Cedric started a discussion on the meeting recording. The ask is to make the meeting recording available to the community or not to record the meeting. The current policy is to have the recording only available for a week to ensure minutes can be completed. Note: Many public meetings are recorded for a short time to help with editing and creating minutes. Suggestion: If there is a need to change the recording policy, it should be brought forward as a proposal to the next TSC meeting.
Cédric Ollivier : I asked, Feb 25 2021, the record of TSC Feb 23 2021. Still waiting for it.
Al Morton : it appears that particular TSC meeting was not recorded.
Topic: Anuket TSC Start Time : Mar 9, 2021 05:46 AM
Concern that M3 (contents freeze) is very "early".
Need to clearly explain as part of the schedule that specification is working on release "n+1" whereas validation and testing is on release "n"; i.e. there is no dependency between specification work and testing/validation work.
Pankaj will propose some changes to the current schedule to allow for better interleaving of specification and testing/validation development work. (Draft from Pankaj: https://
NOTE: Meeting times are nailed to UTC. With the US switching to DST this weekend and Europe 2 weeks later, meeting times are a bit out of synch. Gergely will propose a meeting time for the next 2 technical meetings → look for an email from Gergely. Also note that in 2 weeks time, all meetings which are nailed to UTC will be1 hour earlier than where they are right now.
Historically, in the days of OPNFV, a CLA-like process was part of the membership agreement but not documented in the charter.
Once OPNFV became a project under LFN, it no longer had a separate member agreement; the OPNFV CLA-like process was used in our tooling by not formally documented in the Technical charter
CNTT was very light weight - just leveraging creative commons, and no CLA.
Several OSS projects use CLA but not all.
Now that we are Anuket, it would be a good idea to have consistent IP hygiene across the whole project.
One option would be for all Anuket projects to leverage the Apache CLA document for contributors, both for "corporate" contributors and individual contributors.
Steve Winslow to write up a proposal both to explain what's being proposed and why and suggested implementation regarding suggested charter change.
It would be good to create a whitepaper on the topic of CLAs - why the exist, what their benefits are, what they resolve, etc.
Proposal to call another meeting with TSC members and their legal counsel to explain and validate way forward.
VSPERF - scope evolved to incl. OpenStack, K8s, ... Contributors are mostly from academia. Whenever VSPERF is discussed, the name leads to confusion. Suggested new name: "ViNePERF"
TSC APPROVES the name change and scope change of VSPERF.
VSPERF team to open a support ticket to make the required infra changes (git etc.)
RI-2 - suggestion is to use the next Wednesday Kuberef/RI-2 meeting to work on a solution to "distribute the work" in an appropriate way so that work continues and no balls are dropped.
10 min
Update on Weekly Technical Discussion of the Charter
Minutes
requested opportunity to meet with LF legal on what should and should not be in the charter
Can Anuket stay on same version during a release (6-months) or control new features we adopt? For GItLab.com SaaS, version upgrades occur automatically behind the scenes. We use CI/CD to release fixes/improvements and enable access to new features as quickly as possible for users of our SaaS service. New versions are tested and go through a QA process before being deployed to GitLab.com to ensure quality and backward compatibility. In other words, version upgrades on GitLab.com should not break any functionality in terms of web interface, command line interaction, or API functionality.
5 min
Status Updates
Linux Foundation Lab (Portland) hardware upgrade status