Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata



Discussion items

1 minScribeAll

Jeremy Huff is next, followed by Marc Johnson 

20-30 minTCR Board Review


Reminder:  27th January is the Deadline for acceptance of new modules by Technical Council

TCR 22

Marc Johnson  : There were 4 evaluations done during the span of this evaluation window. There is no criteria that Marc is unsure about in this final iteration.

Craig McNally : The last we heard the module was incomplete. Particularly module endpoints not being connected to implementations.

Marc Johnson Marc Johnson: The endpoints described in the module descriptor have been connected to implementations.

Craig McNally Craig McNally: Are there still any issues with the accuracy of the personal information disclosure form.

Marc Johnson Marc Johnson: The team implemented changes to the personal data disclosure form based on feedback given during the evaluation processes. The criteria surrounding permission names may need to be clarified by the new module evaluation subgroup. We should also add criteria that ensures that the module implements the criteria it says it does.

The module was approved.

Marc Johnson Marc Johnson: We should avoid future reviews which are of the level of implementation that this module was in when the evaluation started.

TCR 24 

Jeremy Huff: There are two areas open for discussion, 1) the addition of the "mod" prefix to avoid name collision with exiting permissions, 2) the presence of vertx dependencies that are not explicitly listed on the list of approved technologies. Jeremy is of the opinion that neither of these should prohibit Mod Settings from being approved.

There were no objections to approving the  module despite either of these configurations.

Florian Gleixner: There is an ongoing discussion about centralized vs distributed configuration, should this discussion prohibit the approval of this module

Jeremy Huff: The evaluation team did not feel that this conversation was relevant to the technical approval of the module

Florian Gleixner: Should a note be attached to the review reflecting this

Jeremy Huff : Agrees to add the additional section for notes, and modify the criteria to show that the module has been accepted

Marc Johnson:  The PC has approved the module, but not based on any sort of architectural

Ingolf Kuss: Isn't there a subgroup in place to talk about this configuration issue?

Craig McNally: Provided the historical context for the decision to allow Mike Taylor and his team to continue with their work

The module was approved

10-15 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates


Technical Goals and Objectives

Tod Olson : There was a meeting were feedback was given. There are some changes that Tod is intending to make in response to those

Breaking Changes

Jeremy Huff: Completed the term definitions section. Some copy editing remains before submitting the RFC

TC Process

Jeremy Huff: Action Items have been created and assigned.

Charter Revisions

Jenn Colt: We have a revision to bring to the TC, and will address later in this meeting

10 minTC Charter Review
  • Review final revision of the Draft TC Charter

Craig McNally: We will review the draft in TC and next step is to determine if this ready for the CC. 

Mark Veksler: What is meant by the operational health of the reference environment

Craig McNally: This language was already in the charter

Marc Johnson: Didn't we ask the CC about this?

Craig McNally: We did, and were told that it is unknown what this term means

Jenn Colt: The CC said the TC should decide what that term means. Jen suggest that we accept this term as it is and define it over time.

Mark Veksler: Operational health might include the ability to release on time. Is this part of the TC's responsibility?

Craig McNally: This line is adding ambiguity, maybe it should be struck

Tod Olson: Suggests restoring the word "infrastructure"

Mark Veksler: If we say that the TC is responsible for maintaining the development environments, who is responsible for this?

Craig McNally: Maybe we should replace "maintain" with "provide oversight"

Marc Johnson: We did not want our language to be limited to the provision of opinions. We need to be mindful of how the language in these charters effect the ability of a council to act and make decisions. There was some discussion about who is responsibly to determine who is responsible for reference environments, and it was decided that it is the who makes such decisions CC.

Jenn Colt: We can maybe change operational to technical 

Craig McNally: We should put this on the additional topics agenda for further discussion

5-10 minRFCsAll

RFC to review from Olamide:

Previous Notes:

  • How to move on to the second stage - could resolve existing questions and resurface them in the next stage
  • Moving on allows opening up the audience, impact on upgrades could be significant
  • Marc will resolve his comments if needed. Olamide can decide what should be in the RFC and what should be out of scope. Olamide will look at most recent questions, document responses and then resolve.


  • We have 3 Weeks for review. Need to form a subgroup.
  • Olamide has to create a new PR for draft review.

Craig McNally Has a subgroup has been formed?

Marc Johnson not yet

Craig McNally Will follow up with this to ensure that the subgroup is formed

1 minDR-000032 - Splitting Database Read/Write Traffics in RMB

FYI:  DRAFT decision record:  DR-000032 - Splitting Database Read/Write Traffics

Martin Tran will be joining us next week for a short presentation and DR review.  

1 minUpcoming meetings
  • TC dedicated discussion:   11:00 AM ET
    • TC Charter Review
*Decision Log Review

This was not discussed due to time.

Moved to discussion for next week.

  • Take a look at the decision log, migrated decisions
    • Are any adjustments required? 
    • Do any of these require additional discussion?
  • Next steps?  
    • Communication about the consolidated decision log?  Where?  When?  Who will do this?

Topic Backlog

20 min

WOLFcon Hot TopicsAll

An overview was provided of the "hot topics" at WOLFcon.  It seems clear that the TC ought to be involved in these discussions/efforts;  what is the best way to participate?

  • Platform minimal
  • Applications/bounded contexts & application management
  • Blue/green deployments
  • Kafka/messaging improvements
  • FOLIO governance
  • API technical debt
  • ???

Notes: Deferred

Cyber Resilience Act

From Craig McNally in #tech-council:

This was brought to my attention earlier today...
While it's still just a proposal, I think FOLIO should keep an eye on, and maybe even try to get ahead of in anticipation of this.  I will add it to the agenda for next week's meeting.  This is a short read that does a decent job of laying it all out.  Please take a look prior to next Wednesday.  Thanks! 

  • Have folks had a chance to read through any of this?
  • What, if anything do we think the TC should do about this?
    • Raise awareness among other councils?
    • Seek legal advice in anticipation of this being passed?
    • Is there anything else we want to do to be more prepared for this in the event it does get passed?

Today: Deferred

Ease of Installing FOLIO

All / Ian Walls 

From last week:

  • Ease of installing/deploying FOLIO - Ian Walls , Marc Johnson , Jeremy Huff
    •  Primary task the Tc would take on by making FOLIO easier to get up and running. Would also reduce AWS costs so that the money coming from Membership groups can be flowed to other aspects of FOLIO. Tc is the best equipped group to decide on how to make installing and deploying Folio easier and cheaper.
    • Craig McNally - Brainstorming open ended session with Ian Walls and then discuss further before or after WOLFcon depending on the brainstorming session. Ian Walls and Tod Olson to frame the topics of discussion for the brainstorming. 


  • Probably defer, but keep on the agenda so we don't lose track of this...

Revisiting FOLIO Governance

All / Ian Walls 

Slack discussion:  Revisiting FOLIO Governance 

    • Ian Walls - should be best discussed in cross council meeting possibly at WOLFcon. Idea to was bring this up at a high community level not necessarily the Pc or TC. Doesn't need to be on TC agenda next week. Aspects to be discussed at WOLFcon.
    • See also:  messages to PC and CC council channels

Action Items