Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/867230970
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location)
US Toll: +1 408 638 0968 or +1 646 558 8656
Meeting ID: 867 230 970
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/zoomconference?m=HFOYojqG6P0eOobNily-kmpgCrJ9eJQ_
Jesse Koennecke, Aaron Trehub, Alexis Manheim, Anya Arnold, Björn Muschall, Brooks Travis, Charlotte Whitt, Christopher Spalding, Gang Zhou, Harry Kaplanian, Ian Walls, Ingolf Kuss, James Fuller, Jana Freytag, John Ballestro, Karen Newbery, Kirstin Kemner-Heek, Kristin Martin, Magda Zacharska, Martina Schildt, Martina Tumulla, Mike Gorrell, Owen Stephens, Paul Moeller, Sharon Wiles-Young, Tiewei Liu, Tod Olson
Prioritization Working Group - first meeting December 10: Wiki space
Univ of Chicago's migration plans has been delayed to Jan 15-17 to work through a few more migration issues: remote storage integration, mid-year fiscal migration.
PC Module Review and Approval Process
Sub-group formed to develop formal process - meeting on Friday
Follow-up: Can we approve or endorse three modules that are currently ready for deployment in Lotus and send them to TC for review? Questions about proposed modules:
Modules are bundles of code, and there is a difference between that and the features in UXPROD which have been voted on by libraries. Is this distinction important to the process of getting new things added to the FOLIO distribution? Does something need to be included in a release? If not, how do we leave the impression that they are good and worthy modules (strongly recommend) that libraries will want to use? There is not a place to show/promote apps that are not included in releases. The PC needs a process for highlighting the availability of these sorts of inclusions. Can we hold up getting things available to libraries while this alternative process is worked out?
|15 min||OA Modules|
The Open Access modules enable libraries to record, verify and report on open access publications by authors based at their institution. Where appropriate such requests can be linked to any appropriate agreements in the Agreements app (e.g. read and publish agreements) and payment details through invoices in the Invoice app.
OA plans were presented to PC on May 20, 2021 - Slide deck from that meeting
New slide deck overview from today. Expect to have a version for release in Q1 2022.
Action: The PC endorses the OA modules to be included into a flower release and submits it to the Technical Council for review.
|15 min||Bulk Edit Modules|
The scope of these modules is to provide bulk edit functionality in FOLIO. Members from different SIGs came together to list use cases and spec out requirements (some of the work had been previously discussed in the Metadata Management SIG), with PO Magda Zacharska, and developed by the Firebird Team. Initial work has focused on a pilot around bulk editing user records.
Slide deck: Bulk Edit
The deadline to complete active development is February 4—is it too early for Bulk Edit to be reviewed by TC since code is being added daily? How does this relate to the December 3rd deadline for TC review (from Lotus (R1 2022) release timeline) when the code isn't completed? From the TC's perspective, there isn't a deadline for inclusion, but TC notes that it is expected to take 3 weeks to conduct a review while the DevOps team believes it needs 2-3 weeks to add new modules to the reference environments. The December 17th deadline for the inclusion of new modules in a release is the foundation of the deadline and the TC is working backwards from that to have time for its own processes. The release management team is using approval by the TC as a signal to do the work to include a new module in an upcoming release.
Bugfest is the place the community has to do large-scale testing on a module, and to be included in bugfest a module has to be in a release. Do we need to untagle those two?
We probably need to define what it means to get into a release (bugfest versus in announced code)? (This is a question that is in scope for the "PC Module Review and Approval Process" working group.)
Action: Bulk edit is recommended for review by the Technical Council. The PC is endorsing the functionality for inclusion.
|15 min||Translation Modules|
Translation module discussion at PC: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1puq9ySnP1RG583TOLDCh9hPZTBxSp4cJtZu_y-7W5hU/edit. A preliminary version was also presented during the Sprint Review 120-121 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpHoWJkTZyE&t=2820s). Includes:
The TC has put in place a process for module inclusions; TC does not have a process for architectural decisions (such as the required changes to Stripes) or changes to the platform itself. These will be challenges for the review process as envisioned now. FOLIO has two process for transactions: labels included in the front end bundles and back-end messages. This might be an item that needs to appear on the roadmap (as tech debt?).
There are two questions: is this code of sufficient quality? and is this the correct technical approach to take?
Action: Kristen to pose the question on the Slack channel to ask Technical Council for the review of the code and to consider the technical approach as well.
— — Meeting ended before there was time to take up the remaining topics — —
|CC Update||Kirstin Kemner-Heek|
|TC Update||Tod Olson|
The TC continues to work through how we conduct our business:
|PO Update||Khalilah Gambrell|
Kiwi Release: 99 features included (Kiwi (R3 2021) Release Notes). ~30% of features dedicated to testing and technical debt.
Lotus Release: 105 features currently included (Lotus (R1 2022). Below is feature status breakdown:
|Cap Planning Update||Harry||Cap Planning has been focused on go/no-go decisions based on the readiness and testing of Juniper HotFix 4 and Kiwi.|