2022-01-05 Meeting notes

Tod Olson is next, followed by Jakub Skoczen 

Check back about LTS: no update

Bulk edit: Craig reached out to Magda

Categories of TC decisions: no update

Bulk Edit: no movement, Craig to ping Magda

TCR-9 - Getting issue details... STATUS : action to invite Knowledgeware devs to TC to discuss architectural issues introduce topic and get both sides aligned.

• Question of whether it makes sense to take this to the whole TC or whether to take this up in a subgroup.
• This is a decision that would cut across modules.

Craig McNally

Tod Olson 

Marc Johnson 

Quick update from the sub-group? 

Quick update from the cross-council group for defining the end-to-end process? 

• Had one meeting before the break, problem may be being redefined because of different perspectives of the different councils.

Mike Gorrell 

Steffen Köhler 

Update on the formation of working group?

Mike Gorrell and Steffen Köhler will check back in about LTS.

• No update

Continue working through this...

Previous notes from 2021-12-22 Meeting notes:

• Ready for review, see TC comments on CC designation of leading council for FOLIO Vision, Strategic Objectives and Initiatives for PC and TC usage
• Has everyone (anyone) had a chance to review this yet?
• Tod Olson summarized the comments / input from TC members to date. Some of the dates needed to be pushed ahead as "near-term", "long-term" etc mean something different now than they meant when the document was drafted.
  • In some instances, the commenters felt that certain objectives were really under the control of the service providers rather than the TC (dependencies on hosting environments and such). In such cases, Mike Gorrell and Ian Walls believe we might want to remove those objectives.
  • Zak Burke proposed that the TC could structure some of the minimal performance requirements, while also ensuring that performance is a priority of the developers and tech architects (preventing things like memory leaks etc)
  • VBar asked whether the bullet in question (#6) was really a performance requirement.
  • Jakub Skoczen sees this as belonging to the realm of SLA terms. The TC should not have a defining role on point 6.
  • VBar indicated we should be able to provide performance metrics within the project.
  • Marc Johnson believes that the TC needs to clarify and agree on concepts like performance / stability requirements first before moving forward with this document. Also, for today, we're just trying to figure out which Council should own #6 and whether it should be the TC.
  • Ingolf Kuss offered to take this point to the SysOps SIG for discussion - to help define the requirements and report them back to the TC.
  • Craig McNally recommended that we first note the topics in the document that we agree on, then focus in later meetings on the topics in the document that need additional discussion. 
  • Tod Olson noted that the PC and TC would have input on FOLIO "roadmaps," just need to specify which roadmaps - a technical one vs a "shared roadmap"?

Jeremy Huff 

Zak Burke 

This is a carry-over from previous weeks.

• The tech leads group not being a decision making body
• Whether it's realistic and/or desirable for the TC to make every technical decision
  • There was some overlap here with the external code submission topic

Additional Context: 

• 2021-10-13 Meeting notes
• 2021-10-20 Meeting notes
• 2021-10-27 Meeting notes
• 2021-11-03 Meeting notes
• 2021-12-08 Meeting notes

For Today:

Any updates on these two things from last week?

Jeremy Huff created a page to track working groups... Should we take a look together and see if anything should be added/adjusted?

• Is there anything else we want to do for this topic?
• Is it enough to ask those in sub groups to add them to the page?

Action: we should discuss at next meeting about appointing sub-groups when there are not enough volunteers.

Discussion:

• Zak: some hesitancy to volunteer when there is not a clear charter for a subgroup, i.e. how do we know when this is done?
  
  • Maybe we need to define these things early on, like a list of deliverables
• Phil:  not always clear what the time commitment will be, having an idea of the expected time commitment would be useful
• Craig: Tricky to think about volunteering people, especially with the subgroup work tending to fall to the same people.
• Jeremy: could use multiple ways to do this, maybe subgroups for some matters, and for some matters perhaps assign to an individual to make a proposal. Perhaps could charter a TC member to assemble a subgroup that may include non-PC?
• Stuck for now: when we don't get volunteers, the need does not go away.
• Summary to remove obstacles to volunteering:
  • When we need a Subgroup, need to know what the output is
  • Set some expected time bounds
    • tricky, as cannot always finish as expected once you get into the issue
    • Default would seem to be to extend the time limit
    • Could split the time commitment: meet so often, and for so long

Proposal

When creating a subgroup:

• Establish a rough charter for outcomes
• Set some expectation for how often to meet
• Set a time on the calendar to review progress
• Record these expectations on Technical Council Sub Groups, with additional columns for details
• If the TC cannot lay out these expectations, we do not form the subgroup until we have more clear expectations

Outcome

Trying above process with Technical Evaluation Process Subgroup. No volunteers to lead, interested parties have conflicts. Will revisit next week.

All 

Follow-up from last meeting... Is the TC on the hook for anything here?

Previous notes: 2021-12-22 Meeting notes