2023-02-06 - Technical Goals/Objectives Discussion

Maccabee Levine 

Tod Olson   

Background:

• A while back the CC asked the PC/TC to review a set of high level goals and objectives.  
• The TC determined that it was worthwhile to refine the list, leading to the formation of a working group
• Additional pain points were identified/provided by other groups, e.g. SysOps SIG, etc. and worked into this TC G&O draft:
  • Technical Council Objectives & Initiatives - DRAFT

Goals for today:

• TC approval of this list
• If approval cannot be attained today, define concrete action items to get us there.

Notes:

• Tod Olson Need clarity on purpose / how we would use the document.  Combination of pain points, architectural wishes.  Document reflects what we'd like to happen regardless of when.  To revisit on a periodic basis, maybe quarterly check-in and annual re-prioritizing.
  • Also discussed how the list is structured.  Loathe to change.
  • Enough information provided?  Maybe not, but good enough to float to TC for a vote.
• Tod Olson Mention to the other councils, and sysops, of what we see as priorities.  Caveat that it's a living document.
  • Jenn Colt The specific timelines are the obstacle.  Suggest removing them.  Group agreed.
• Tod Olson What to do about the technical debt item in the top list?
  • Jenn Colt Would need a definition and scope.
  • Tod Olson moved to a lower priority.
• Marc Johnson Careful about listing items that need PC guidance, like "automation engine".
  • Tod Olson Many items would include product people involvement.
  • Jenn Colt Maybe focus on what aspects would need to be there from a technical standpoint.
  • Marc Johnson These are long-term things.  Discussed for a long time, little done.  People may want them sooner, but manage expectations.
• Define lists as high/medium/low "priority" or "term"?
  • Tod Olson prefers keeping as relative timeframes.
• Consensus to use this document as a way to drive conversations with the other councils (and other parts of the community).
• Jenn Colt There's value in focusing on the technical perspective, to provide what PC et al. need as they discuss / prioritize functionality.
  • Tod Olson Prefer not to change scope now, but to let that come out of future review.  As it's been over a year.  Use some version of the doc in consultation with other groups, what it serves well and what not.
• Consensus to bring it to the TC now for vote.  As long as no expectations yet on how/when we use it.
  • And what is on the list will change.  But we have to get something out there.
• Jenn Colt suggested possibly removing all the items from the list, and just having TC approve the process. 
  • Marc Johnson Agrees TC wouldn't necessarily know which items are real.  But shouldn't hold up presenting to TC.
  • Tod Olson Maccabee Levine agree publish now, but do discuss that with TC.