OCI Weekly Discussion, 28 Oct 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: OCI Weekly Discussion - 2021-10-28

Description

Recording of the OCI weekly developer's call from 28 Oct 2021; agenda/notes here: https://hackmd.io/El8Dd2xrTlCaCG59ns5cwg?view#October-28-2021

A

A

B

This might be a quick one. I don't see anything on the agenda, but we have a few minutes for people to add stuff. If they're interested.

A

Yeah start the 180 second timer for agenda items.

A

Hopefully, rose is happy, we don't have to talk about pearl anymore.

A

I saw the pr got merged. I got merged.

B

That reminds me I wanted to talk more about pearl.

B

I shouldn't have mentioned it.

C

Not my problem anymore,.

A

We're not allowed to talk about it until we have an oci b2, and then we reopen the whole thing.

B

Let's go straight to b3 b2 is is not setting your sights high enough b3 at least.

A

A

Oh another, open containers has joined.

A

It's been: where was that other camera pointing? I saw your washer and dryer.

D

Yeah, it's weird this. This machine's got a front and a rear um yeah. It's reversed too.

D

um Yeah, I can give you a tour of my room.

D

Occasionally, it'll it'll pick up the other how's everybody doing today. We.

E

Can add the tour of vincent's room to the agenda.

D

It is kind of bizarre like sometimes when you realize like this- is your world view, but it's exactly the opposite of my life.

A

Yeah, we should have a meeting where everyone has to point their camera as what they see instead of us. Looking at them is.

B

The only clean corner of my house, I can't clean more of the house.

D

I do I do remember very early on in the pandemic when you feel, like everybody, the effects of everybody having to stay at home and then snl did that skit, where, like all the different actors, you know play players were like giving a tour of their house and like, and he here's that crack in this wall and here's that poly crap in the corner. We don't know what to do. Here's this other pile of crap. We don't know what to do.

A

Oh yeah, I was just going to say in a very meta way: I'm actually recording I'm uploading. Last week's call to youtube now. I realized I hadn't done it, but by the time we're done hopefully it'll be up there for those that want it.

B

I was going to say I don't know if it rises to the level of an agenda item, but I think the reference working group, the next step is a tob vote is that is that, where that's currently at.

D

Yeah, that's what we said last and yeah.

A

Yeah, I can't remember if we care or I I don't think the charter makes us whether amy has to like actually run a vote or whether we can just lgtm.

A

D

Yeah we're like waiting for a two-star majority of lgbt.

D

Almost something probably feels like it probably has to be posted to the list. Yeah right.

A

I think the last thing we did was add you most you most chi, you mosey, that's the last time we did an official vote.

E

If it needs amy, I think you want to get done this week or she'll be off next week.

D

Okay, yeah, you have the member summit next week, so I'm sure it's going to occupy a few people's brain cycle. True, another thing that I will not be at, but I will sit here and fomo.

F

From the charter it looks like uh tob, elections have to be via civs, but everything else just says: a vote or a majority vote or via vote most votes.

A

Yeah, I think for umochi. We just did lgtms and the issue and then sent a thing to the list that it was formally approved.

B

Okay, I mean, if that's all we have to talk about, uh we don't have to talk about it for the whole hour, but I was just curious if that was moving.

A

D

No, I I do have one thing that, since we have a couple of us on the call that might be worth talking about just because I've had it open and I made quick progress and then I stopped because.

D

I realized I was like having bubblegum stuck to your fingers, but um do you have anything else on this top degree, can I ask about governance things.

B

To me, I have nothing else.

D

uh Well, it's on the bringing the.

D

D

Yeah, okay, I just had notes.

D

So on the um is it on the governance things that we have a few files that are in the project template um that um some of the different repos have been. You know using the github feature to like clone from the template, um and so a few weeks ago, probably a month and a half ago when rose, was asking particular questions of like the path to becoming a maintainer for various things um like what does that? Look like and there's not quite a path of light.

D

If you achieve this or that that you become a maintainer, um I think there's probably even just like a little bit of tease out. We could do on some of those roles of like you know, actually using triage and maintainer. You know people that have different levels of delegation than that. That would be very helpful.

D

Though in investigating rose's inquiry- and you know to what extent we have anything outlined for maintainers- that it came into this governance- md dock- that is littered about different repos and inconsistent across all repos, because some were created before the time of the project template and then some of them.

D

After having cloned from the project, template made slight adjustments to their own projects, like maybe even like voting constraints, because it inherited from like a top level, something that was originally intended, probably for specs, of like two-thirds majority, but something like the runtimes tool didn't need two-thirds majority for certain like tagging or release, or something like that, so they made independ like varied um changes.

D

um And so basically, I realized that I was starting to unwind that template's direction by moving governance entirely into something like uh what I thought used to be org. But now it's a github repo, so it probably makes more sense to move it into tob um repo to have like top level like organizational governance kind of document, rather than some thing that gets arbitrarily scattered across all the different repos.

D

um Anyhow. I think it's it's actually pretty sloppy and it's a mess and I want to clean it up, but, as I found myself sitting there with like bubble gums stuck to all my fingers across all the different repos, I figured I'd, stop and reassess the situation and actually talk to others about it.

D

um Does anybody have strong feelings in like where government like governments, dot md, would actually what should live? Should it be in each repo or should they just link to a unified document and then allow themselves to make slight variations on things like the wording allow for them to change the tagging or voting or whatever.

C

So the different specs have different governance models. Is that am I understanding that right.

D

uh Effectively they shouldn't they they shouldn't, but the way that this is kind of trickled out is almost as if they've allowed, that there are certain things that should be consistent across them.

D

um There are places where there should be. There should be a like allowable for some kind of like variations of like stating whether or not they have quorum.

D

You know, like, I think it's it's important for the specs to say that they have two-thirds majority quorum and maybe some of the like go digest doesn't need two-thirds majority quorum, but that's not that that's like if the, if the one government, if there was one governance, doc and it kind of allowed people to say this, is what we're based on.

D

But we have you know, because this is not a spec, we have, you know looser quorum rules or something like that. So no, so it's currently confusing whether or not governance is up to each repo versus everything in the org.

C

Yeah, I think if there's I mean, if there's overlap between governance in you know that the three specs have mostly the same governance. I think there should be one governance document and then within the three specs they can have some sort of thing in the readme that says you know we follow this main governance with the exception of x and it can list the unique uh governance requirements for that spec, because otherwise I think it just leads to you know: copy and paste errors or missed updates um a lot of fragmented information.

G

So I dropped this in the chat, but if I'm remembering the history correctly, the intention was that the ob would not specify governance and that each individual oci project would be in control of that and that the project template that you're talking about was just sort of a base suggestion and each set of project maintainers could choose what parts of that they wanted to follow and what parts they didn't.

G

I don't know if we want to change that now, but that's that's what I'm remembering and maybe that's not an accurate memory, but that's what I have in my head.

D

I know that the tob is not the one that sets the the tv is, not the one that to set the governance per se, and that's why I didn't originally want to put it in the tob repo, because there were certain things that were just kind of like organizational for, like all of.

C

What is the advantage of having each oci project determine individual governance like? Where would the differences be there? I guess I'm struggling to see how that would be advantageous.

C

B

When I think of governance,.

C

I think of like um you know, just like the general process and community roles, so defining what a maintainer is. You know describing how decisions are made, and I think you know referencing the code of conduct generally. That would be the same and if there's differences than each project can specify.

C

But it seems like there should be some commonalities between um projects right for governance, yeah.

G

I do I do want to say here, I'm not arguing that it should be one way or another way, I'm just trying to remember the history of why it is today.

D

Okay and and like if you go to the like the charter itself, is the oci charter and it is it's like the charter.md that lives currently in the tob repo, which is not to mean that the tob well, you know it lives in the tob repo.

D

But if you go like the opencontainers.org and click on the charter, it points you to that thing.

D

That is technically the organizational governance model across all oci projects.

D

Then there's this governance.md that gets into more project level. Maybe it just should be called project governance of like how that particular project handles quorum and stuff like that, but there's some of the stuff in there like about handling security issues and whatnot. That probably is not project.

G

Level so it looks like mike just dropped a link and a quote from the charter into the chat that seems relevant there.

D

So then, this governance should probably be you know any anywhere that it exists on repo should be like project governance, and it will be a a flurry of prs but to make sure that anything that they have in their project. Governance is not effectively. You uh duplicating anything, that's truly a oci level thing like how to handle security.

D

You know security issues or whatnot.

E

I think it would be fair to have a link back from all the all the projects pointing to that. You know some kind of horizontal thing that we we all agree at each project level but, like you said, we need to modify the governance md for for each project. You know to point to some: you know horizontal security policy or something to that effect.

E

Because yeah I mean some, some projects might in fact want to have a different security policy. So you'd have to you know, work it out with the maintainers. I think was the original point and if they're not doing it correctly, then it would be up to the top to you know to come in and try to you know, assess and fix any issues that aren't being handled by. You know the project maintainers.

C

And how to handle security issues is sounds less like governance and more like just general processes right of the project um and like usually in a governance document. There's just you know, is it lazy consensus for making decisions? Is it maintainers a certain amount of maintenance like.

E

D

Okay, well, it sounds like it sounds like there's a couple of things out of here, but I do think uh uh I think, there's a need for a flurry of pr's, and maybe this shouldn't go back into the tob repo.

D

But call it maybe just renaming the files also like project governance rather than um governance, and then.

D

The things like security- and you know, like you said, horizontal- should just be a link out to here's the security process across oci.

D

And then also one one other kind of like side thing that is, I think, we've touched on this in a few different times and ways, but I could almost see this as being some kind of like little. You know almost like the build filled, kind of badges, but like is this project actually considered a spec or a code, repo or whatnot, because it could even be that we end up unifying at some kind of top level of like specs, have this kind of quorum expectations and voting expectations?

D

And if it's a code level repo, then it probably has it. You know a pretty standard other set process like two lgtms and doesn't need a time window to get tags.

D

You know releases made and whatnot like so if we just have like a badge on every project or whatever some way of saying now, this project is definitely a spec and this project is definitely code or not spec. Then they fall into two different categories of like quorum and voting.

E

Yeah that'd be cool, I don't think any of the projects would refuse those pull requests to the readme right to add those badges makes sense sure they should already have that sort of text in there in their readmes to explain it's just not consistent.

D

If you have to like scam and not pick it up,.

E

I agree: yeah yeah little flags would be something.

D

Consistent um but uh all that to say that that it effectively in uh all of this, this still, this is just a hairball that needed to be sorted out, but um it's still not a a clear maintainer path of progression to answer your original request rose, which still probably needs to be teased out and probably pretty clear of like it, and it might fall into the same kind of like two buckets of like specs conversation versus code and then also, I think, it'd, be beneficial to start kind of breaking out and saying, like triager and other things like folks who can help sort and tag and label and I'll gtm and review stuff that are giving more weight.

D

Otherwise that has a path of progression. I really like that a lot just. I think I got kind of stymied at seeing that this other hairball don't have to clear clarify.

E

Yeah, that makes sense, I don't know of any any of our projects that currently have some. You know restriction limit like you have to have done, 30 prs or anything like that. I think it's mostly just you know. The maintainers have communication with this person, and one of the maintainers has promoted, wants to promote this person to either reviewer or maintain her status, and you know, then the vote ensues. That's generally the way we handle it. I think it could. That might seem a little arbitrary, but it is very arbitrary, but.

D

And that's where there was like.

E

Something then you get into situations, but.

D

It's not clear.

E

Yeah I mean, then you get into situations where, when you try to be less arbitrary, okay, well, who reviewed his prs and you know, were they doc only, and is that good enough- and you know oh and that's and.

D

We've definitely had some of the situations where folks never opened a pr, but it was because they were using the stuff in production and they were. It was like constant feedback and- uh and it was, you know whether what you know and flip flip-wise, where some folks were not using it in production in their job or otherwise a work company yeah. I think one of one of the things.

H

That was wildly.

D

Diligent and keeping it cleaned up and consistent and linking and whatnot and like two different ends of the spectrum and trying to codify that was, you know, yeah.

E

You know, I think I think one of the things we're hoping that the top might be able to help us out with is some kind of recommendation on emeritus status for people who can no longer you know, participate, but but that's not not trying to open up a can of worms. Yeah yeah, yeah.

E

H

The kind of thing.

E

We would, I would expect the top to be able to you know, come down from and you know propose horizontal issue. You know management issues, governance issues down into the uh the repos to make sure which I guess is what the tops job is right to make sure that progress. Oh you're, saying todd. Sorry did I say: gotta talk top, I always forget which one it is.

D

um Okay, thanks for for talking that through, if you have any more questions on that, that's fine.

D

Does anybody have any other topics, particularly.

C

D

Is anybody on the call going to the member summit next week.

D

D

Good, I think, there's it looked like there's a good agenda. I was glad to see all the folks that are speaking.

D

Then phil, I hate to miss you, but it probably won't be enough to say that if we have stuff on the agenda to we'll probably still meet next week,.

A

Yeah, no, you should.

D

Not not quite the last couple of conferences that came through since okay. Well, if nobody has any other particular topics, then let's call it at a half.

H

Hey um would it be okay if, next week we could uh bring the uh extension proposal, so there is an updated pr uh and I've updated the issue on issue one one, one: um that's the draft pr to the distribution spec that shows how the extensions can be implemented. We went through two rounds of iterations before I wanted to bring it to this call so that we have some confidence on the model. um I think this is probably for next week just wanted to give a heads up so that we can maybe talk about that.

H

D

D

Yeah that that link is there's two links here: sargon there's, um let me get the distribution spec, one I'll put them in the hacking v. If that's okay, sergeant.

D

D

D

The distribution issue- 3512 cj, is the.

D

Tracker, you have for the proposal, but do you have.

D

D

D

Okay, so sargon, the three three links are in the notes. Thank you.

D

Oh everybody get 30 minutes back good singing hearing. All of you.

A

See you good to see you cheers.