent of how it previously approved RFCs when regarding architectural changes to help better make decisions going forward.

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

• Does the TC want to run any sessions this year?
• To discuss at next Monday's TC: 07 Apr 2025 
• Notes:
  • WolfCon ideas are needed and a Google document is being created to collect the ideas.
  • Brainstorming Ideas suggested thus far:
    • A Eureka update as TC sponsored sessions, even if the work primarily comes out of EBSCO.
    • A session on technical debt.
    • Is the Early Adopters Group posting something, find out and consider sponsoring a session.
    • Privacy Issues session.
    • Market Place Workshop or Variety of Platforms Workshop (What we think running a Market Place would look like, from a governance perspective).
    • A "Firefly Presentation".
  • We might just be working with the PC for sessions or workshops.
  • Whether or not we need a dedicated meeting for WolfCon will depend on the Google document.
    • It seems unlikely that we will need another meeting and the discussions may be happend asynchronously on the document or on Slack.

Jenn Colt  to  Everyone 10:12 AM
Imaginary hand

Maccabee Levine  to  Everyone 10:17 AM
https://open-libr-foundation.slack.com/archives/C02HP10PPGB/p1743605244097559?thread_ts=1743604791.554069&cid=C02HP10PPGB
I was referring to TC ourselves perhaps dropping (half of) the ball on this:

• The submitter and Technical Council are in contact throughout this stage and together determine when the public review stage should conclude

Jenn Colt  to  Everyone 10:29 AM
lol

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.