2023-02-06 - Technical Goals/Objectives Discussion

1 min

Scribe

All

@Maccabee Levine 

*

Technical Goals & Objectives

@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.