Page Comparison

Marc Johnson is next followed by Jakub Skoczen

Reminder:  Please copy/paste the Zoom chat into the notes.  If you miss it, this is saved along with the meeting recording, but having it here has benefits.

Maccabee Levine

Tod Olson

Jakub Skoczen

Craig McNally

Jenn Colt 

• CC: Maccabee Levine
  • In person CC meeting planning. LOC (Caitlin) offered to host. Attendence suggestion of CC + other chairs + officers. Also the vendors? Talk about governance models?
  • ACRG update from Shawn. Teams doing a good job keeping under $30k cap/m with manual shutdown processes. Starting in March with Eureka as targeted platform, some environments will be reduced. Can keep to the cap even if Okapi infra is continued past March, but easier if not.  Subgroup discussing both short-term and long-term with EBSCO -- what should be considered central infrastructure. EBSCO sent a response today, agrees with principle that development outside of community work should be funded by those doing it. Discussing what community infrastructure looks like as we aim for sustainability.  Will ask Kat to re-present the budget with $30k/m AWS cost for remainder of year.
  • CC writing a proposal to get the two devs for better sample data tool.
• PC: Tod Olson: 
• RMS Group: Jakub Skoczen:
• Security Team: Craig McNally: No updates
• Tri-council Application Formalization:   Jenn Colt
  • Good productive  discussion last Wednesday, will have a part 2

• 25 Nov 2024 - Regular TC meeting
• 27 Nov 2024 - Dedicated discussion: Cancelled for American Thanksgiving
• 02 Dec 2024  - Regular TC Meeting
• 04 Dec 2024  - Dedicated discussion: Eureka timeline continued
• 09 Dec 2024 -  Regular TC Meeting
• 11 Dec 2024  -  Dedicated discussion: New language adoption policy
• 16 Dec 2024 - Regular TC Meeting
• 18 Dec 2024 - Developer advocate retro
• 23 Dec 2024 - Regular TC meeting vs Cancel?
• 25 Dec 2024 -  Cancel
• 30 Dec 2024 - Regular TC meeting  vs Cancel?
• 01 Jan 2025 - Cancel

• Jira Legacy
  server System Jira serverId 01505d01-b853-3c2e-90f1-ee9b165564fc key TCR-44

All

Nothing new here.

Check Recurring Calendar...

• Craig McNally has been updating Election Runner with nominations; will send out to TC members the morning of the 25th.

See proposals: Voting Rule Comparisons

___

Last week:

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.