2024-04-29 Meeting notes

 Ingolf Kuss is next, followed by Maccabee Levine

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 
  
  • no meeting today
• PC: Tod Olson (for last two weeks)
  • Upcoming PC elections and recruiting candidates. Existential questions.
  • WOLFcon proposals
  • Next steps on FOLIO topics from the China community, with focus on how to get the product issues to the POs
  • Planning for architectural and authentication changes discussed in 2024-04-24 - Architectural PoC, wondering about effects on roadmap.
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen
  • a request for potential rfcs
• Security Team: Craig McNally
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt
  • Week off in favor of attending TC meeting on Wednesday
  • things have been repeated incorrectly. Straightening things out.

• TCR-38: Florian Gleixner
  • ready for review by the TC
  • does it have to be in the main platform distribution ? → question for release planning group
  • if we approve it, it will be in the Ramsons release
  • some confusion because of naming: edge-erm wraps mod-agreements, but FOLIO EBSCO ERM is something completely different.
  • TC members voted and this module was accepted into Ramsons

• 01 May 2024 - Dedicated Discussion - Communicating Breaking Changes
  • cancelled because of international holiday
• 06 May 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 08 May 2024 - Dedicated Discussion - Architectural PoC Q&A continued
• 13 May 2024 - Regular TC meeting

All

All

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

• old version of FOLIO: Goldenrod
• problems supporting CNMARC; Problem with marc4j or with the FOLIO code ? Owen: A marc4j issue: github.com/marc4j
• some of these things might have been fixed in later versions, already; we won't fix them in Goldenrod
• Chinese community ready to move forward to some more recent version, if there is enough reason to do so
• significant changes in circulation and orders
• things about authentication that might be addressed through Keycloak
• will the Chinese community update their fork or will they get back to the mainline development branch ?
• Tod will be able to bring that (feedback) back
• Marc: some things not in the TC purview. Significant changes in circulation. It will be a lot of work to get back.
• Marc: We haven't touched some fundamental things which presented them challenges. There were process differences.
• Maccabee: Why did they fork years ago ? It makes no sense to speculate here.
• Craig: Let us get the fundamental questions answered first, otherwise it will be a waist of time.
• Jenn: Let us have a Wednesday meeting about that and have Patrick there.

Actions:

Tod Olson to bring some of these questions back to the PC and the group being formed around this topic.

• Will the Chinese community update their fork or will they get back to the mainline development branch ?
• Is the expectation that we'd backport some of these enhancements to Goldenrod?  Or that they will upgrade to a newer version of Folio?

Update: Gang Zhou confirmed the Chinese FOLIO community would like these to be addressed in current FOLIO development, not back-ported. 

Review the topics on our Topic Backlog to remove those that are no longer relevant, modify those that require change, and add topics that might be missing.

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.