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



Discussion items

1 minScribeAll
10 minutes maxTCR Board Review


nothing new

5 minCC / PC Updates
  • updates from CC: There was no meeting the week of 5/29
  • updates from the PC:
1 minElectionsAll
  • Voting has ended, results should be posted soon
1 minWOLFcon planning
  • Call out for ideas for WOLFcon sessions is out.
5-10 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates


AWS Cost Subgroup - Maccabee Levine There's a progress, some draft approaches are ready, they can be communicated to councils at late June and maybe July; next update - next week

Breaking Changes & Improve the TCR Process - Jeremy Huff There was a discussion regarding potential presentation of TCR Process on WOLFCon - a joined topic of TC and PC. Related thread -

Tod Olson The Data Import improvement proposal that can include some architectural changes that have to be reviewed by the TC.

Marc Johnson Can we anticipate what kind of architectural changes we are talking about?

Craig McNally A dedicated subgroup or at least a dedicated discussion is required.

Marc Johnson It takes more time to get prepared to the release rather than do implementation work.

There was a discussion regarding release cycle and issues around it. Need to discuss this with the FOLIO releae mgmt team FOLIO Release Management Stakeholders

Let's take this to tc-internal chat.

Java 17 RFC - Marc Johnson Q release is too late to take this in work. However, the sooner the TC makes the decision, the better it is for development team planning.

ADR might make sense for this case. Anyway, the question is not "should we migrate to Java 17?" but "should should/can we do that?"

The discussion will continue next Wed.

Distr. vs. Centr. Cfg - no updates on the call

10-20 minRFCsAll
  • Java 17 RFC - needs attention
  • Wrapping up the Kafka topics RFC
    • PR is merged; the next step - Final Review stage; the discussion will continue next week, hopefully, with voting
  • Cleanup effort required:
    • filename prefix - all RFCs currently use 0000- defeating the purpose
    • conflicting process documentation between the wiki and github...
    • renaming can be done by RFC submitters, leave comments on the RFCs that still need it
    • Jenn will take on the documentation clean up
5-10 minOfficially Supported Technologies - UpkeepAll
  • Craig McNally successfully locked down the pages so that only TC members can edit
  • Craig McNally will roll out the headers to the remaining pages
  • Review the page status enumeration from the perspective of how/when/which modules are affected
  • Lock down is done, headers are there and now labels are added so things are appearing as they should be! Good progress.
  • Does "accepting" imply once and done or can things circle back through the statuses? How do we expect the statuses to drive what we are going to do? What process ties the statuses together?
  • It would be helpful to have a workflow diagram (like what JIRA has) about how the statuses transition from one to another. Need something written down.
    • As far as new modules, trying to show only the active one applies to a module being released right now
  • Some process is needed because of impact on scope. Impact can be at product level because of scope but the knowledge is at the dev level.
  • RFC too heavyweight for these decisions
    • Due diligence/communication to not surprise people
    • Who needs to be told? PO meeting and they communicate back
  • Bring to a monday meeting
  • ADRs might be a good solution
  • Should move Poppy to active, need to get Quesnelia up soon


5-10 min

Browser support

  • Zak_Burke more time is needed to collect support from the community


  • Update on where this stands?
  • Zak_Burke A slack channel is created, there was a good discussion on this recently; keep this in the agenda for next week
5 minUpcoming meetings
  • will be used to discuss the security concerns around consortia / cross-tenant support, relaxing the tenant check
  • topic TBD
  • is holiday for several members - probably won't meet 

Topic Backlog

*reminder*Terminology DocumentAll
  • Craig McNally the term "platform" is something that we wanted to revisit but the terminology document otherwise has been accepted by the three councils
  • Craig McNally what is the urgency on this?
  • Jenn Colt has been talking with Marc Johnson on Slack and was thinking that could be part of a larger conversation about architecture
  • Marc Johnson is okay leading this conversation and rolling it into the Architecture discussion,  we could use platform as the first topic on the Architecture sub-group

Action Items