Page Comparison

Ingolf Kuss is next, followed by  Maccabee Levine 

All

Two newly submitted issues:

• ui-consortia-settings
• mod-consortia

N.B. Deadline for Poppy is 19 May 2023.  TCRs submitted after 03 May 2023 (prior to the TC meeting) may not be completed in time.

.......

2 new issues: TCR-25, TCR-26

volunteers: ui-consortia-settings: Zak Burke, Maccabee

we first need to evaluate mod-consortia   Ingolf, Jeremy, Tod (if schedule permits). Target date: May 10th. 

Maccabee Levine / Tod Olson 

Any updates from the PC and/or CC?

• CC: No CC meeting this week.
• PC: No update, last week PC was cancelled and time used for Tri-Council meeting.

• Nomination window has been extended to 24 Apr 2023. 
• So far we have 4 nominations for 5 open spots.

All

• AWS Costs subgroup.  Reviewed a draft process for new environments.  Documenting current budget & alert practices.
• TCR Improvements subgroup - Jeremy Huff  please raise awareness of decision made on Monday wrt scope (ui plugins / shared libraries) - see New Module Technical Evaluations
• Breaking Changes: the next stage is the public review
• Improve the TCR Process : the subgroup has produced a presentation which it hopes to deliver. 
  • ui-plugins and shared libraries are currently out of scope, but they will or may become in scope in later flower releases
• Distributed vs Centralized Configuration. Will probably start next week. Hard to find a time slot.
• Architecture Review Subgroup. On hold, probably until after the elections.

Craig McNally 

• TC dedicated discussion:  24 Apr 2023 11:00 AM ET
  • Topic: RFC "java 17" review process

N.B.  Check your profile settings to ensure the timezone is configured appropriately.  Events in the TC calendar will have incorrect times if your not configured correctly.

Maccabee Levine / All

From Jenn Colt in slack:

@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.

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.

• Managing Tools/Frameworks/Dependencies Version - v0.2 DRAFT
• Officially Supported Technologies

Previous Notes:

• 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

Today:

• Confluence page/space restrictions - see comments from Craig McNally in slack #tc-internal
• Update from Jeremy Huff on list of statuses
• Next steps?