2024-07-22 Meeting notes

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

  • Welcome to new members. Stephen Pampell (TAMU) volunteered as liaison to TC. Shawn Nicholson (Michigan State) volunteered (prior to meeting) as CC member of AWS Cost Review Group.

  • Developer advocate role. Jeremy summarized work so far. Several members spoke positively. CC will look at budget. Want PC and TC to weigh in on renewal ahead of next CC meeting 8/12.

• PC: Tod Olson
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen 
  • meetings canceled until 7/29
• Security Team: Craig McNally 
  
  • Update on candidates for joining the security team:
    • Met with Jens Heinrich again.  Need to sync up with Kevin Day.
    • Will likely be seeking formal approval from the TC soon.
• Tri-council Application Formalization: Jenn Colt  
  • No meeting last week

• 24 Jul 2024 - Dedicated Discussion: Topic TBD
• 29 Jul 2024 - Regular TC Meeting
• 31 Jul 2024 - Dedicated Discussion: Topic TBD
• 05 Aug 2024 - Regular TC Meeting

• Florian Gleixner - mod-reading-room: Meeting with development team. Got module and functionality presentation. Another meeting after evaluation is soon is planned.
• Jenn Colt - ui-reading-room  - Jenn started evaluation.
• TCR-43: mod-marc-migrations: Jeremy Huff will do the evaluation, Tod Olson and Jason Root will help.

All

All

Need to log decisions for the following:  (see above)

• Decentralized configuration - Florian is working on this, will come back around next week. Write-up in draft
• Go programming language
• Application formalization - Craig will update next week

Check Recurring Calendar

Ingolf Kuss

Jason Root

Craig McNally

Marc Johnson

Julian Ladisch

In the Sys Ops SIG meeting the topic of Reference Data Upgrades came up. The SIG thinks that the solution of this problem for mod-inventory-storage is not enough, but that this problem needs to be solved in a general way, for all modules.

There has been a long discussion 3-4 years ago about how FOLIO should handle reference data upon upgrades. See these links for background:

• Original problem statement
• Input from SysOps SIG
• Proposals considered by Tech Council working group
• Recommendation from Tech Council working group

Previous Notes:

Marc Johnson points out he remembers a difference set of formal processes for this from the previous subgroup

Jason R. asks if the issue is that you cannot specify per-module what type of data to load, or that no matter what is specified the upgrade process overrides it

Marc mentions that the proposal to correct this by Vince is a very involved and complex workflow. There has been no developer resources allocated to correct this issue and address the proposal

No easy solution to this problem because the original default data is lost to time and change

Will reach out to Julian Ladisch when he returns

Notes:

Ingolf Kuss is on vacation.  Lets wait until Julian and Ingolf are both here.

Today:

• ...

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.