2023-10-09 Meeting notes

 Taras Spashchenko is next, followed by Jenn Colt 

All

Maccabee Levine / Tod Olson / Jakub Skoczen / Craig McNally 

• CC: Maccabee Levine - No CC meeting today due to U.S. holiday.
• PC: Tod Olson - No PC updates.
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen  No updates
• Security Team: Craig McNally Nothing really to report here.

All

• Need to review feedback from TCR evaluators and submitters - should we spin up another TCR process improvement subgroup?  
  Craig McNally So it's probably worth spinning up another group to to iterate on the the TCR process improvements. A placeholder has been created for such a subgroup.
  Maccabee Levine  volunteered to lead this group.
  Maccabee Levine : I think I'm willing to participate and lead this only if we're able to have those honest conversations about does this process still work or do we want to reframe it that that sort of thing based on a couple of weeks ago.
  Craig McNally : We can just put a message out in slack in the TC internal channel or something to see if there are any volunteers that that are willing to participate as well.

Florian Gleixner : Nothing new regarding Distributed vs Centralized Configuration, waiting for Julian Ladisch  to polish the RFC 

Craig McNally: Architecture Review Subgroup. Last time we discussed this is essentially on hold or or pause. We can hold off on that for now. I don't think it's it's urgent

Zak Burke: Communicating Breaking Changes - no updates

Zak Burke: Translation group - no updates

• Let's take another look at the MinIO/S3 decision and see if we can clean that up, make the documentation match out understanding that these are the approved technologies for object storage.
  • See DR-000026 - S3/MinIO: Craig McNally : Add a comment or note indicating that this decision was actually made a long time ago, but we realized that the decision was never logged properly and so we've made the necessary update. 
• To be reviewed at the end of the meeting if time allows

All

• 0004 Date-time values must comply with IETF RFC-3339
  Craig McNally : The next step is for TC members to read through the RFC. And then we can provide feedback in the way of comments right in the PR. 
• 0005 Application Formalization (Draft): Craig McNally : It is expected this to be ready for the TCP to review or start reviewing at some point later this week. 

• 11 Oct 2023 - We will meet Wed. - Topic TBD.  Craig McNally will identify a topic after discussion in slack.
• 12 Oct 2023 10:30 AM ET Tri-council meeting - use the PC meeting zoom.

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

• Postgres 12 EOL Fall 2024...  
  Poppy release works with PostgreSQL 12
  Q release: the PostgreSQL version must be upgraded to at least 13
• Handle in Quesnelia page Quesnelia - Technical Council - FOLIO Wiki
  Taras Spashchenko together with the Kitfox team arrange testing FOLIO on PostgreSQL 13
  Craig McNally Bring Quesnelia page up to date
• Typescript needs to be addressed
• Open question: Timelines
• Want to give people more lead time before the Poppy release

Today:

• Check in on progress
  • Florian Gleixner (postgres 13? 14? 15?) 
  • Jeremy Huff / Zak Burke (typescript)
• Lombok?
• MinIO/S3?
• Need to bring Quesnelia page up to date

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.