2024-11-04 Meeting notes

Jenn Colt is next, followed by Florian Gleixner

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

Jenn Colt 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
  • ...
• PC: Tod Olson
  • Call for Ramsons BugFest testers, need to recruit more people to help with upcoming BugFest.
  • Claiming app: Presentation on new app to support workflows to claim missing serials, will entail a new UI module. New functionality brought to PC while still in design phase!
• RMS Group:
  • ...
• Security Team: 
  • We should discuss ownership of mod-graphql see agenda item below.
• Tri-council Application Formalization:  
  • ...

• 06 Nov 2024 - Dedicated discussion:  Topic TBD
• 11 Nov 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 13 Nov 2024 - Dedicated discussion:  Topic TBD
• 18 Nov 2024 - Regular TC meeting

All

• Craig McNally followed up with VBar on the FQM RFC... 

Nothing new here.

Check Recurring Calendar...

• Craig McNally made progress on a couple things here...
  • Spoke to Christopher Spalding and got access to Election Runner - Setup was very easy, and free for < 20 voters.
  • Reached out to Boaz Nadav Manes wrt the google form used in the last election for nominations - Still need to see how much of this can be reused.
• It's also come to light that Taras Spashchenko will be leaving the project soon, so we have 2 seats to fill.
• Timing
  • Two weeks for nominations + One week to vote
  • Assuming we can get the word out (and nomination form) by 11 Nov 2024 (Next Monday), we should have results by the end of the month. 
  • Does this timing work?
• Communication/Announcement
  • Since it wasn't clearly captured in previous notes - the plan is to post to #tech-council, right?  Also maybe to the other council channels?  
  • Do we need to be concerned that we may not get enough nominees, or that not posting this to a wider audience may be viewed negatively?

From Julian Ladisch in #tech-council... Do we need to discuss?

There's a request to get a fix being back-ported to Morning Glory (R2 2022): https://github.com/folio-org/mod-authtoken/pull/164
Does FOLIO support this, or should we suggest that people (upgrade to a supported flower release or) fork the repository, do the changes in their fork, and use their own docker hub space to publish the fixed container?

Notes:

• Was this raised with the RMS group?  Any updates?

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.