/
Anuket Weekly Technical Discussions - 2021.03.15

Anuket Project

Anuket Weekly Technical Discussions - 2021.03.15

Mar 15, 2021

Participants

Please add your name to the list

  • @Gergely Csatari (Nokia)

  • @Al Morton (AT&T)

  •  @Walter.kozlowski(Telstra)

Antitrust policies

Action item register

@Trevor Bramwell to check how difficult is to move pr-s, issues, branches and projects from GitHub to GitLab?
Gitlab will import all Github Issues & PRs (comments and labels), code (all branches), wikis, and milestones. If a Github user has not logged into Gitlab and associated their Github ID, PR and issue comments will be associated with the importing user.
We will want to ensure CNTT contributors have logged into Gitlab with their Github ID before the import. I will confirm if this is retroactive (user logs in after import) or not.
@Trevor Bramwell clarify the migration plan
The migration plan can be found here. Please direct any comments or questions to the mailing list or add the topic to this meeting.
@Trevor Bramwell clarify how can we adopt the current user roles of the CNTT repo to GitLab
@Gergely Csatari ensure that we can have a discussion with someone from LF Legal about the charter.
All: Read the current Anuket, the CNCF and the XGVela charters and decide next week on which one we should base the new Anuket charter
@Gergely Csatari  to ask for review-s to pr 2274 in the notes mail of this meeting

@Pankaj.Goyal to propose an initial version of the charter under Anuket Charter and TSC Procedures revisions#Basedonotherprojectscharters

@Walter.kozlowski to add himself to https://github.com/cntt-n/CNTT/blob/master/CODEOWNERS in a pr
Scott: New milestones and labels to should be added to GitHub after we have the name for the new release

Organisation topics

  • Timezone change

    • Now the meeting time is locked to Mountain Time

Technical topics

Release milestones (M1) - Release planning - @Walter.kozlowski, @Gergely Csatari

  • RM is not aligned to any other projects being external or internal

  • RA-s should specify by the M1 milestone which RM version they "implement" in the actual release

    • It is possible to "implement" the same version of RM what is developed in the same release cycle or part of it

    • In case of partial implementation the implemented and not implemented requirements must be traceable back to RM

  • RI-s should specify by the M1 milestone which RA version they implement in the actual release

    • It is possible to select only particular features from the RA

    • In case of partial implementation the implemented and not implemented requirements must be traceable back to RA

  • RC-s should specify by the M1 milestone which RA version they implement in the actual release

    • It is possible to select only particular features from the RA

    • In case of partial implementation the implemented and not implemented requirements must be traceable back to RA

  • Definition of version of open source components (even major ones, like OpenStack or Kubernetes) should happen during the release in the scope of RA projects in agreement with their dependent projects

  • Open issues

    • We should decide if we would like to define absolute or relative versions of the open source components

Anuket Charter and TSC Procedures revisions - @Gergely Csatari  - * min

AoB