[Infrastructure] 2021-11-17 Meeting Minutes
Corey.Bonnell at digicert.com
Fri Nov 19 13:18:43 UTC 2021
Jos read the antitrust statement.
Corey: Weekly digests have been configured to be sent every Sunday morning
to each working group mailing list for their repo activity. If there's no
activity, then no email will go out. Next step is to determine if there are
additional repositories we want to monitor.
Ben: There's also the forum repository for charters; we should enable those
Jos: Phase two could also be adding support for tags so that the appropriate
list gets notified.
Ben: If I create a branch in my repository, will the activity appear in the
Corey: Not at this time. I think another next step is to see whose forks, if
any, we should also monitor. An example would be monitoring the fork where
Ryan's profile work is being discussed.
Jos: The difficulty with monitoring forks is determining where the scope of
the CAB Forum ends and individual collaborators begins. May get complicated
tying that back to IPR.
Tim: This brings up a great question that whether official work products
should be branches within the official repo vs. taking place in individuals'
forks. If people use the official repos, then we know who exactly all the
contributors are and what they are saying.
Ben: If I were an IPR lawyer listening to this conversation, I'd suggest
it's time to revisit the IPR policy and make sure we are covered for these
Corey: To summarize, it sounds like we don't want to add individuals' forks
to the monitor until there's clarity on IPR?
Ben: That would be best for now.
Tim: The bigger IPR question is whether we transition to using branches in
the official repo as opposed to forks.
Jos: That's a great discussion that should happen at the Forum level.
Wayne: I'm afraid addressing this would require updates to the IPR policy
and every member's attornies must review the changes.
Jos: Yes, it would be best to hold off monitoring individual repos until the
potential IPR issues are discussed and resolved.
-- GitHub plugin for WordPress
Jos: We wouldn't need to switch entirely to using Markdown and Github but we
get the benefit of the Github PR review process. We also gain standard
templating. One downside is that the plugin only works for a public
repository. This means that draft minutes that were first sent to management
lists would now be public. Do folks think this matters?
Tim: It does. It's important that minutes be reviewed and edited privately
before releasing. Could we use a private repo for the review/approval
process, then push the change to the public repo for publication?
Jos: Yes, that is definitely possible. We can try this out before committing
to using it with the test website instance.
Tim: Another benefit to having the website content in GitHub is that it's
easier to download Forum history, such as previous minutes and ballots
-- Ballot Process Flowcharts
Ben provided updates to the design of the ballot process flowcharts.
-- Membership management
Wayne: I'm thinking the best approach for now is using a spreadsheet. It
will likely be a marginal improvement over what we have now. One challenge
is reducing the number of members on the attendance sheets. We have over 300
active participants but only a fraction of them attend a given meeting.
Jos: As we discussed before, this sounds very much that a database would
solve these issues. Who are the primary users of the member spreadsheets?
Should we have a front-end that allows a member to manage their
organization's members themselves?
Wayne: The problem with exposing the data to membership is one of
authentication. It shouldn't be possible for a member of one organization to
change the membership of other organizations. I don't think we'll be able to
solve this anytime soon. With that in mind, I'm thinking that a Chair or
someone in this committee will need to make edits. Improving the
spreadsheets is an incremental improvement before we do anything more
-- CAB Forum DNS Records
Jim: I'm adding the CAB Forum DNS records into Route 53. I'm about half done
so far. I'll let everyone know on Slack when the migration is complete.
Jos: This is a big win, as we can make changes without having to ask others
to do it for us.
Jim: Does anyone have a preference for TTL? It's set to 5 minutes now; it
can be changed later.
Jos: I think we should keep it a short TTL for now until we know everything
is working smoothly and then we can reevaluate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4990 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Infrastructure