2024-01-17 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.

All

• TCR-33 - Getting issue details... STATUS - update from Jenn Colt?
  • PC still discussing
  • Some discussion about it having UI in settings, front end may get adjustments. Some discussion about whether to go ahead and work in parallel with PC just to have more time. Will proceed.
  • TCR-35 - Getting issue details... STATUS - Jeremy Huff will take
  • TCR-36 - Getting issue details... STATUS - Jeremy Huff as well
  • TCR-37 - Getting issue details... STATUS   - Jeremy Huff Ingolf Kuss
  • Jeremy will work out what order/whether to do in sequence/parallel to work on these. Starting on TCR-37 probably makes the most sense since it is lowest level.
  • DCB getting more PC discussion as well
  • Moving forward on these due to time constraints
  • There are many TCRs for Q. Is this something we should flag? Can TC get them all done? Practically we need to be able to work in parallel with PC.
  • Did we drop the explicit contact from PC from the TCR process?
  • TCR group will consider all these sequencing issues and try to figure out a recommendation

Maccabee Levine Tod Olson  Jakub Skoczen  Craig McNally Jenn Colt 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
  • No meeting this week
• PC: Tod Olson 
  • Presentation related to mod-batch-print, discussion focused largely on how the batch print jobs for reminder notices are exposed in the UI and whether the module itself is optional.
  • Presentation on Direct Consortial Borrowing, did not get to discussion.
  • See 2024-01-11 Product Council Meeting Agenda and Notes for links to slide decks, etc.
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen 
• Security Team: Craig McNally No updates, triaging issues.
  • No important updates - business as usual
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt  
  • Work continuing

• 17 Jan 2024 - Regular TC meeting (instead of Monday 15th)
• 18 Jan 2024 - Tri-Council meeting
• 22 Jan 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 24 Jan 2024 - Topic TBD

All

Quick updates only.  If we can't find volunteers for groups, we'll need to add the topic to our backlog and address it during dedicated discussion sessions.

• Configuration group - RFC has been created so close subgroup and move work to the RFC for configuration, will work on composing the group
• Breaking changes - have volunteers Ankita, Zak, Jeremy. Will sort out their next steps
• Translations - conversations in council
• TCRs - group still meeting
• Application formalization RF draft - Craig will work on

All

• Status/Updates:
  • 0004 Date-time values must comply with IETF RFC-3339
    • Closed with a note - thank you Zak Burke 
    • Should we re-open & merge the PR so that the RFC can be seen in the master branch?
    • Zak Burketo update the Outcome to CLOSED and merge so it can be found later on
    • Marc Johnson comments regarding PAUSED state
    • This is done!
  • Application Formalization RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR:  https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/22
  • Go Programming Language for Backend Development RFC - PRELIMINARY REVIEW PR: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/25 - need to check in
  • Distributed vs Centralized Configuration RFC - DRAFT REFINEMENT PR: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/pull/26 - needs group formed, may inherit from the subgroup some folks

RFC Process Improvements:

• We need another RFC to update the metadata retroactively to reflect the new or adjusted statuses. - Jenn Colt will do this, hasn't finished yet
  
  • Any volunteers?
  • Holding off on this for now - maybe someone will volunteer after the holidays.

Notes:

The announcements were made before the holidays.  Has anyone received questions / comments on this?  

• Ingolf Kuss this has not been addressed at the sysops group yet
• Craig McNally will bump the threads to try to get more feedback

Notes:

no objections from sysops

no other feedback or objections

Standing agenda item... is there anything in the decision log requiring attention?

Standing agenda item to review/discuss any requested or required changes to officially supported technology lists

• Check in on progress... does anything else require attention?
• Next Important Milestone:  Review Ramsons (3rd party dependencies) and move from DRAFT → ACCEPTED by 16 Feb 2024 
  • Maybe we should aim to start looking at this on 05 Feb 2024 so we have time for discussion/adjustments.
• Versions for the components:
  • Resume discussion at an upcoming dedicated topic discussion?

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.