2025-01-15 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: 
  • No meeting
• PC: Tod Olson:
  • Main topic has been PC approval process. PC Subgroup on Evaluation Process presented a proposal, discussion followed.
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen: 
  • New dates for Ramsons proposed, to be voted on; see chat log below.
  • Need a couple weeks to assess how new Ramsons date will affect Sunflower.
• Security Team: Craig McNally:
  • Reminder to please review Proposal for a Deprecation Policy for FOLIO Modules outside of the official supported set with a Severe Security Vulnerability and provide feedback.xz
• Eureka Early Adopters:  Craig McNally
  • Kickoff meeting 1/14 with Folio DevOps (Index Data), and Texas A&M
    • Emphasis on collaboration, info sharing, etc. across the participants, Kitfox, EBSCO.
  • Check-in with GBV earlier today. 
    • They've bumped into issues with hosting Keycloak, Kitfox is helping improve documentation.  
    • I've created a wiki page to collect information/findings/observations:  Hosting / SysOps Findings

• 20 Jan 2025 - Cancelled - MLK Day (US)
• 22 Jan 2025 - Regular TC Meeting – moved to Wed. this week due to US holiday on Mon.
• 27 Jan 2025 - Regular TC Meeting
• 29 Jan 2025 - Dedicated Discussion - TCR documentation changes
• 03 Feb 2025 - Regular TC Meeting
• ??? - Tri-council meeting - follow-up on Eureka Adoption?

• https://github.com/folio-org/tech-council/pulls
• Had planned to accept a number of simple changes in one 
• Topic for a Wed meeting, slot for 29 Jan.

• Deadline is technically Jan 24, but there may be some wiggle room given that Ramsons has slipped, and it's likely that Sunflower will as well.  It isn't known yet by how much.
  • Still aim for 24 Jan
• Not submitted yet, but someone from K-int reached out to PC and TC chairs about a new ILL module.  We've informed him of the deadline, and pointed him to appropriate documentation.
  • Folks involved in this module are new to K-int, will be learning process
• TCR Status/Updates:
  • TCR-46 - Getting issue details... STATUS mod-linked-data
    • One bug issue - resolved & merged
    • licensing is fine
    • Accepted!
  • TCR-50 - Getting issue details... STATUS ui-linked-data
    • Some questions about how to test a few outstanding items
    • Nothing is looking controversial
  • TCR-51 - Getting issue details... STATUS ui-ld-folio-wrapper
    • Kevin not here today

All

• ...

No changes

Check Recurring Calendar...

Craig McNally Jenn Colt clean up OST and calendar

We need to incorporate Go and then update the Calendar as well. Update the next instance in the calendar.

• See proposals: Voting Rule Comparisons

Straw vote about whether we should require at least 6 yes votes to accept a proposal: 4 yes, 4 no.

Today's notes:

• Review options around quorum and whether we use majority of members present or votes cast.

Straw poll (non-binding): do we accept majority of cast (yes) or majority of TC members present (no):

• Yes: 3
• No: 6
• Absentions: 2

10:06:47 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
Dear RMS panel,
Yesterday, we've met with short number of attendees.
Please review meeting notes - 2025-01-13 Release Management Stakeholder group
Proposal of wide message with new dates of Ramsons Release:
Jan 13 - Jan 24 - Additional run of manual and automated regression testing
Jan 24 - Ramsons bugfix deadline
Jan 27 - Jan 31 - Final smoke testing week
Feb 3 - Ramsons GA

Please your likes if you support proposed dates and I will proceed with sharing of wide message
Thank you in advance
10:44:27 From Ingolf Kuss to Everyone:
and that was understood to be the Default threshold.
10:44:55 From Ingolf Kuss to Everyone:
I mean, one can agree to lower or raise the threshold before each voting.
10:54:19 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
And Tod so that’s three of us!
10:57:47 From Maccabee Levine to Everyone:
We are down to 3 minutes --- let's actually do this straw poll please?
10:58:47 From Ingolf Kuss to Everyone:
Yes, let's just have a straw poll. After this, someone might rewrite the proposal for the voting rules (in the spirit) of the straw poll.
10:58:53 From Julian Ladisch to Everyone:
Please do the straw poll. We don't need rules for a straw poll.
10:59:01 From Ingolf Kuss to Everyone:
Reacted to "Please do the straw ..." with 👍
11:00:56 From Maccabee Levine to Everyone:
Let's have a straw poll on whether we will get there some day :)
11:01:15 From Craig McNally to Everyone:
Reacted to "Let's have a straw p..." with 😂
11:01:35 From Marc Johnson to Everyone:
Reacted to "Let's have a straw p…" with 😀

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.