Page Comparison

Technical Council Sub-Groups Updates

Static Code Analysis

• Ingolf Kuss They did meet.  One question about how to do static code analysis for Go; Mike Taylor explained that GitHub Actions can do so.
• Marc Johnson This is likely needed for mod-reporting review.  Has the group found consensus about having specialized language policies?  (Ingolf: No, still disagreement.)
• Craig McNally See how the conversation goes Monday, if we can make a decision.
• Ingolf Kuss Schedule next check-in for two weeks.

Developer Documentation

• Upcoming meeting about dev advocate as a whole.  Jenn Colt waiting to hear from Jeremy about the subgroup as a whole

Reference Data Upgrades

• Have to discuss separately to see if someone will take it on.

GitHub RFCs

Wiki RFCs

Officially Supported Technologies (OST)

Are we able to make a decision?  There were two things we wanted to make a decision on today:

1. Moving from "majority of members" to "majority of votes"
2. Whether we want to allow slack voting
   1. There are still some open questions about when slack voting would be used...  Is this right?
      1. Lazy Consensus → Zoom vote
         1. if someone requests a vote
      2. Zoom vote → Slack vote
         1. if there aren't enough votes to make a decision?
         2. If margin is very close (something passing by as few as 4 votes)?
   2. Benefits:
      1. Slack voting allows members who were not present to factor into the decision
      2. It could help in cases where there are not enough members present (after abstentions) to make a decision
   3. Concerns:
      1. This has the potential to slow things down.  E.g. decisions on TCRs often happen right against the deadline.  Introducing further delays is likely to cause a lot of frustration.
      2. There's no guarantee that this will help in cases where there are not enough members present (after abstentions) to make a decision.  So now we've just delayed the decision, only to find that we still cannot make one.
      3. Could be perceived that attending meetings is less important as critical votes will happen in slack.

• Craig McNally Conditions on when it would go to slack vote?
  • Ingolf Kuss If not enough votes to make a decision.
  • Jenn Colt PC essentially always goes to Slack.  Could be unfair if we sometimes go to Slack rather than being consistent.
  • Craig McNally As noted in concerns, going to Slack can delay the decision by another week.
  • Ingolf Kuss There was the idea that all three councils should have the same voting rules.
    • Craig McNally Disagree with having the same rules, TC has time sensitivity to some decisions.  Was also not clear if CC and PC had the same rules (we only had PC rules for reference).
    • Marc Johnson CC never formally voted.  We could go in line with another council's method, but TC can't decide alone that everyone should decide the same way
    • Maccabee Levine.  I think CC never had a no vote as long as I've been liaison.  Also the charters recognize that councils can make their own procedures.
  • Florian Gleixner Why moving to 'majority of votes'?
    • Craig McNally Simpler majority of votes.
    • Florian Gleixner So a 4-2 vote would pass if we make this change.  If we say yes to this, then don't need a slack vote.
    • Craig McNally Need six votes cast (not including abstentions) to make a decision.
    • Jakub Skoczen 'Quorum' count should include abstentions.  Abstentions count as a 'no' vote.
    • Maccabee Levine I disagree that abstentions would count as 'no' votes.  That would mean 2 in favor, 1 against and 2 abstentions would mean that 'no' wins.
    • Jenn Colt There is no way to take abstentions and then add them to the 'no'.  You can say that a simple majority is just more 'yes'es than 'no's.
  • Ingolf Kuss At the moment, we need 6 'yes' votes to pass.  That's why we want to change it.  Also, PC rules say PC members can abstain, and an abstention does not count as a vote, so can lead to situation where you don't have a quorum anymore.
    • Marc Johnson That is different than Jakub's proposal.  For a vote to take place, 6 eligible voters must be present.  Completely separate that from whether the vote can be valid.  Also say that all votes require a minimum of six active votes (not including abstentions), then you look at a simple majority.  Voting methods around the world are not consistent, so comparisons are difficult.
  • Jakub Skoczen We can of course increase the number of members we require to be present.  Benefit of doing that is then we can decide whether to take the vote or not more quickly.  Easy fix.
    • Jenn Colt If we have 6 present but only 5 vote, does the vote count?
    • Marc Johnson Would be an invalid vote, because less than the min number of active votes would be cast.
  • Jakub Skoczen At the end of the day, goal is to get most of the active TC members to express their opinion.  Abstention is a form of expression.  Not the same as being missing from the meeting and not able to express themselves.
  • Craig McNally Not able to make a decision today.  Written examples easier to work through.  He and Jenn will put some together.
    • Jakub Skoczen suggested a wiki where we can all contribute.