Alexis Manheim, Ann-Marie Breaux, Brooks Travis, Charlotte Whitt Debra Howell, Felix Hemme, Gang Zhou, Harry Kaplanian, Ian Walls, Ingolf Kuss, Jana Freytag, Jesse Koennecke, Karen Newbery, Khalilah Gambrell, Kirstin Kemner-Heek, Kristin Martin, Marcia Borensztajn, Martina Schildt, Martina Tumulla, Owen Stephens, Peter Murray, Sharon Wiles-Young, Stephanie Buck, Tiewei Liu, Tod Olson
We believe from everything we've heard, the EPAM developers in Ukraine are okay. We likely shouldn't expect much communication as the EPAM staff focus on their own personal safety. For the personal safety of those impacted, please refrain from contacting and seeking information from those colleagues; the FOLIO Slack is wide open and we don't know who is listening and watching.
Due to the cross-over of people and the overlap of discussions, the data migration group will remain a subgroup under Sysops rather than becoming their own SIG.
Documentation Working Group update
Working group has completed the set of documentation for Iris. The technical infrastructure has been built that supports multiple FOLIO versions. The FOLIO release version is in the URL, and there is a "Releases" drop down at the top of the homepage. In the FOLIO user interface, some work may need to be done so that the question mark icon takes the user to the correct release version of the documentation. There is nothing in the distribution of FOLIO that says what "version" FOLIO is; - STCOR-591Getting issue details... STATUS is filed to make the URL under the question mark configurable by the FOLIO operator.
The working group is moving drafts from Google Docs (where documentation is created) to GitHub as Markdown. The first version of documentation is always the hardest, and the working group is now working on the changes needed for Juniper, and that the pace will pick up after that.
FOLIO is applying again to the Google Season of Docs. Point anyone that is interested to Marcia. The project might also get an intern from San Jose State University on instructional design. There is also an investigation ongoing on options for translations; the documentation infrastructure is there to support non-English languages.
Marcia is working 5 hours a week on the project.
Work is happening in the German community for planning on documentation in that language. They are looking at tools to help automate the process.
The basic outline for contribution and participation in the documentation process is on the wiki: FOLIO Documentation.
Review process: LDP app received final approval, Authority control module still in process, new plug-in for finding fund information. Review process is currently set up to happen after a module is complete, but there is a sense that it would be useful to review the technical design before a lot of effort is expended in implementation to ensure the design fits with the rest of FOLIO. Not certain how this would work. We would not want to create an undue burden, but we have already encountered issues of architectural fit and implementation strategy.
New Technical Module Evaluation: small subgroup is working to update/clarify the module technical evaluation process based on experiences so far.
Code Library evaluation:A code library was submitted for evaluation. It had been split out from an existing module and intended for reuse in other modules. Decided that separate review of library code was not needed, and would happen in context of a module review.
Technical Decisions: another subgroup has formed to review TC process for making technical decisions; have had some questions of scope and mission, still organizing. Some kind of RFC-like process may happen.
Personal Data Disclosure Form: The Privacy SIG made some changes to the form where developers disclose what personal data is stored by a module, asked TC for approval. While this form was originally created by TC member, that was before the Privacy SIG existed. TC position is that the Privacy SIG are the experts in this area and should own that form.
Council Goals/Initiatives: Have some good insights and questions, but unclear where to go next. Spinning up small subgroup to focus on this.
Hosted AWS environment: Peter Murray is looking at new environments that have increased expenses, driven by specific development needs, such as performance testing. Expect further conversation about how we approve environments and making AWS costs explicit for certain development efforts, and things we can do to contain expenses.
Onboarding Developers: PC noted challenge of onboarding new development teams, asked whether TC has a role in addressing this. This would need to be a cross-council effort. Creating onboarding materials is a project that requires resources. TC might be able to identify persons who could help create materials, but TC cannot assign that work or give it a priority relative to other efforts, but allocating resources and setting priorities is more under CC/PC.
Our current process is focused on getting code ready for release. We need processes to get feedback on code that is in development: some sort of opportunity to get reviewed earlier. Could this be related to the RFC process described earlier? Sometimes with design documents on the wiki, it isn't clear whether feedback is desired just from the specific team or whether broad feedback from the community is required. As development teams work on "local" issues, they need to often consider the global project-wide issues.
Capacity Planning has not met weekly since the beginning of the year. Focus has been on the community-oriented team, Prokopovych. Holly is moving to part-time; Charlotte will be talking on some of the role from Holly, particularly in the area of search. This team has a very limited number of developers (effectively 3 FTE with no one full time) and "a mountain of work" to do. Capacity Planning has been talked about whether it is possible to move some of this work to other teams.
Hotfix 2 for Kiwi is planned for March 6.
If there is capacity from China or other sources, how can these be put together? Sources of capacity can go to Capacity Planning, which will review the skills being brought and place people on teams where they can be paired with an experienced project member. Technical Skills in Demand
We have more than just a developer onboarding problem, but onboarding is something that we can address. We can address this by gathering the resources and making sure they are available for the teams.
|5 min||Agenda items for next meeting||None raised at the end of the meeting.|
00:09:44 Peter Murray: Ian took this on...thanks, Ian! 00:11:37 Ian Walls: your help and support was crucial, Peter! 00:11:42 Charlotte Whitt: Maybe switch around, so the latest version is in the top of the drop down menu 00:12:46 Charlotte Whitt: Having a very long alphabetic list, with a very old version in the top might be cumbersome when we get to Nolana and Oâ€¦, Pâ€¦ etc. 00:15:18 Owen Stephens: OK - thatâ€™s great - basically the same approach as for the â€œwelcome messageâ€ that shows 00:15:33 Owen Stephens: Thanks Ian 00:15:51 Gang Zhou: Different version may be like http://docs.folio.org/kiwi ? 00:16:50 Jesse Koennecke (he/him): The FOLIO release name is at the beginning of the URL: https://honeysuckle.docs.folio.org/docs/ https://iris.docs.folio.org/docs/ 00:16:54 Ian Walls: UXPROD for allowing custom Help urls: https://issues.folio.org/browse/UXPROD-3560 00:17:35 Gang Zhou: And a portal page with list kiwi, lotusâ€¦. 00:19:01 Ian Walls: we've got docs.folio.org, which serves as our long-term, concrete URL for all docs, and then each subdomain will roll out as available. We can modify the docs.folio.org landing page to make ergonomic improvements 00:22:06 Ian Walls: I would advocate that after some period of time (as determined by the PC), we drop versions listed in the dropdown. I imagine there will come a point when we no longer expect anyone to run Honeysuckle 00:24:11 Tod Olson: It seems like the versions of documentation that are in the drop-down could be linked to the currently supported versions. That seems like a natural pairing. Older documentation could still be available (for all sorts of reasons) but perhaps not given the space in the dropdown. 00:24:33 Brooks Travis: Could we go with the same strategy as weâ€™ve adopted for â€œsupportâ€ (current release, and previous release)? 00:24:56 Brooks Travis: ðŸ˜ƒ 00:25:11 Ian Walls: I agree with both Tod and Brooks here. Maintaining documentation for unsupported versions doesn't seem like a good use of time 00:28:51 Tod Olson: Thank you, Harry. 00:29:35 Marcia Borensztajn: Hereâ€™s the link to the doc contribution guidelines https://wiki.folio.org/display/SS/FOLIO+Documentation 00:30:25 Brooks Travis: Roll Tide! 00:32:13 Khalilah Gambrell: Thanks all. 00:36:42 Brooks Travis: RFC? 00:37:27 Charlotte Whitt: https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs 00:37:49 Brooks Travis: Seems defunct 00:38:41 Brooks Travis: That said, I did find that RFC for pubsub very interesting 00:47:26 Brooks Travis: How do our processes fit with our agile project structure on the dev side? 00:55:31 Brooks Travis: This is definitely just my feeling about this, but I feel like we do need dedicated, project-managed development resources for the core code to be viable as an open-source project. 00:57:50 Khalilah Gambrell: https://wiki.folio.org/display/TC/Technical+Skills+in+Demand 00:58:01 Ian Walls: Brooks: I had drawn up a model like that during the Goverance discussions last year... but it does require money to flow into FOLIO SMLLC reliably 00:59:56 Alexis Manheim: Is the Tech Skills in demand page up to date? It was last updated in Sept 21. 01:00:07 Ian Walls: for me, the biggest challenge to coming on as a code contributor is getting a FOLIO dev system up and running 01:04:33 Brooks Travis: We almost need a developer relations team 01:10:33 Brooks Travis: This does circle back to the â€œif youâ€™re going to provide new code/functionality, youâ€™re taking on some burden to support that, at least for a little whileâ€ issue. 01:11:12 Brooks Travis: Especially for â€œcoreâ€ components