2025-04-28 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: 
  • Vision statement vote postponed until consideration of various other documents/proposals being drafted by subgroups that involve contribution network, membership, resourcing
  • Subgroup: "Cultivating an active healthy software development contribution network"
    • Mike will polish and share the in a today, discussion at next CC meeting. GDoc comments welcome. Draft by @Mike Gorrell (lead), @Boaz Nadav Manes @spampell @Christopher Spalding, @Kirstin Kemner-Heek
    • Create some development streams for folio organizations.
    • Bulletin board of needs, roster of development orgs capable of doing development. Wiki so light, self-policing.
    • Maintenance of certain modules may be sponsored for period of time. Or, general support pool from community membrsr dues. Points system of module weight, to allocate support need.
    • Second tier support pool. Organization that has specific expertise, not day-to-day maintenance but things they are expert on.
• PC: Jenn Colt for Tod Olson - Marc Johnson:
  • Good feedback from Eureka early adopters
  • Wolfcon Topics
  • Priority list - try to organize work
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: no updates.
• Security Team: Craig McNally:
  • The Security Team would like the TC to chime in on an adjustment to the sonarcloud rules...  See below.
• Eureka Early Adopters:  Craig McNally:
  • GBV has a working platform complete on Eureka running, now working on formalizing things
  • Texas A&M is getting close too.
  • Latest status updates can be found here , spreadsheet there is up-to-date

• 30 Apr 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - Officially supported technologies - Trillium
• 05 May 2025 - Regular TC meeting
• 07 May 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - TBD
• 12 May 2025 - Regular TC meeting
• 14 May 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - TBD
• 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
  • FQM RFC
  • WOLFcon Planning
  • OST discussion around the Grails 7 and Java 17 issues; get to talk to the stakeholders

Previous:

• https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/pull/80 (TCR-43)
  • Deferred, capture that it was withdrawn and then merge
• Update process with regard to FQM:
  • https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/pull/97
  • If we end up reviewing existing modules FQM may come up again
  • If FQM happens to be replaced by another module with something that does the same things, that module would be legitimate
  • We want to exclude non-FQM modules from having those permissions
  • Trying to cover all of this^
  • See suggestion on PR

Today:

• Nothing new on the board
• TCR-43 is merged.
• FQM https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/pull/97
  • Maccabee Levine changed wording
  • Julian Ladisch is OK with merging

All

• 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
•  

  ---

  Today: Joshua Greben volunteers

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

Draft Trillium timeline is available:  https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BIAqNg

To Do:

• Updated Recurring Calendar page dates and document statuses

From slack:

I've been looking at the inconsistencies in the environment variable naming in Eureka, specifically with KeyCloak, and so I created a Story KEYCLOAK-53.

This had me thinking and wondering if we as the Tech Council may want to discuss naming practices regarding core functionality to make environment variables across multiple and within modules more consistent.

Has there ever been any discussion on environment variable practices and naming consistencies?

I'm thinking that this might be worth discussing.
I can see this being relevant for special modules like Kong, KeyCloak, FQM, etc...

Notes:

• There have definitely been conversations about this in the past.  Matt Weaver points out that one such conversation wrt ports happened recently.  See https://open-libr-foundation.slack.com/archives/C210RP0T1/p1741100367668439
• For KEYCLOAK-53, the Eureka team has adopted the "KC_*" prefix for environment variables which pertain to Keycloak (KC over KEYCLOAK for brevity).  Similarly, KAFKA_*, and KONG_*, etc.
  • However, for folio-keycloak, some environment variables are used by the keycloak container.  These expect the "KEYCLOAK_*" prefix.   
  • As Julian Ladisch points out in the issue comments, KEYCLOAK_ADMIN and KEYCLOAK_ADMIN_PASSWORD have been deprecated, and should be replaced with KC_BOOTSTRAP_ADMIN_USERNAME and KC_BOOTSTRAP_ADMIN_PASSWORD instead.  We will probably just use KEYCLOAK-53 to track this work.
  • Julian Ladisch already has PRs created.  Thank you Julian Ladisch!
  • Tod Olson should be also a topic for sysops.
  • Marc Johnson different languages have different rules for environment variables, for example using underscores.
  • Craig McNally at least at framework level, variables should be consistent
  • Florian Gleixner Environment variables shlould look the same during deployment. For example a container entrypoint can translate.
  • This should be discussed by the sysops SIG and then be discussed in a Wednesday meeting.

17:10:25 From Jakub To Everyone:
       No updates regarding the RMS from me

17:19:17 From Maccabee Levine To Everyone:
       We could also start to round-robin this kind of thing in the same way we do notes, and TCRs.  But thanks Josh!

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.