Hi TC, it's WOLFcon planning time. I volunteered to wrangle together the technical FOLIO session proposals. The OLF folks want a draft list of session ideas by the first week of June, so less than one month from now. You can see last year's FOLIO sessions here. So, what technical sessions should we have this year?
If you're willing to coordinate a particular session -- presentation, or panel discussion, or whatever -- please fill out the form.
If you have an idea for a technical session but want to discuss it first...I guess let's do that in a thread here? I assume @cmcnally doesn't want to fill up the next month of TC meetings more than necessary.
Let's discuss in slack. If needed we can discuss at a later TC meeting (or possibly a Monday session)
Maccabee Levine planning to request suggestions in #development and #stripes as well – same as in #tech-council, either to fill out the form or discuss in a thread. ok?
From this morning's CC meeting: CC is looking at a possible budget surplus next FY due to discontinuing the developer position (Mikhal) and expected reductions in AWS costs (details). There was discussion about asking the other councils for input on possible spending priorities, and CC would discuss again at their next meeting in 2w. From the minutes:
Options for spending $150,000 - $200,000 in FY24?
Pay for other needed positions in the organization?
Buy out part/half time of individuals to perform needed functions?
Goal today is to see if we have TC approval for one or both, as DRAFTS, i.e. we support the general idea. For presentation to CC as a potential proposal, as PC did about AirTable a few meetings back. If CC is willing to hear more, then we can discuss on TC how to proceed.
Which, if any ideas does the TC support?
That is, do any of these ideas have enough merit that we would like to advance to conversation with CC & PC
Five six ideas pitched:
Fund a FOLIO Reference environment: community takes responsibility for a full "official" reference environment
Reactions: 7 in support, moves forward
Community Developer advocate: fund part of the time for a developer to help onboarding/documentation, fits well with TC charge
Reactions: 5 in support, 1 abstain. Florian Gleixner (absent today) also supported on Monday.
Reactions: 7 in support
Privacy SIG: fund a person work with SIG to create tooling to support privacy analysis
Reactions: 6 in support
Reactions: 6 in support
Fund migration CI/CD pipeline from Jenkins to GitHub actions, work is on hold due to lack of bandwidth; idea is to decrease demand on DevOps team:
Reactions: 7 in support
Decision: all of these have support, Maccabee Levine will reach out to other councils about these ideas, will let CC know immediately and ask for slot on next available agenda.
Officially Supported Technologies - Upkeep
A process was proposed for how to keep these pages up-to-date, we need to revisit and put some processes into place. As it stands right now, we have members of the community making changes w/o consulting the TC.
Florian Gleixner advised that he added a header including page properties for some of the release pages for folks to review
Craig McNally asked what states do we want for these pages e.g. Draft, Final?
Jeremy Huff suggested Active (for actively being defined by the TC), Supported (for after initial version is finalised, yet may still change) and No longer supported (for after the support period for the release has ended)
Marc Johnson wondered how we would come up with the list of statuses, without figuring out the process for maintaining these policy documents
Jeremy Huff asked how we determine during the module evaluation process, which release's supported technologies they should be judged against? Marc Johnson and Craig McNally advised that this would be the release currently ongoing at the time of submission
Jeremy Huff suggested that we could use Confluence's page restrictions functionality for limiting who can change these documents and add some clarifying text to advise folks contact the TC to submit changes. Craig McNally volunteered to investigate this
Craig McNally asked for volunteers for defining a list of statuses and adding a description of the process to the top level page. Jeremy Huff volunteered to take these on
@cmcnally for the TC agenda next week, this is what I think we need: a vote on whether to accept the document as it is now (with our deletions) but with a statement adding that there are other definitions of platform in use. I believe Simeon/Kristin/me will get that statement in before the meeting. I think that vote is what we need to give CC. After that we should discuss whether people want to participate in a new group to talk more about the definition of platform. I think people may also indicate that there are other definitions they would also like to revise. After this vote, I think it will be the end of my involvement with the doc on this level and someone else should consider coordinating TC proposing some definitions. Right now it seems like we are not happy with existing definitions but don't have alternatives to propose, but that is just my assessment of where things are.
Notes: We get a lazy consensus to accept the document as it is.
Maybe the best thing we can do is to form a TC subgroup which is open to other members of the community.
All the councils have accepted the draft document as-is. Except specifically for the "platforms" definition(s), TC is invited by CC to keep that going.