►
From YouTube: Jenkins Governance Meeting, Jul 01, 2020
Description
At this meeting we approved the new version of the Jenkins Code of Conduct, and discussed the current status of the terminology cleanup and the CDF project graduation. We also discussed finalizing the public Jenkins roadmap (JEP-14) on July 15th.
Full agenda and meeting notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Nr8QpqYgBiZjORplL_3Zkwys2qK1vEvK-NYyYa4rzg/edit#heading=h.6rx5y09hwmti
A
A
A
So
at
the
last
meeting
we
agreed
to
update
to
contributor
covenant
to
the
zero
and
much
Nitin
was
to
propose
a
pull
request
is
called
update,
also
with
other
items.
We
have
it
on
like
using
CD,
FS,
second
level
for
escalation,
etc,
and
the
pull
request
is
here,
so
the
pull
request
basically
incorporates
all
the
changes.
It
got
a
number
of
reviews,
I'm,
not
sure
we
did.
You
have
a
chance
to
take
a
look.
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
C
A
So,
for
example,
a
contributor
covenant,
it
has
two
stages:
first,
is
temporary
ban
another
one
is
permanent
ban
in
the
case
of
James.
Project
me
didn't
have
a
permanent
ban
before.
Instead
of
that,
we
have
a
bond
after
12
months
it
can
be
lifted.
So
I
basically
tried
to
match
two
definitions
and
that's
how
we
got
it.
It's
most
elemental
base
contributor
covenant,
especially
in
terms
of
community
involved
consequences.
It's
mostly
taken
from
contributor,
come
and
accept
this
12
months.
A
A
So
would
be
nice
to
get
opinions
from
others
on
this
topic,
because
this
comment,
it
doesn't
seem
more
like
it's
really
resolved.
Okay,
so
basically
we
have
feedback
from
Jeff
and
from
Mark
that
we
could
probably
just
remove
it
and
follow
how
contributor
covenant
is
written,
but
yeah.
It
would
be
great
to
get
your
feedback
holy
marker.
B
D
You
saying
three:
are
you
saying,
keep
it
in
public
or
keep
it
in
private
that
keep
it
in
private?
Sorry,
okay,
I,
I,
agree
with
that.
I
think
there
has
to
be
a
discussion
that
is
done
in
private,
with
the
board
or
members
that
are
privy
to
the
conversation.
I
do
also
agree
that
the
outcome,
though,
depending
upon
the
nature
of
the
infraction.
D
D
C
I
thought
I
thought.
Oleg's
question
was
really
this.
This
statement
is,
will
be
done
in
private
and
that
would
preclude
our
doing
it
in
public,
even
for
a
serious
or
particularly
grave,
infraction
I
think
we
want
the
flexibility
to
be
allowed
to
discuss
him
to
bring
it
to
the
public.
If
we
need
to
don't
we
all
like.
Yes,.
A
D
Think
so
my
vote
would
be
leaving
this
in,
but
amending
it
for
the
use
of
edge
case,
public
announcements
and
I.
Think
even
when
we
say
edge
case
public
announcements,
we
almost
should
be
very
specific
and
saying
you
know:
I,
don't
even
know
how
much
we
have
to
say.
But
if
I
just
talking
out
loud,
if
there
is
the
need
to
go
public
for
a
certain.
D
Infraction
I,
don't
think
the
full
disclosure
is
needed
we
can
save.
You
know,
lie
and
I'm
just
trying
to
use
examples
here.
If
there's
an
infraction
of
racism,
we
and
it's
it's
publicly
known
that
this
infraction
took
place,
but
the
vile
other
reporter
did
this
in
private.
The
conversation
with
the
board
starts
in
private.
The
outcome
would
be
private,
but
there'd
be
a
public
side
to
it
that
says
this
infraction
or
because
of
a
infraction
I.
Don't
know.
I
have
tried
to
think
of
a
yeah.
A
D
D
Unless
the
governance
board
deems
it
necessary
for
a
public
response
or
something
does
everybody
else
agree
with
that
and
I
think
99.9
well,
ninety-nine
point
eight
percent
of
the
cases
will
this
will
not
apply
to
well.
Everything
will
just
be
done
in
private,
but
there
are
those
certain
cases
that
may
require
the
need
to
have
a
public
sort
of
comment.
A
C
A
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
Rely
regarding
the
progress
yeah.
We
have
some
items
example
code
of
conduct.
Hopefully
we
get
it
done
and
there
are
some
items
which
up
already
past
or
past
with
some
questions
because,
for
example,
we
do
have
documentation
for
the
weekly
process,
but
at
all
so
I
believe
that
we
will
need
to
spend
some
time
and
recommend
that
and
whether
we
want
to
create
or
not
I
believe
it's
important
thing
to
do
saying.
A
C
A
A
A
D
D
A
A
D
A
D
And
then
look
at
the
owners
there
you'll
see
a
different
set
of
owners
so,
for
example,
I'm
in
this
owners
file,
but
I'm,
not
at
the
root
of
Falco
for
the
Falco
codebase.
So
each
various
repo
under
the
Jenkins
will
have
to
have
a
different
owners
file.
You
cannot
just
specify
across
the
board.
Well
so.
A
D
Only
going
to
apply
to
the
Jenkins
infra
repo,
which
is
where
everything
mainly
is
housed
and
I,
also
think
in
our
documentation.
If
we
list
out
that
in
lieu
of
having
an
owners
file,
if
we
have
the
code
owners
but
there's
also
managed
through
the
github
teams
like
we
do
for
Jenkins
I,
think
that
would
satisfy
the
requirement.
But
we
have
to
list
that
out.
A
D
D
A
A
A
The
next
so
having
a
public
list
of
adopters,
so
we
have
a
third
party
service.
We
have
alt
wiki
page,
which
I
was
unable
to
find
but
I
believe
it's
there.
I'll
go
find
it
so
my
preference
has
touched
start
from
listing
users
who
submitted
feedback
to
Jenkins's
the
way
and
we
have
signed
up
from
submitters
to
use
company
logos.
So
we
can
start
from
just
using
this
date
and
maybe
voluntary
data
from
other
users
to
have
initial
list
of
adopters.
A
A
A
We
started
about
fresh
team
project
score,
but
yet
rash
team
yeah
the
problem
that
we,
if
we
found
that
this
team
we
needed
to
redecorate
and
we
need
to
find
contributors
who
able
to
do
ticket.
Let's
see
if
you
are
curvy
consistently,
otherwise,
that
this
team
doesn't
have
chance
to
cover
the
use
case
needed
for
CIA
coordination.
So
yep.
C
A
A
C
A
A
A
So
that's
the
problem
just
doing
this
cleanup.
It
requires
a
lot
of
grooming.
Okay,
thank
you
thanks
for
reviewing
it
yeah.
So
my
h19
here
is
to
actually
create
queries
because
yeah
I
already
pulled
this
data,
but
I
didn't
recommend
the
queries
just
totally
my
fault,
but
we
are
not
meeting
this
criteria
right
now,
even
though
a
majority
of
both
reports
yeah
that
gets
also
50%
but
yeah.
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
So
it's
on
my
list
for
July
and
again
so
good
things
that
we've
had
a
discussion
about
requirements.
This
CDF
talk
and
the
feedback
was
that
we
are
not
required
to
have
100%
it's
right
now,
but
yeah
at
the
same
time,
I
think
we
should
100%
if
we
can,
but
the
eight
will
below
flower.
Then
major
requirements
like
this
one.
D
We
there's
still
a
lot
of
stuff
that
that's
currently
in
flight,
but
that's
the
main
thing
that
we're
working
on
right
now
to
get
ready
for
the
voting
piece
so
essentially
Alex
and
I
will
get
the
the
draft
email
that
will
be
going
out
with
the
terminology.
We
will
then
give
that
to
you
mark
and
I.
Think
if
it's
my
understanding
from
our
last
meeting,
you
will
you're
going
to
be
doing
the
setting
up
the
actual
voting
infrastructure
correct
awesome.
So
we
will
get
that
to
you
sooner
rather
than
later.
A
D
D
D
Just
saw
somebody
tweet
something
and
the
tweet
I'm
not
going
to
read
it
Batum,
but
changing
all
of
the
terminology
is
great,
but
somebody
still
fears
for
their
life
when
they
go
jogging
now.
I
know
that
doesn't
mean
to
what
we're
talking
about
I
would
feel
better.
If
we
just
put
the
vote
out
and
started
doing
the
work,
we
don't
need
to
publicize
it.
We
just
need
to
do
the
work.
Quiet,
no
I,
don't
want
to
say
quietly
I
don't
want
to
be
the
organization,
that's
Tooting,
their
horn,
that
look.
D
What
we're
doing
right
now,
I
think
it's
great.
When
we
make
changes,
we
let
you
know
that
the
changes
are
made,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
want
to
I,
don't
think
it
brings
value
to
a
larger
conversation
through
social
media
I.
Think
if
we
vote,
we
put
the
vote
out,
you
send
it
to
people
that
are
like
you
did
much
for
the
board
votes,
an
officer
votes,
it
should
sort
of
be
the
same
way
and
and
and
that's
what
we
do
and
that's
how
the
communication
goes.
Yeah
the
profession
is,
are.
A
C
Makes
the
lens
so
Oleg
in
terms
of
the
response,
the
sponsor
eight
to
the
voting
for
that
we
did
last
year,
so
we
did
a
large-scale
notification
and
still
had
a
very
small
fraction
of
those
who
were
voting
or
who
were
eligible
to
vote,
who
actually
voted
so
I
for
me,
I,
don't
see
any
problem
with
announcing
it
on
social
media
to
encourage
more
people
to
vote,
it's
just
a
vote
and
we
agreed
it's
non-binding
right.
This
is
this
is
still
truly
a
non-binding
thing
that
the
the
governance
board
will
ultimately
have
the
ultimate
decision.
A
A
D
A
D
A
Okay,
then
I
think
it
is
so
other
action
items
we
have
such
terminology
proposal.
Time
has
expired,
so
basically
we
operate
on
nobody
real
guitar
in
this
thread
at
least
it's
my
understanding
and
starting
co-working
rope,
and
my
team
is
to
create
a
page
skeleton.
But
yet
guess
it
doesn't
look
anything
because
we
really
work
in
group
not
for
delivering
devoted
cetera
but
develop
implementation
afterwards,
but
still
it
makes
sense
to
do
that.
A
A
So,
since
the
last
meeting
there
were
some
changes
in
terms
of
roadmap
implementation,
I
mean
since
the
last
meeting,
when
we
discussed
that
so
now,
the
filter
and
kit,
saturates,
integrated
I
will
spend
a
bit
more
time
to
support
filter
and
by
special
interest
groups
and
other
things.
But
even
now
it
provides
some
information
we
have
for
the
majority
of
the
stories
on
the
list
tomorrow.
A
But
yeah
I
would
be
really
interested
to
get
more
feedback
on
this
topic
because
yeah
the
process
basically
yeah.
There
were
some
minor
changes
in
terms
of
category
slimming
etc,
but
in
principle
the
process
didn't
change.
So
we
would
be
doing
a
sort
for
a
road
map
discussion
and
the
governance
meeting
until
there
is
a
technical
steering
committee,
all
the
single
identity
taking
over
the
technical
evolution
part
and
before
that
it
would
be
just
the
government
speaking.
A
So
if
it's
fine
with
everyone,
my
suggestion
would
be
to
move
forward
and
to
actually
accept
that
this
job
is
active
because
it
already
provides
some
radio
and
we
can
get
additional
contributions
and
more
visibility
by
promoting
it.
So
that's
why
I
would
like
to
move
forward
so
yeah.
My
plan
is
to
submit
voting
at
the
next
governance
meeting
and
to
formally
approve
it.
I
already
discussed
it
with
Alex
was
a
beautiful
delegate
in
this
job,
but
basically
we
would
be
living
in
fear
as
a
based
on
the
result
of
the
next
governor's
meeting.
A
C
A
It
needs
some
housekeeping
because
items
constantly
move
to
approve
you
introduced,
columns
which
I
really
like,
but
that's
why
we
need
models,
regular
meeting
card
to
do
the
scrappin
to
show
that
everything
consume
the
same
place
so,
for
example,
many
JSOC
projects
actually
in
the
previous
status
now
so,
for
example,
mushroom
donor
for
me,
is
it
hot
check?
Cpi
we've
got
alpha
release
then
you're,
a
team
management
we've
got
alpha,
release
all
the
plug-in
and
hotels.
A
All
basic
other
topics
then
pretty
as
well,
for
example
of
external
fingerprint
storage.
So
I
will
also
do
this
clean
up
before
the
voting,
but
the
process
itself
seems
to
be
working.
Okay,
we
just
need
more
contributors
who
actually
submit
entries
and
maybe
especially
to
my
own
special
interest
groups
and
sub
projects,
to
submit
updates
and
to
submit
a
road
maps
point
well-taken.
B
A
A
A
So
if
you
see
any
missing
item
so
there
any
missing
major
initiatives,
we
should
add.
Please
do
so
and
the
end
gets
a
base
hit
for
terminology.
This
terminology
means
I,
haven't
acted
on
my
action
items.
We
still
have
agency
terminology,
but
we
don't
have
items
for
the
terminology
cleanups
and
it's
open
question,
but
we
want
to
have
a
single
one
or
multiple
ones,
but.