Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version .
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 3
Next »
Date 13 Oct 2021
Attendees Discussion items Time Item Who Notes 1 min Scribe All Tod Olson is next in the list, followed by Philip Robinson
2 min
Review outstanding action items All
Technical Decision Making Process
All This is a carry-over from last week.
The tech leads group not being a decision making body Whether it's realistic and/or desirable for the TC to make every technical decisionThere was some overlap here with the external code submission topic Related - in the wake of last week's slack vote:
Revisit voting rules:quorum: 8 (tie is no, so minimum 5 votes to pass) simple majority: yes of vote casted (including abstentions): yes Abstain: Yes Delegate: Yes voting via slack: No, it has to be in person only Future for Tech Leads Group? Who makes technical decisions, how? < 5 minutes External Code Submissions Ongoing work on Acceptance Criteria and Processes (submission, evaluation, etc.)Has the Acceptance Criteria v1.0 been published somewhere yet? What about references/links in other places.Will pick a Github repo and deposit it later (Jakub) Tod Olson RC might be a good choice Agree on short and long term goals, will continue to work on: Define processes for submission, evaluation, review, feedback, acceptance Improve the AC with more verifiable criteria, links to supporting documentation, etc. Time frame: Ian and Jakub will take a look at Lotus dates and inform the team next week LDP Review: reach out to Jeremy Huff and Nassib Nassar and sort out this by today < 5 minutes Council Goals/Objectives All Follow-up from previous meetings...
Previous notes:
From Mike Gorrell :
I have created a clean copy of what the Community Council created to identify which FOLIO Goals/Objectives were under the purview of the CC. We also took a stab at what thought would be handled by PC or TC. Please feel free to give us feedback/etc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17jVxW2XEK2bRSpXG9_FvdVtgqDfCTeKKM5h49IIhmRw/edit#heading=h.m2gdb67ibe1x . and use for your planning purposes.
Update from Tod Olson , Jeremy Huff , Craig McNally who met to discuss this last Friday.
The Friday meetings will be at 11am EST, please join if you can. Check-out Performance Follow-up from previous meetings...
Proposal from Marc Johnson: https://wiki.folio.org/display/~marcjohnson/Check+Out+Performance
Marc Johnson was asked to make a proposal for checking out performance; draft document is available by the first link above. Feedback is appreciated
There's a link to PTF analysis from the first mentioned doc
Check-out Performance Counter-proposal from Julian Ladisch: https://wiki.folio.org/display/DD/Check+Out+Performance
The Capacity Planning Team has determined that we should proceed with the caching approach. The feature UXPROD-3317 "Improve checkout performance by caching data" and 19 stories with priority P1 (linked from the UXPROD-3317 feature) have been created.
Upgrade/Migration Script Performance All We've run into situations where migration/upgrade scripts take a very long time to complete, which is problematic. The TC should consider defining some criteria around this... Possibly a phased approach over the course of the next few releases?
Overlaps with the acceptance criteria topic as it applies to modules already part of the official FOLIO release.
Time permitting
TC charter review
All
Action items