2022-02-09 Meeting notes

 Marc Johnson 

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

Radhakrishnan Gopalakrishnan volunteered to do take this action

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 The reason for these modules being withdrawn was due to them not being ready e.g. missing self evaluation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

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.

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 

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

Craig McNally 

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

Radhakrishnan 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?

Radhakrishnan 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