Historical Sub Groups
| Group Name | Purpose | Date Started | Date Concluded | Owner | Members | Slack | Deliverables |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT REFINEMENT: 0005-application-formalization.md | Craig McNally | ||||||
| DRAFT REFINEMENT: Distributed vs Centralized Configuration RFC |
| Florian Gleixner | |||||
| DRAFT REFINEMENT: Go Programming Language | Jakub Skoczen | ||||||
| Improve the TCR Process |
Deliverables:
|
|
| Jeremy Huff | Zak Burke Craig McNally Florian Gleixner Jenn Colt Marc Johnson | #module-tech-eval-subgroup | |
| Breaking Changes | Goals:
Deliverables:
|
|
| #tc-breaking-changes | |||
| Technical Evaluation Process Subgroup | Come up with one ore more proposals for a technical evaluation process and bring these proposals to the TC for review. They may borrow parts of the RFC process, etc. Here's a document outlining what the process is trying to achieve: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UIahG77mreqTnnBN09Zpso5h4v2ZZxAOpgIZgqqqQOo/edit?usp=sharing See 2022-01-05 Meeting notes and previous meeting notes for additional context. |
|
| NA | Evaluation Process | ||
| Application Technical Evaluation Subgroup | To draft acceptance criterion and define the technical evaluation process for FOLIO applications | 2021-08-25 | (approx) | See New Module Technical Evaluations | |||
| LTS / Versioning Subgroup | Mike Gorrell / Steffen Köhler to organize a community stance relative to the first LTS. Results of our effort were documented in product council Product Council Minutes: LTR document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Un5OlutEh7M2p3AzxE8g20NmdeEhrC0KCNkfd_QLkRw/edit FOLIO is not ready for a long-term release point because libraries are actively installing each new release to get needed functionality. The recommendation of the task group was to revisit the decision at the end of calendar 2022. The document linked above contains recommendations for PC to endorse regarding back-porting of functional and security fixes until a long-term release is established. No objections from Product Council on adopting these recommendations. |
| January 27, 2022 | See LTR document: | |||
| New Module Tech Evaluation (Revisions after last batch of evaluations) |
|
|
| New Module Technical Evaluations | |||
FOLIO Scope Criteria (cross council) Cross-council group for new module inclusion process | Whilst this group is not a sub-group of the TC, it is here to remind us to talk about it during the regular TC meetings.
|
|
| NA | WOLFcon presentation (link TBD) which led to a lot of discussion and eventually the dissolution of the group. | ||
| Technical Documentation / New Developer Onboarding | Deliverables:
|
|
| Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan | NA |
| |
| DR process improvements | Goals:
Deliverables:
|
|
| NA |
| ||
| Tech Council Charter Revisions | Goals:
Deliverables:
|
|
| NA | An updated, TC charter with formal approval from CC | ||
| Kafka Partitions RFC | From: RFC Process
|
|
| NA | RFC moved to the next phase (Public Review) Communication to the community that the RFC is ready for public review and feedback. | ||
| Technical Council Goals/Objectives |
Deliverable:
|
|
| Tod Olson | NA | FOLIO Project Technical Objectives & Initiatives | |
| Translations Subgroup | Describe an approach for back-end modules to handle translation of runtime values, i.e. values attached to UUIDs and persisted in storage. This may include evaluation of TCR-9, or an RFC describing that or approach or an alternative. |
|
| Zak Burke | NA | ||
| Onboarding Documentation | Scope:
Deliverables:
|
|
| Maccabee Levine | NA | https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/CAQ7L02PP/p1682943495526129 | |
| Java 17 RFC | Scope:
|
| NA | NA | This subgroup was formed to shepherd the Java 17 RFC through completion. However, the decision was made that the RFC process was too heavy weight for this. Instead a discussion was held by the TC and a decision was made & recording in the decision log. See DR-000034 - Java 17 Support | ||
| Controlling AWS Hosting Costs | Create and publish processes that bring visibility to the project's AWS costs, provide a mechanism for approving major changes to AWS usage, and eliminate unnecessary spending. See expected deliverables. |
Reformed: |
| #folio-aws-costs | The new AWS Costs Review Group and related processes including the AWS Environment Lifecycle. |
