Technical Council
Space shortcuts
Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
Group NameGoal(s)Date Started

Target End Date

Next Check-in

Expected EffortOwnerMembersMeeting Time / LocationWiki
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.

August 2022December 2022?

 

1-2 hours/week

Zak_Burke, Peter Murray

Julian Ladisch Marc Johnson 


Wednesdays, 8 ET/12 UTC, Slack#tc-i18nTBD
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.

 

TBD - ongoing effort

 

1 hour meeting every 2 weeks; 3 hours/week outside meeting

Peter Murray 

Mark Veksler 

Steffen Köhler 

TBDControlling AWS Hosting Costs subgroup
Breaking Changes

Goals:

  • Clarify what constitutes a "breaking change"
    • At the module level
    • At the interface level
    • etc.
  • Clarify if breaking changes can be "batched" into a single version bump.
  • Figure out how operational changes and breaking changes are communicated... via semver?  release notes?  both?  something else?

Deliverables:

  • RFC
  • ADR

 

 

 

1-2 Hours / Week

Jeremy Huff 

Marc Johnson Jeremy Huff Jakub Skoczen Maccabee Levine 

Zak_Burke Ankita Sen 

Tue, 11am ET (3pm UTC)TBD
Improve the TCR Process
  1. Gather thoughts on areas that can be improved
    1. Via a retrospective
    2. Ensure that multiple perspectives are included, submitters and reviewers
  2. Align the template and the acceptance criteria
  3. Make clarifications to the process and acceptance criteria
  4. Ensure the rationale behind the TCR process has been effectively communicated
  5. Investigate:
    1. Is the criteria too exclusive?
    2. Is the process, either in design or implementation, transparent and communicative enough?
    3. Does this process allow for communication with all appropriate stakeholders?
    4. Is the process sufficiently collaborative? Is it too oppositional?

Deliverables:

  • Updated process documentation
  • Updated acceptance criteria
  • Updated review template

 

 

 

1 hour meeting time

1 hour offline work

Jeremy Huff 

Zak_Burke Craig McNally Florian Gleixner Jenn Colt Marc Johnson 



Distributed vs Centralized Configuration
  • An RFC (and eventual DR) 

Details TBD

 

TBD

 

TBDRadhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan (Vijay) 

Craig McNally 

Mike Taylor 

Julian Ladisch 



Architecture Review Subgroup

TBD...

  • From 12/7 meeting notes:  Create a new subgroup that deal with taking stock of the current architecture


TBD - on hold until some other subgroups wrap up.

TBD

 

TBD

Marc Johnson 

Craig McNally 

Tod Olson 



  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. Jakub Skoczen

    Mike Gorrell Steffen Köhler Guys, FOLIO Security Team has discussed that it's important to establish a security upgrade support process for FOLIO and this is likely related to the LTS topic for which a working group is being formed. Would you like to engage with the FOLIO Security Team on this, e.g involve some Sec Team members in the working group?