2023 06 15 TOC Meeting

2023 06 15 TOC Meeting

Show Video

Tracy Kuhrt: Alright welcome. Everybody is June fifteenth. We're halfway through June. This is the Hyper Ledger. Technical Oversight Committee. Call as you are probably all aware. I think I've seen you all on the call before. But 2 things that we have to abide by the first is the antitrust policy that is being displayed on the screen. The second is our code of conduct, which is linked in the agenda. Tracy Kuhrt: So for announcements today, we have the standard dev Weekly Developer Newsletter that goes out each Friday. If you have something that you want to include in that newsletter, please. leave a comment on the link Tracy Kuhrt: at the that is linked in our agenda. Tracy Kuhrt: The second announcement that we have is that, David has made some substantial updates to the presentation.

Tracy Kuhrt: For why contributing to the Hyper Ledger community will help meet your goals. so please do take a look at that, and review those changes and see if there's anything else that you would like to to have. I think you know David has also volunteered to come back. And you know. Talk about that again to the to the Toc. So if we are Tracy Kuhrt: looking to or if we want David to come back and and present that again. He's willing to do that. So If you do want to do that, please do let me know, and we can make sure to get that on a future agenda. Tracy Kuhrt: Other announcements that anybody has or would like to make.

Tracy Kuhrt: Okay, Tracy Kuhrt: So this particular agenda is not the latest. But that's okay. because I think everybody has seen the the soft teeth. Report came in. But we do have the Firefly and the Sawtooth report that has come in the Firefly reports Tracy Kuhrt: I don't think has all of the approvals yet. So, please, if you haven't had a chance to look at the Firefly Tracy Kuhrt: report. Please do that. Any questions on the Firefly. Tracy Kuhrt: Report that we should be discussing today. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay, not seeing any hands. So we did get the Sawtooth report right? Did submit that. I believe right? You took the Tracy Kuhrt: the draft that they had put together and submitted. That is that correct?

Ry Jones: That's correct. The Google Doc was already in mark down. So I basically just copy pasted it. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): So I mean, I posted some comments about this. I have some questions about the you know, the claims being made, and you know it seems to report a lot of activity and stuff. I don't really see it when I look at the insights.

Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): and in particular I post that come in just a bit earlier. If you go to the list of Maintainers. some of them often that even a an interaction with Github Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): entirely, not not even talk about so tooth in particular. So I'm like, how can they be maintainer of so to if they don't even interact with Github in over a year. Ry Jones: So I did go through and post a bunch of Pr's to adjust the Maintainer's files a while ago. Ry Jones: I got a lot of push back from the Saw Tooth team, and so I abandoned those. Pr's Ry Jones: So Ry Jones: that's why they're still there.

Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): Okay. And you know, the report claims that there are people like Carly involved. I don't see any trace of this. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): I mean, you know I'm not. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. But you know it. It's it's a bit puzzling. Tracy Kuhrt: Yeah. Oh, no, I think they the other challenge that we have

Tracy Kuhrt: with the report at the moment is that there is no Sawtooth person who has submitted this report. And so they're not going to see the Tracy Kuhrt: comments that are coming in. Tracy Kuhrt: so I I think we're gonna have to figure out how to get this out to your team to take a look at these comments. because it's going to be very hard for us to merge this with the outstanding comments given our Tracy Kuhrt: our Tracy Kuhrt: process that we have for doing. Tracy Kuhrt: the the merger this full request. So I I think that's yeah, thanks, Ry, for adding these folks. I think that's gonna be something that we really need to have. These folks coming back and providing

Tracy Kuhrt: answers to the questions that people have posed. so it's it's not just your questions. I've seen other questions coming in as well. And so we'll need to get those answers in before we can actually merge this particular report. David Enyeart: And you're you're showing my comment there. I just fundamentally didn't understand several of the things they were talking about here. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): So I you know, I agree. I mean, Tracy. The

Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): you know the whole point of having those reports right is to make sure that projects still have a pulse, and everything is going reasonably well. if you know. So thank you, Ry, for bringing up what they had. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): But I think that the loan is not sufficient. If we just go along with this, then we are failing. On the whole idea of, you know, making sure this project is still fully functioning. Tracy Kuhrt: Yeah, I and I don't know. I Tracy Kuhrt: you know I did copy. Obviously the Tsc. On the messages that I sent to the saw tooth contributors. last week, when I was trying to get this report submitted. Tracy Kuhrt: I mean. I have not responded to the latest message about this being a bureaucratic process. because I'm afraid that I'm going to make this more

Tracy Kuhrt: contentious. Tracy Kuhrt: Then it needs to be because I have tried to explain in my past Tracy Kuhrt: request why these things are important. Tracy Kuhrt: at the moment I'm I'm meeting towards the fact that you know this is our first Tracy Kuhrt: clue. It feels like it's our first clue we see out. We saw it with borough. Tracy Kuhrt: We start with versa, when projects did not Tracy Kuhrt: provide their quarterly reports that something is going wrong. right? That the project is Tracy Kuhrt: not as healthy as it needs to be. And so that's where I'm leading on responding. But yet I'm a little hesitant to do so just because I feel like this has become somewhat contentious. And I don't want to make it worse than it already is.

Tracy Kuhrt: and so we'd appreciate any kind of. Tracy Kuhrt: you know. Tracy Kuhrt: Help guidance as to how we, how we go about getting this, the sorts of answers that we need to to get and to, you know, make sure that the the project is really moving in a direction that that Tracy Kuhrt: we think it is, or that they think it is, and that if it's not that we can get some some sort of, you know, earlier sort of response than what we did for some of the the past projects where we waited, you know, 6 months to a year before we Tracy Kuhrt: finally took some action on it so anyway. And that's where I met with this, and and would appreciate any sort of thoughts or guidance around the best way to approach this Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): all right. Well, thanks for the background. I mean, you know, I think the record shows I'm pretty lenient on those things. I'm not the one to say, oh, yeah, let's just kick them out. But at the same time I don't think we're asking very much, and they have to play their part Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): so Tracy Kuhrt: alright.

Tracy Kuhrt: So hopefully. right by you adding that we'll we'll start to get some responses. I will try to Tracy Kuhrt: gently Tracy Kuhrt: push again to to get those responses in the contributors Channel. Tracy Kuhrt: and we'll see where this goes. Tracy Kuhrt: Any other comments or questions on before we move on. Tracy Kuhrt: Peter.

Tracy Kuhrt: Peter, we can't hear you, even though you've come. Unmute it. Ry Jones: Peter, we cannot hear you Tracy Kuhrt: all right here. yeah, if you want to. If you want to put that in the chat we can definitely read it there Tracy Kuhrt: and if you do get your microphone working that that'll be fine to come back on as well. But Tracy Kuhrt: So I think just a a reminder that the cello report is also due. I think that the last time we sent a reminder was on the fifth Tracy Kuhrt: So it's been over a week.

Tracy Kuhrt: I don't know if you have sent a a further reminder, or that if the Tracy Kuhrt: job that you have has created an issue for cello. Arun S M: Now, tracing and follow up. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay. sounds good. Thanks for Tracy Kuhrt: So for upcoming reports for next week we do have base you and that are due. So we'll take a look and see if those show up Thursday.

Tracy Kuhrt: So for discussion items today, we have a couple of different discussion items in the task force. The first is the project Annual review so I did put together a pull request. It isn't draft But I appreciate any sort of feedback that people have on this. I don't think we're going to be ready to to vote on this today, because I think there is going to be some commentary. But I did want to get something out there for people to respond to and react to Tracy Kuhrt: So I think. yeah, the the very first thing here is around the timing of the reports, and how they relate to the quarterly reports. Tracy Kuhrt: so that's kind of the the first question that we have in place. I I think the the suggestion by a room, and Steven, is that Tracy Kuhrt: one of the quarterly reports should be replaced with the annual report. Tracy Kuhrt: challenging thing for the Toc. I don't think it will be challenging for the project, but it definitely would be

Tracy Kuhrt: challenge for the the Toc, because the Poc is going to have to do some work Tracy Kuhrt: to really dig in deep to these annual reviews to make sure that they are reporting correctly the information and to really help understand the status of the project. So that would be my only concern, and the reason why I suggested that they should be done on some anniversary of either being Tracy Kuhrt: moving to incubation or to graduate it. Status But that's that's kind of, I think, what we what we've got there. So Tracy Kuhrt: let's stop here and just see about the the timings, and whether or not they should. replace the quarterly reports it. Other folks have any thoughts or comments on this. Tracy Kuhrt: Roma. Ramakrishna V: Yeah. as I mentioned a comment here, I I think I mean this where you mentioned the the single Ramakrishna V: like like single week or something, but that's kind of what I was suggesting here. maybe we could have like a week

Ramakrishna V: at some point in the year when all the reviews could be much together. I mean, if you think about reviews of people that you know happen in the organization you work for, it's like, they don't. If it's not in a stagger man, I think it's just more a patient, too. Ramakrishna V: do them all in one, putting the cycle at one particular time everything will reduce the load on on us, and also Ramakrishna V: if you are reviewing all the projects at around the same time, it allows us to relate the projects to each other, see how they depend on each other as they complement each other, and so on, so maybe that that might be a more efficient. Tracy Kuhrt: Yeah. So I think right now, I don't. And I don't remember the exact number of projects that we have. But let's say it's somewhere in the range of 15. Tracy Kuhrt: If we're doing 15 annual reviews at the same time, we've got 11 Toc members. That means Tracy Kuhrt: at least 4 people are going to have to be doing 2 of the deep dives at the same time, given the the way that we have them.

Tracy Kuhrt: And then all of us will have to be, you know. Tracy Kuhrt: obviously responding to comments asking our questions about these annual reports. I do think that it will be a very you know. I think it'll take a lot more time than we would expect. Tracy Kuhrt: you know, during a week or 2 week process of of trying to to go through all of these. Tracy Kuhrt: so yeah, I mean, that's that's my biggest concern is just the amount of time and effort it will take if we put them all at one time.

Ramakrishna V: That that's right. I give that, I think, though it Ramakrishna V: If it does like March together. It'll not be one week. Maybe it's like 2 weeks. I say, 15 projects, maybe 2 to 3 weeks. Then you just give people a bit more focus, because otherwise you have reviews coming up like almost every month, right? Every one couple of months, and people have to take some time to Ramakrishna V: you. Welcome back Tracy Kuhrt: other thoughts on Tracy Kuhrt: timing. Tracy Kuhrt: I remember this is, This is everybody on the Tsc's responsibility, so I hope everybody has a thought on what they would like to do as far as spending time on these. Tracy Kuhrt: Bobby.

Bobbi Muscara: I like the idea of having them present to us at least once a year, and with that it would have to be toggled through the year, because you can't have all the, you know, 15 or 14 projects reporting all at the same time. And I don't know how you'd pick that on the calendar, but I think that that Bobbi Muscara: not just having to fill out of a form, but actually having to present to the Tooc and show up and discuss the project. would make it more relevant to what's going on, and give us a better insight as to what's happening with the project. Tracy Kuhrt: Yeah. Makes sense.

Tracy Kuhrt: Thanks. Probably. David. David Enyeart: I agree with Bobby. I'd also say that I would have a much easier time digesting the deep dive reports if they came like once a month rather than all at once. David Enyeart: But I think I'd spend more time on each one rather than just trying to knock them out if it came out once.

Tracy Kuhrt: Alright, let's Stephen Curran: I'm not sure if others are in the same sort of position, but in the areas might Stephen Curran: fit together, or a reason on press might fit together and be combined. So maybe we can make about Stephen Curran: that to reduce the the sheer number Stephen Curran: so that might make it a little easier. I don't know if other projects have that similar relationship. Tracy Kuhrt: So, Steven.

Stephen Curran: so it's still be 2 separate annual reports. But then, at the same time. Stephen Curran: a bell weather in the community that people are that are focused on, and they show up to the meeting, or or are invited to the meeting at least, and and that Stephen Curran: specific maintainers are involved in the meeting. but I just think that could be combined for some of the projects, like some of the projects, can have their meetings combined. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay, it's Tracy Kuhrt: or the clarification.

Tracy Kuhrt: Anyone else in favor of putting them all at the same time. Tracy Kuhrt: Jim thumbs up as yes, you think, all at the same time. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): I have to admit to be a bit about that one Tracy Kuhrt: over here against who is at the X. You guys are using these thumbs up and X's, and I'm not sure what they're meeting. Arun S M: I I think I agree. that having all the reports come at once, maybe too much tedious work for everyone. But then we need a strategy of how we distribute Arun S M: it could be like in the quarter one. We designate Arun S M: 4 projects and quarter to the next set of 4 projects. or

Arun S M: and it also allows the to. You see, the signals designated members to go in detail and come back with their phone Tracy Kuhrt: alright. Thanks so much. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay, so I I feel like most people are leaning towards the that separate them. and we've got maybe

Tracy Kuhrt: one and a half to 2 and a half people who might be in favor of doing them all at once. so that's a that's at this point, maybe move forward with the at different times. And then we'll see how that works, and see if we need to adjust or change that as as we move forward. Tracy Kuhrt: All right? So then, next comment is. Tracy Kuhrt: why, if you wouldn't mind moving us forward in the Tracy Kuhrt: all right, yeah or no. Go ahead. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): Yes, sorry, Tracy, but before we move on, so if don't do all at once.

Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): how over? How long will it take to go through all the reports? Basically. isn't that like within a quarter or so. We see them all, anyway. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): What is it over the year? I don't know. Tracy Kuhrt: so I haven't looked at the actual when things have gone, the incubation or or when they have graduated. That was the original sort of thought I had is that it'd be on some anniversary. Tracy Kuhrt: so specifically, the anniversary of going to incubation would allow us to. You know that

Tracy Kuhrt: after you're kind of see where they're at, see if they're ready to move to a graduated status. See? if they're meeting their charter. That sort of thing right? And then, a year after they move to graduate it would be, you know, a a look at kind of Tracy Kuhrt: how has the growth been? are they making any progress towards the releases that they're doing making progress towards their roadmap or or things like that. Tracy Kuhrt: so my thought was to somewhat distribute them over the year or but I don't actually know if by looking at when things have gone incubated or graduated, if that would be a true statement or not true statement.

Tracy Kuhrt: so I Tracy Kuhrt: I obviously want to try and distribute as much as we can over the year. But yeah, I don't. I don't know how that works out for sure. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): All right, I understand. I I was thinking, maybe there's a middle ground there which is to try to get them fairly close fairly quickly after another, but not all at the same time, either. Tracy Kuhrt: Gotcha gotcha. So because I think

Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): I am just afraid of the workload if we really ask them all at the same time, I think that's the problem right? So maybe there's a middle ground where we kind of try to have them all come in one after the other in a fairly short period of time, but not Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): quite the same time. anyway. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): yeah, no, that's that's interesting. I know. are, you think distributed over one quarter, or you think you distribute it over 2 quarters? What? What kind of distribution are you thinking, then? Something like a quarter that's made, you know, something like this, probably because I think Ramas Point is good that you know we we if we have them all fresh in a mind, it helps. See? Maybe if there's some you know Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): how they compare, and when an and and so on. But so from that point of view, if you stretch that over 6 months, probably it does not go. It doesn't work. Then you might as well forget that. But Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): if it's over a quarter probably still have enough brain sales to remember that.

Tracy Kuhrt: Yeah, yeah. understand? So maybe maybe we replace one of the quarters to one or 2 to whatever that happens to be with the annual report. Tracy Kuhrt: instead of trying to distribute Tracy Kuhrt: over. Q, one, q, 2, q, 3, and Q, 4. Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): Yeah. Something like that Arnaud J Le Hors ("Arno"): I might be worth thinking about.

Tracy Kuhrt: Yeah, definitely, definitely, we're thinking about Steven. Stephen Curran: Yeah. So I have just taken through some logistics of what it could be so. Yeah, if you go with one quarter we're saying that a Tooc member would be Stephen Curran: would engage with the with the Stephen Curran: project. It could be that you know the teams use one of their regular reports to talk about it.

Stephen Curran: The Tooc member participates in that. They prepare the Quarterly report that has some additional information to collect. Stephen Curran: and then Stephen Curran: at that they also get scheduled to appear in a T Ofc meeting. Stephen Curran: and maybe we have up to 2 Stephen Curran: 2 of them per coc making during that quarter. Stephen Curran: Does that flow seem right? So that they the you know there's some publicity across Hyper Ledger that oh, this is the annual report quarter. Stephen Curran: So there can be some publicity about that. each of the teams is is, or each of the projects is encouraged to dedicate one of their meetings, at least a segment of one of their meetings to cover this Stephen Curran: what it said, and and the Toc member attends it to hear the interactions of of the team Stephen Curran: of the project team.

Stephen Curran: How is that for a logistics of it? I don't know if that makes sense on the fly, but Stephen Curran: it's in in my head. Tracy Kuhrt: Yeah, no, I I think it makes some sense. Steven. Tracy Kuhrt: assuming that the projects have a meeting at least Tracy Kuhrt: red flag, if they're not having a meeting every month. It. This is true, this is true. but yeah, I I think that makes some sense in my head as well, Stephen. what you did say. Stephen Curran: I'll add a comment to your to that. Pr. Tracy Kuhrt: okay, sounds good. So I I think, then that will definitely be a a change that we can make to the the Pr to reflect kind of a different sort of schedule that we put together. and you know, maybe we will actually think about what that actually looks like, as far as the true process, so that we can add a little bit more detail and information into the Pr, so that we were understanding what we're all agreeing to before we actually agree to it Tracy Kuhrt: any other comments on that before we move on to the next comment, here.

Tracy Kuhrt: Peter. Peter Somogyvari: I just wanted to test my microphone. Peter Somogyvari: Hey? Okay, sorry I. I missed part of this conversation because I had to reboot the

Peter Somogyvari: oh, probably catch up. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay, no, worries Peter. so we're just we were talking about timing and whether or not it makes sense to do it within a single quarter instead of distributed across the year. Tracy Kuhrt: is where we've ended up. so that's something that we'll take back to the the Pr. And get added into the Pr. Tracy Kuhrt: Alright. So this next question, yes, archiving does mean end of life from I will update that pr, to reflect that to really make sure that it sits in Tracy Kuhrt: Steven. Yes, I will laugh at your comment. that was a good one. I did write it in a weird way, and so I think some of this did end up getting repeated, so I will make sure to Remove that. Repeat.

Tracy Kuhrt: all right. Let's see what we've got here to evaluate. Wait against the cycle. The project should be asked to set the annual go, for when they applied to enter a Hyper ledger foundation. Tracy Kuhrt: so ruin, I think. you know. I said this in response to something that Arnold said earlier, but my thought was Tracy Kuhrt: that when when you do go to incubation, there is that proposal, and there's some information in there about kind of Tracy Kuhrt: what the what the charter of the project is. Tracy Kuhrt: and so I think there is some goals that kind of are being set there. Tracy Kuhrt: you know. But we can definitely be more specific about what it is that we're asking for in the incubation proposal Tracy Kuhrt: to to make sure that people understand that this is something that they will be evaluated against, as we Tracy Kuhrt: you know, go through the annual review cycle.

Tracy Kuhrt: and then the the second comment, here we do have the other pull. Request that we will take a look at as we continue this meeting, so next on the agenda Tracy Kuhrt: another stage next stage. Tracy Kuhrt: So I I think I'm gonna leave this as another stage, because I know that we're gonna be looking at the Project life cycle, and we'll see how that all works out. As to whether or not Tracy Kuhrt: we Do you think that it's going to be a different in some way, or shape Tracy Kuhrt: or form. but for now I think we'll leave this as another stage. Tracy Kuhrt: A room Tracy Kuhrt: comments on that Arun S M: I understand. So Arun S M: I think, with the approach that the projects go to move back and forth, depending on the number of folks Arun S M: that makes sense.

Tracy Kuhrt: Okay. Tracy Kuhrt: let's see. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay, so this is about to scroll up just a little bit. Right? This is about Tracy Kuhrt: If I'm not mistaken. Yeah, this this comment about the at least two-thirds of the Toc. Members agreed to continue the project in its current stage, or, if we don't agree to continue so, this is a change. if you think about it, because I think right now, all of our decisions are at least

Tracy Kuhrt: A majority of people have Tracy Kuhrt: agreed to move it to the next stage, whatever that stage is, whether it's incubated. Graduated dormant Tracy Kuhrt: end of life deprecated whatever that stage is, right. So I think this is a really good thing for us to discuss. And so, Rama, I'm going to hand it off to you to to talk through your comments and and see what your thoughts are here. Ramakrishna V: Sure I I was just making a simple point, I mean, your first line is 566, at least 2 of the 2 team members that need to continue with the project at the current stage. I think if the Ramakrishna V: in the review, if the meetings are made a pitch to Ramakrishna V: move to the next stage like going from incubation to graduate. Then that should be the first thing that the you should be waiting, and if they if that is not the table, then they should decide Ramakrishna V: what you see it on 9, 6 that that's almost Tracy Kuhrt: got you, Roma. So I I was saying that if the Toc thinks that they should move like from incubated to graduate, there's actually a process right to move to graduate Tracy Kuhrt: that we should follow, and that we shouldn't change that process from what it is today.

Tracy Kuhrt: So I think we're in agreement. If I'm if I'm understanding what what you're saying. Ramakrishna V: Sure thing. Tracy Kuhrt: But other thoughts on this two-thirds, because that is a a change to to what we currently do today. Tracy Kuhrt: So I wanna wanna make sure that people are in agreement with that statement. or if we should just move it back to that simple majority

Tracy Kuhrt: part. Hart Montgomery: So yeah, Tracy, I guess my question here would be, what happens if the Tooc members can't agree to do anything. Hart Montgomery: because if if we can't sort of agree to continue if we don't have the votes for that. But we don't have the votes to change what happens? Hart Montgomery: It was mostly just a wording thing Tracy Kuhrt: you mean. There's a there's another else in there that I didn't take care of is what you're saying. Tracy Kuhrt: yeah, I don't know what might be the next stage. Right? Well, you know. Then you have to vote on. You have to get 2 thirds to be the next stage, right? Or what the stage might be. Tracy Kuhrt: well, that's that's actually an interesting one, heart, because I'm not changing the way in which we decide to move, to deprecate it or do it? Tracy Kuhrt: so that would still just be a 50 or a simple majority.

Hart Montgomery: two-fifths want to move it to end of life or deprecate it. Right? Hart Montgomery: Then we're we're sort of stuck in a limbo. Right? Yes, yes. Hart Montgomery: and then there's it's since it requires two-thirds to continue. Tracy Kuhrt: The project is sort of in an undefined state. Right? Hart Montgomery: So I think whatever you know. Hart Montgomery: whatever we want is fine. As long as it's it's consistent, and we we don't end up with a project that we don't know what the State is in right, because here. if a project is not voted.

Hart Montgomery: doesn't have enough votes to continue, but doesn't have enough votes to be deprecated. What state is it in? Tracy Kuhrt: Yeah, yeah, no, that makes sense makes sense Hart Montgomery: so sorry to be pedantic. Tracy Kuhrt: The call out here because, you know, I could see that happening to us, and then we'd be like, what do we do now? Tracy Kuhrt: okay, so that's making me think that we need to just change that back to Tracy Kuhrt: the simple majority vote that we have, because I I believe if we do that, then we wouldn't ever run into a problem where.

Tracy Kuhrt: although I think there's still a second else there, right? which is deciding what the next state is. Tracy Kuhrt: So I'll think about this heart, and try and come up with a word that will resolve the concern that it's brought up Hart Montgomery: so you could have one. You could have some fraction vote to not continue the project at its current stage. Hart Montgomery: and that would solve the the logical issue, I think. because then, if there's no consensus, the project just sort of stays. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay.

Tracy Kuhrt: Alright Next item here, then. Tracy Kuhrt: yeah, that could be a good way of handling that Rama. I don't again necessarily want to define Tracy Kuhrt: who has to do the Annual Review, because we don't define who has to do the Quarterly Review Tracy Kuhrt: But I do think that your comment about who, knowing who to contact is probably a good sort of thing to Tracy Kuhrt: to think through. Tracy Kuhrt: would RAM if we change this to be something about. and informing the Toc. Who that person would be. With that resolve, the concern that you have. Ramakrishna V: Yeah, I think it. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay.

Tracy Kuhrt: Alright. Is there another comment that we have? Tracy Kuhrt: Okay, this is an interesting one, Rama. And I'd love to discuss whether or not we think one person should be responsible, or at 2, Tracy Kuhrt: people should be responsible for this Tracy Kuhrt: thoughts on Tracy Kuhrt: the responsible member.

Tracy Kuhrt: Peter. Tracy Kuhrt: Peter, your microphone stop working again. Peter Somogyvari: Can you hear me now. Peter Somogyvari: Okay, so I think we could do the current number of projects. We could do Peter Somogyvari: multiple Ts members project. but that I would also Peter Somogyvari: put some formula in there to make sure that if the number of projects triples, then Peter Somogyvari: the come with something else, so that the load Peter Somogyvari: on the Ts numbers don't get too much. But at the the current number of projects I think it is doable easily to have more than one member

Tracy Kuhrt: got it. It's Peter Rama. Ramakrishna V: just keep in mind that. the Ramakrishna V: you see members who are on that project with the same project. Right? So you have to allocate this problem. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay? So that's another discussion that we should have there is currently no sort of exception process for somebody who happens to be a T of zoom number. Who?

Tracy Kuhrt: Okay, I'll give it a specific example if that works report came up, and Dave's name was the next one on the list of people to do the Tracy Kuhrt: review because I was we had the route round Robin. Sort of thing. would we be okay with Dave being the one who provides information, or will we say we should skip Dave, and Tracy Kuhrt: move on to the next person. Tracy Kuhrt: Peter.

Peter Somogyvari: I think to me it to be okay, because Peter Somogyvari: at the end of the day there's a no additional benefit. Oh, so, David, we just have more context then, compared to if I was doing it. Peter Somogyvari: So I don't. Peter Somogyvari: I don't think there's a conflict of interest necessarily. But also, I'm very open to Peter Somogyvari: not thinking that way, because. I'm also a Toc member who is also a maintainer of a project. So I'm not going to try and manipulate those rules in that way. Tracy Kuhrt: Alright thanks, Peter. Arun S M: thanks for my so Arun S M: just to clarify. There is no conflict of interest aspect to what I'm going to say. It's more about

Arun S M: looking into report more objectively than trying to be like trying to miss out certain aspects right? Otherwise could I not been missed out? Arun S M: so I'm in favor of having somebody outside the project having a review of Arun S M: how it's happening. That also helps us understand how the project report has been. If if the project report is effective enough for somebody who is not involved in the project to understand what's happening in the project. Arun S M: Now. the other aspect. Arun S M: which we can also consider is like, let's say, if I if we were to just go with the round robin without having to worry about who the person is Arun S M: The favorable point to that debate is Arun S M: like, we just propose that we have multiple Toc members, not just one person. So then we can look into having a mix of people from within the project and outside the project. Arun S M: So those are my comments on both far and against. Thanks.

Tracy Kuhrt: Alright, thanks. Ramakrishna V: I don't count the points I wanted to make, so I Tracy Kuhrt: alright part. Hart Montgomery: hey? So I would ideally like to see someone who is not affiliated with the project. Do these kind of reviews. you know, even today we've seen a quarterly report

Hart Montgomery: where perhaps a project exaggerated their community contributions a little bit. Hart Montgomery: and you know there, there's no reason that that that couldn't necessarily happen with these these more in-depth reports. but, more importantly, you know, I think it's an opportunity, for, you know, Toc members to to see and learn about other projects. If you're going to spend the time doing one of these, why not, you know. Learn about another project, you know. See what's going on. Hart Montgomery: And you know, maybe you learn something. Maybe they learn something. I think it's just a good learning opportunity. Tracy Kuhrt: All right. Thanks for so it seems we're in favor of having somebody who is not affiliated with project. Do the Tracy Kuhrt: be the Gst. Member responsible for Tracy Kuhrt: working through the project. And it will review.

Tracy Kuhrt: I can make that update to reflect that as well. Tracy Kuhrt: All right, any other comments that we have on this particular. Pr. Tracy Kuhrt: okay, yeah, I like some typos.

Tracy Kuhrt: Alright, that looks like it. All right. So I think, you know, I've got some really great information from folks. I appreciate the the feedback and the comments. I will make sure to update this and so look for a non dropful request to come in to see if there's Tracy Kuhrt: resolve the the concerns that we've brought up here. Tracy Kuhrt: so I I know we're looking at time. I'm thinking we're probably not going to get to the task force today. Brahma. we might have to push that off to next week, but we'll see where we we get and and decide that. But let's take a look at the encourage projects to set annual or annual goals. Tracy Kuhrt: pr, that everyone has drafted as well. Tracy Kuhrt: so I. This is added to the project incubation entry considerations around goal setting. so this is Tracy Kuhrt: This is kind of in regards to Tracy Kuhrt: the making sure that during the annual review process that people can comment on how they've been meeting their and or their goals that have been set.

Tracy Kuhrt: So any thoughts that people have on this particular Pr, as they're reading it David Enyeart: make sense to me. Tracy Kuhrt: All right. Tracy Kuhrt: Peter. Peter Somogyvari: I agree with it. And I just wanted to add, maybe we could standardize it in the form of one of those. Mark them files and the repose. I always like Peter Somogyvari: the habit of a lot of open source projects to have a roadmap. Md.

Peter Somogyvari: so maybe we could be more specific and say, you could have a roadmap Md. In your project. Peter Somogyvari: and described your plans for the year there. Tracy Kuhrt: Alright, thanks, Peter.

Tracy Kuhrt: Any other thoughts on this particular for request? Tracy Kuhrt: Alright. So maybe you can make a a suggestion. Tracy Kuhrt: and also I Tracy Kuhrt: don't know what the Tracy Kuhrt: the proposal form looks like, but we might want to make sure, as Peter mentioned, that we do update. If there's like any questions that might exist for for project incubation entry. Tracy Kuhrt: Yeah, a room Arun S M: right? It's I don't know about the roadmap.md. File in the repositories. But I can come up with the structure of how project teams can set their codes

Arun S M: like an example, or maybe guidelines on how? What that looks like? by next to Tracy Kuhrt: okay. Sounds good. And speaking of template Steven, I did see a comment from you somewhere about having a template for the annual reviews. Tracy Kuhrt: I don't know where that comment was, but I will also take a look and see about creating a a potential template for people to complete, for the annual abuse Stephen Curran: sounds good. Tracy Kuhrt: all right.

Tracy Kuhrt: So that I think the the last item on our agenda is just this task force badging life cycle, Roma. I don't know if 10 min is enough time for us to have this discussion Tracy Kuhrt: or if we should wait till the next go around. So let me know what you think about timing for this Ramakrishna V: things up to you and the the team find starting if you want, or what I can say. I I'm sorry. I just I finished meeting some notes earlier today. If you can go to the Ramakrishna V: the Vicki. Ramakrishna V: I let me look at the where we have all of the task force Ramakrishna V: bring something going on.

Ramakrishna V: So I created and added something to the to the Wiki page. Ramakrishna V: Let me send you the link. Tracy Kuhrt: I think it's under community task forces. Tracy Kuhrt: There we go. Ramakrishna V: Yeah, that's one. So

Ramakrishna V: Bobby had created this page. It's kind of a skeleton page. So I just made some notes here. So this carrier that Ramakrishna V: I haven't actually discussed it with anybody. I I looked at your description of the task force and thanks. It was really comprehensive. I I read through the different links that you had there. So I think we Ramakrishna V: I think I would really benefit from having some discussions with people, and I hope that Ramakrishna V: what I had here would start the discussions. And then you could get around to converging on decisions and making some recommendations. Ramakrishna V: So this page. what I have here. I I just

Ramakrishna V: At the beginning I captured the the goals that you stated in the the task force, and the goal is actually quite quite simple. How do we? I can see and comprehensive represent state of a highability project life cycle so that we can make a accurate assessment about a project help and also make Ramakrishna V: the right decisions about how to proceed like, which includes both graduating to a high stage, or maybe getting demoted to a to low stage, and and so on. So Ramakrishna V: and there, there are 2 broad approaches that you want to create it. I'm not sure if the the 2 are necessarily Ramakrishna V: completely independent. But body speaking, one approaches. We just take the existing project lifecycle diagram. And we see what it is lacking in order to make these assessments. And

Ramakrishna V: we try and update it. And the other approach is that there is, we use some kind of a banking system whereby, we make a we, we create a list of badges, each representing some kind of some set of attributes, or some kind of quality control Ramakrishna V: measure that each project will aspire to. And once it needs that the criteria, then the it will be awarded a batch, and when a project has a number of badges it can be, we can move it from one station out. I I believe that was the thinking. So I actually would like to get some info from some of the veterans here on the T Ofc. That was a long discussion. I see. That happened in 2,020 and 21, Ramakrishna V: when you were discussing badging, and I have links to that Ramakrishna V: here. So again, it's pop it from your from the issue. and there were a list of badges that were recommended, and also a process whereby each project would acquire those badges. And that process was, roughly speaking, each the maintenance of project would certify the project. Ramakrishna V: As for that thing given badge, and that could trigger a discussion with the project Maintainers and folks in the hypothesis, community other contributors, and if somebody had a a dispute, or that, then they could bring it up before the to which would rule on whether or not I should stay, or it should be removed. Ramakrishna V: And a batch could either be something that comes up for a periodic renewal like let's say the project is undergoing an annual review. It could be part of the preview process could be, does a project Ramakrishna V: live up to the the badge that it's not Maybe there should be to go, and there are some Ramakrishna V: badges that project would just require months, and it would meeting to have met, like like the infrastructure, that which just basically say that the project should have a proper get of the cost to re and and and the the basic stuff so just wanted to ask. I mean, because I see that the last

Ramakrishna V: and those pages of 821, and I saw messages from Tracy, and are no more than I think it was Daniel who created the pages, but he's not on the to see any more. So what was the what was the thinking there? Ramakrishna V: why did the discussion around by just talk? I just would like to. Tracy Kuhrt: Roma. Tracy Kuhrt: I think if I recall the discussions, we couldn't necessarily come to any agreement on exactly what the badges would be, how they'd be created Tracy Kuhrt: if they were objective enough versus whether they were subjective. Tracy Kuhrt: you know what it would take for somebody to actually do kind of the self reporting of that Tracy Kuhrt: And so I think, you know.

Tracy Kuhrt: as we look at things like the annual review process, you know, does do the badges start to play a bigger role in that Tracy Kuhrt: So I just to get the time. We just didn't have a good mechanism for how we would move forward with doing badging Tracy Kuhrt: and you know there was no sort of Tracy Kuhrt: strong agreement one way or the other, and so really the the conversation was dropped. And so I think that's why it's worthwhile to have the conversation again and see if there's. Tracy Kuhrt: you know, one a different set of folks. Obviously, that are part of the poc now. that have different views or different ideas about ways that this might work for our projects. Tracy Kuhrt: so I I don't know that I have any really great answer as to why we didn't move forward other than we just didn't have any strong movement to do so.

Ramakrishna V: Oh, that. Thanks for that. That that makes sense. I think I have a I get my alternative conclusions which you know I I don't want to Ramakrishna V: put them as recommendations. Rather I would like to read them as discussion points for now that badges and the continue Ramakrishna V: evaluation evaluation will put a fair amount overhead on the of the DC. So Ramakrishna V: we have to be be careful with that. If we do Ramakrishna V: choose that option on the. On the other hand, the projects, I mean that some things Ramakrishna V: that project could benefit from from having a badge like whether or not it meets adequate Ramakrishna V: it. It is an adequate test coverage.

Ramakrishna V: maybe even valuable on whether it's been up to date with its security, vulnerability management, whether and especially the the document that Dave Ramakrishna V: drafted on project best practice, and I think we could probably extract some on a broad criteria that could be good to label it badges and then to give to the project. So maybe we can discuss that. one other major thing I was thinking of. If you can just go up a little to I I don't. If you can scroll up a little I looked at the yeah a little further about. Ramakrishna V: Yeah, yeah. The comparison of the hyperlision and the foundation networking life cycle. So you'd link to that. And I thought it was quite interesting. I was just doing comparison between the 2 life cycles. So I just did not have this diagram at the right. I just made the diagram based on the table that they had. Ramakrishna V: And it looks slightly simpler than the hypothetical diagram. But but not really. I mean, it's just that I think the hypothesis diagram there are some States are distinguished from others based on yearly based project activity and not just based on

Ramakrishna V: the the projects. So majority. So I think that's the only difference other than that the lessons we can get from the from the later. The Lnf life cycle is that they have quite clearly articulated Ramakrishna V: a criteria for for all the reviews, both in the forward direction and the so I think we we should have something like something like that, even if we choose not to have the the budget. Now, I think, Ramakrishna V: the having a project life cycle Ramakrishna V: E. I mean, we should have that the the there was your question, I think, was framed, and then, either all day. But I don't think that's necessarily how we should go about it like we should not just say that the project should have a badges and not have, and we should be concerned about the lifecycle. I think the life cycle should still be there, because it tells us Ramakrishna V: at what stage Ramakrishna V: project is in. but yeah, I mean on top of that, we can. reason about Ramakrishna V: what kind of badges? if any of you want to give the project, then we can. We can have the discussion Ramakrishna V: that does my tentative thoughts for me.

Tracy Kuhrt: Alright. so, Rama, this is really great information that you've and Bobby have put together here. I think you know we should definitely take a look at that. I I agree that I don't think these things are either or type of situation. I think we can do both Tracy Kuhrt: of these particular items. Tracy Kuhrt: So I'm I'm in favor of, you know, seeing what it would look like if we Tracy Kuhrt: do modify our project lifecycle as well as Tracy Kuhrt: taking a look at the the different badges that might be available, and I really like the idea of looking at the project best practices, documents that they've put together, and seeing if there's particular badges that we could come up with, based on on that particular document. Tracy Kuhrt: I'm sorry.

Bobbi Muscara: yeah, Tracy, thank you for saying that, because that's exactly where I was going. with the Documentation task force. One of the things that we're doing is trying to incorporate. You know those what badges are suggestions to get your documentation in certain places and move to the next cycle. So again, we're we're working with the labs to get that in there. Bobbi Muscara: and I don't think that. it's again, I think best practices in badging work hand in hand. and that that now that they've that task force has come up with their recommendations. We're taking that in in the documentation and user guide section and and and running with that and trying to get that information Bobbi Muscara: available on the spots where people would be looking for it. So you know, if you want to get one of those badges for your project. But does that look like. And what does that mean? We're trying to fill in those gaps

Tracy Kuhrt: right? Thanks for that, Bobby. Tracy Kuhrt: Alright. So I see that we are at time. so, Ron, I think this has been a really great start to this particular task force. Tracy Kuhrt: and I would recommend folks take a look at the particular task force document to add any sort of thoughts or comments to that. Tracy Kuhrt: I think for next week we are back to the Security Task Force to close that one out, and then Tracy Kuhrt: we'll also take a look and see where we are with the an overview. Pr.

Tracy Kuhrt: are we? Arun S M: It's racy. So I heard. so this is so hard presented the proposal to the working group yesterday on the open Ssf. Arun S M: but I don't think so. They'll be ready with the comments by next week. they. Their meetings run like by weekly. So maybe it will be good if we have this after one more week. Tracy Kuhrt: Okay? So I will see what the next task force is. I'll put that in the Poc channel, so that whoever is up for that can prepare so we will then, I guess, talk again next week, and I will again. comment on the Toc Channel about the next task force. Tracy Kuhrt: All right. Thanks, everybody. David Enyeart: Thank you. Bye.

2023-06-21 09:53

Show Video

Other news