2022-02-09 Meeting notes

1 min

Scribe

All

 @Marc Johnson 

5 min

Review outstanding action items

All

@Craig McNally  asked for a volunteer to document the decisions that the TC has made recently (July 2021)

@Vijay Gopalakrishnan volunteered to do take this action

10-15 min

TCR Board Review

All

@Zak_Burke 

@Zak_Burke informed us that the bulk edit modules have been removed from the module acceptance process. The issues will be cancelled.

@Jeremy Huff  and @Zak_Burke  explained the confusion around TCR-13, as it is not an evaluation request, rather it was a task to add a self evaluation to TCR-12 caused by some confusing advice given. @Zak_Burke  will clean these issues up.

Technical Designs

@Jeremy Huff suggested that there might be a place for asking the TC for thoughts on what folks are intending to build e.g. whether it is the right thing to build

@Zak_Burke agreed with the need with that. The reason for these modules being withdrawn was due to them not being ready e.g. missing self evaluation

@Tod Olson concurred that there is a need to talk about what we are building and expressed that it would be unfortunate if we ended up throwing away significant amounts of work e.g. the reference record translations 

@Zak_Burke explained that there is history around folks doing independent development prior to involving folks from the central governance in decisions

10-15 min

Technical Council Sub Groups Updates

All

New Module Technical Evaluation

@Craig McNally informed us that he and @Jeremy Huff  met this week and have defined a list of what they are going to address.

Technical Evaluation Process

@Chulin Meng  asked if the working group he is involved in is around confusion around the module evaluation process? 

@Craig McNally  advised that this another working group that he and @Jeremy Huff  are in, whereas the group @Chulin Meng is facilitating is about how the project / TC makes technical decisions e.g. including Kafka in the infrastructure, fundamental API designs or where translations should happen. @Zak_Burke is working on defining what those technical decisions may be.

@Chulin Meng advised that the first meeting will be next Tuesday.

10-15 min

Quarterly Community Update

@Jeremy Huff / @Craig McNally 

@Jeremy Huff  advised that @Craig McNally and he met to discuss this and have started putting together a presentation around this.

All Council members are asked to give feedback on this. The event is on Friday, so limited time to do this

10-15 min 

Council Goals/Objectives

All

@Tod Olson advised that a new document has been created for this

@Craig McNally stated that the goal of this is for the TC to form it's own objectives

@Tod Olson asked if folks could provide feedback on this document

@Marc Johnson stated that he would not be providing feedback on this document, as he recognises that his previous feedback was not helpful

Personal Data Disclosure Form

@Craig McNally 

@Craig McNally  described that the Privacy SIG has submitted changes to the Personal Data Disclosure Form and has asked him for feedback

@Vijay Gopalakrishnan asked if there are legal implications to this?

@Craig McNally advised that this is in the early stages and has not got to that stage yet

@Marc Johnson asked who owns this work?

@Jeremy Huff stated that he thinks every repository should have an owner and the TC should be the backstop for reviews on any unowned repositories

@Zak_Burke echoed that @Mike Gorrell asked "if not you, whom?" when the TC suggested it isn't responsible for something. He suggested that we need to find a way to get things done and maybe we can have a quick review and complete it.

@Craig McNally suggested that we go back to the Privacy SIG and suggest they own it?

@Vijay Gopalakrishnan suggested he does not understand the technical aspect and leave this to the Privacy SIG (who are the experts)

@Craig McNally described how the history is that @VBar and he created this prior to the Privacy SIG's existence

@Jeremy Huff suggested that the new Technical Council is trying to establish a culture and legacy of policy and processes for technical governance

@Zak_Burke agrees that we should propose the Privacy SIG own this

Deferred until @Jakub Skoczen  is back (Feb 16, 2022 ?)

Hosted AWS environments

@Jakub Skoczen 

No update, to be discussed in the future.

2022-01-26 discussion

• @Jeremy Huff open question is to whether this is really under TC's purview? TC Charter explicitly says "resourcing" is not our thing, so this feels like a bit of a gray area. @Mike Gorrell but ... if not TC then who? By process of elimination, feels like TC is best suited to offer advice here. @Jakub Skoczen we have also been asked to review requests for new envs. Feels like this could/should be handled by a dedicated group from devops/sysops. Maybe @Peter Murray and OLF sysops group is in a place to offer good info here? Folks on TC don't look at the bills, so not the best-placed group to make decisions. @Jeremy Huff we can describe usefulness of different envs, but leave decision to a group that actually deals with bills/funding. But we probably need a somewhat systematic way to keep these evals fresh so is not laborious every time we are asked for input. @Tod Olson soliciting input from outside TC is likely crucial here. @Jakub Skoczen to ask @Peter Murray to help organize such a group.
  
  

Deferred this week since @Jakub Skoczen  is out.