661303200?pwd=TFdRd0c2MTJUem8xa252UGJHTE1Mdz09

Passcode: 209247

2022 TSC Recordings	2022 TSC Decisions	Anti-Trust Policy

We will start our meetings by mentioning the project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.

Original ONAP Press Release: https://www.onap.org/announcement/2017/02/23/the-linux-foundation-announces-the-formation-of-a-new-project-to-help-accelerate-innovation-in-open-networking-automation

Attended	Proxy (w/ @name)	Gov. Holiday	Did Not Attend

Attendance is taken purely upon #info in Zoom Chat

Alla.Goldner	AMDOCS	Fernando Oliveira	Individual Contributor
Andreas Geißler	DT	Magnus Buhrgard (Unlicensed)	Ericsson
Bin Yang	WindRiver	N.K. Shankaranarayanan	STL
Former user (Deleted)	Bell Canada	Ranny Haiby	Samsung
cl664y@att.com - proxy: Amy Zwarico	AT&T	Seshu Kumar Mudiganti	Huawei
Dong Wang	China Telecom	Timo Perala proxy Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed)	Nokia
Eric Debeau	Orange	Yuanhong Deng	China Mobile

Agenda Items	Presented By	Presos/Notes/Links/
Release Status	David McBride	Weekly Update - we are nearly there with the Maintenance release - keep going ! Survey on weekly release update
TSC Updates		ASD Model - Follow-Up ONAP “Cloud Native” Modeling approach - Let's move forward together ...
RelEng/Infrastructure	Jessica Gonzalez	Tickets- Open showstoppers: Tickets- Waiting on Community: Migration Status / Upcoming Changes
PTL Updates	Michał Jagiełło	Azure lab request for staging 12 VMs (4CPUs/16G RAM) for Kubernetes cluster 1 VM (16CPUs/64G RAM) for an OpenStack instance 1 VM (2 CPUs/4G RAM) for a controller
Subcommittee Updates Arch, Lab, Modeling, Seccom, Requirements
LFN Cross-Organization Updates MAC, SPC, TAC, EUAG, LFN Board		SPC - Submit your candidature by March 2nd, 2022 - ONAP Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) Representative - Call for Nomination
TCC / ONAP Liaison Updates
Task Force Updates CNF, Wiki 2.0, ONAP Enterprise		Wiki 2.0 - Call for Volunteers Thank you Chaker Al-Hakim , Ranny Haiby , Timo Perala to be part of it as participant Need a lead for this task force
TSC Activities and Deadlines WILL BE COVERED ON 3/3 or 3/10	cl664y@att.com	ONAP Community Awards: Istanbul Release 2022 ONAP Priorities / Action Plan LFN Board follow-up actions -no update this week Prepare TM Forum presentation (April 11th, 2022)
Upcoming Events & Housekeeping	Kenny Paul	Open Networking & Edge Executive Forum (ONEEF) April 12 - 14, 2022 Virtual LFN DTF Workshop March 14 & 15 Virtual Single track focused on cross-collab follow-ups to the Jan DTF CFPs open for the first-ever, Cloud Native Telco Day at KubeCon EU May 16th, 2022, Valencia, Spain Hybrid LFN Developer & Testing Forum EU June 13-16, 2022, Porto, Portugal In-Person Topic Proposals:

Zoom Chat Log

05:56:20 From Sai Seshu to Everyone:
#info Seshu, huawei
05:56:43 From Sai Seshu to Kenny PAUL (LFN)(Direct Message):
Hi Kenny, I might need to drop early today...
05:57:03 From Fred Oliveira to Everyone:
#info Fred Oliveira, Self
06:00:25 From Andreas GEISSLER (DT) to Everyone:
#info Andreas Geissler,DT
06:00:25 From Amy Zwarico to Everyone:
#info Amy Zwarico, AT&T (proxy for Catherine Lefevre)
06:00:27 From N.K. Shankaranarayanan to Everyone:
#info N.K.Shankar, STL
06:00:29 From Yuanhong Deng (China Mobile) to Everyone:
#info Yuanhong Deng, China Mobile
06:00:44 From Bruno Sakoto to Everyone:
#info Bruno Sakoto, Bell Canada
06:00:59 From Thinh NGUYENPHU to Everyone:
#info proxy Timo, Thinh Nguyenphu Nokia
06:01:00 From bin.yang@windriver.com to Everyone:
#info Bin Yang, Wind River
06:01:05 From Dong Wang (China Telecom) to Everyone:
#info Dong Wang, China Telecom
06:01:06 From Ranny HAIBY (Samsung) to Everyone:
#info Ranny Haiby, Samsung
06:02:58 From Eric Debeau to Everyone:
#info Eric Debeau, Orange
06:03:47 From Magnus Buhrgard to Everyone:
#info Magnus Buhrgard, Ericsson
06:11:29 From Kenny PAUL (LFN) to Everyone:
https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/8446
06:12:13 From Xu Yang to Everyone:
rh
06:13:29 From Magnus Buhrgard to Everyone:
rh
06:25:43 From Thinh NGUYENPHU to Everyone:
RH
06:25:54 From Byung-Woo Jun (Ericsson) to Everyone:
Rh
06:37:38 From Ranny HAIBY (Samsung) to Everyone:
rh
06:40:39 From Chuyi Guo to Everyone:
rh
06:40:53 From Magnus Buhrgard to Everyone:
rh
06:48:42 From Thinh NGUYENPHU to Everyone:
RH
06:55:00 From Byung-Woo Jun (Ericsson) to Everyone:
Fred did not participate in the voting. It cannot count that way
07:02:25 From Xu Yang to Everyone:
rh
07:02:32 From DENG Hui to Everyone:
rh
07:11:59 From Byung-Woo Jun (Ericsson) to Everyone:
How do we understand the following statement that Chuyi Guo’s written, “Chair and co-chair think it should to report to TSC for final decision.”?
07:38:52 From Thinh NGUYENPHU to Everyone:
rh
07:38:58 From DENG Hui to Everyone:
rh
07:39:01 From Thinh NGUYENPHU to Everyone:
lh
07:41:16 From Eric Debeau to Everyone:
Sorry, I need to drop.
07:46:11 From Fred Oliveira to Everyone:
Sorry, I need to drop
07:46:30 From Andreas GEISSLER (DT) to Everyone:
Need also to drop the call and would like to thank Kenny and Magnus about their patience and agree to their standpoints, Thanks
07:46:36 From Byung-Woo Jun (Ericsson) to Everyone:
I support Kenny
07:47:00 From Bruno Sakoto to Everyone:
Sorry I need to drop

Zoom auto-transcript service - These are often translated incorrectly and can be misleading. They are NOT Authoritative! Information as to why .
They are included here as a time stamp cross-reference for the recording only! The notes above this line and the actual recordings are authoritative.

06:02:56 Okay. recording started transcripts started you know Please Remember to keep yourself muted unless you're speaking.
06:03:06 If you're on a cell phone or a one of those weird things that's attached to your wall. If anyone has any of those anymore. you might have one singing as we are are kind of the telecom industry you probably have one scrolled away as
06:03:22 a as an artifact. anyway. please keep yourself muted if you're coming in on a phone line, you can use Star 6 to unmute yourself.
06:03:36 Private messages sent to me will be come part of the public record, because I cut and paste the chat directly into meeting minutes.
06:03:47 Thank you, Eric. We'll start off by talking about our antitrust policy.
06:03:54 This policy is important where we have multiple industry competitors participating in these meetings.
06:04:00 Please review it. If you have any question please contact your Company's Legal Council, members of the Lf.
06:04:06 May also contact Andrew up to Grove, the firm. Gesmer Up Grove, Llp.
06:04:09 Which provides legal counsel to fell Linux Foundation.
06:04:17 Stop share Share this, Magnus. Thank you. So big news yesterday own app turned 5 years old.
06:04:38 Congratulations, everybody. This has been quite the roller coaster.
06:04:47 I know many of you have been involved since the since the very beginning.
06:04:54 So thank you for your your support. participation your ongoing participation and and engagement in the process of open source, which as we know, isn't isn't always are isn't always tidy I guess is probably the best word for
06:05:20 it. but it is proven again and again to be one of the best ways. forward.
06:05:27 As we work through these issues. so congratulations everybody, please give yourself a big round of applause.
06:05:33 This is a This is a great milestone for the community.
06:05:41 I would sing happy birthday, except I know that everybody would probably drop from the call.
06:05:50 So. I do. I do want to give just a moment for anyone that might want to reflect on on the this 5 year milestone.
06:06:00 If anyone wants to say anything. Yeah, I I like to say that as one of the people, as you said, we're there from the beginning.
06:06:14 I think we need to. We should take look, and for at least 5 years, and get some perspective sometime.
06:06:25 We did have some burning issues over the years and we've always managed to find a way to reach the optimal solution, and looking back at some of the dramas that we have.
06:06:39 They now seem ridiculous. so i'm hoping that it was big.
06:06:47 It will stay true. for whatever things are top of mind today, and hopefully we will be able to soon look back at it and see that, as a community, we managed to overcome our differences and reach the optimal solution for the community the rest of the
06:07:01 industry. Thanks for any anyone else can you position curve i'll also comment. I see this: the whole thing as an exercise in seeing how much can be achieved with and open source contribution based, effort, and that that whole journey has been pretty successful
06:07:27 and and then I think it led to the order and software community.
06:07:32 The same model sort of happening there as well it's It's definitely a process, and as as we evolve, as we learn, this is this has been probably the biggest pivot.
06:07:51 The telecom industry is done, and you know, a 100 years.
06:07:59 The transitions from from land lying to Mobile. and then, as we've gone through each generation of Mobile, and has been, have been big.
06:08:18 But the fundamentals of how the own app community has shifted the telecom industry forever is really something that that all of us can say.
06:08:34 Hey? we participated in that it's it's a once in a lifetime type of event erez agmoni, and as we continue to move forward, we'll continue to hit you know various bumps in
06:08:49 the road with our communities, and and I like randy's comment about some of the some of the dramas of the past seem ridiculous.
06:08:58 I could promise you that there were plenty of nights that I lay awake in bed in the past, thinking, Oh, how are we gonna get past this?
06:09:09 And now I look at it, and just and just laugh because it does seem trivial when we consider all the great things that we've done as a community.
06:09:20 So thank you for that, Shankar. Anyone else want to see anything.
06:09:32 Okay, let's go ahead and get started. then David sent out his weekly update.
06:09:40 Did you want to mention anything about the survey, Mr. Mcbride, Okay.
06:09:58 Must have had to step away didn't actually go through what we had on the agenda.
06:10:10 Sorry about that. we've got the asd which is I know top of mine, for many, many people will touch on our normal reling stuff and talk about the azure lab.
06:10:27 Spc. looking for candidates there. pretty much just general operational stuff.
06:10:37 Anything else anyone wanted to add today. Okay, Doke. So talking about the Sd follow up
06:10:55 I think Catherine sound an excellent male on that to the community that that basically summarizes kind of her thoughts.
06:11:06 I think it was pretty heartfelt that she sent if you haven't seen it.
06:11:14 There's the link in a new tab and I will drop that into the chat in case anyone wants to go.
06:11:25 Take a peek at it if you have not seen it.
06:11:33 Also I sent out a novel on yesterday evening, summarizing the the findings and the feedback from the Lf.
06:11:49 To the community, and I would like to give folks the opportunity to
06:11:59 Speak if you have something that you would like to say At this point regarding the the the asd topic.
06:12:19 Good Zoo Yang First Thanks, Kenny, and Catherine for and for the topic.
06:12:35 And I think of reply to your email but I guess maybe I need to moderate her, to approve that.
06:12:41 To be seen on a Tc. So, anyway, I think from your explanation, I think the the result of last week's vote was just on.
06:12:56 Can see that has not approved to me. I think I would agree with Catherine's suggestion.
06:13:05 It's to modeling subcommittee approval of that model is not necessity or requirement for the park.
06:13:17 So I think the poc can still be done and be implemented.
06:13:21 Give it back to the modeling subcommittee.
06:13:24 Well for the models as it's clear that we don't have any consensus here on, and I as I explained in that email that we may have a different understanding.
06:13:39 Of okay is it is. I think you can just just one of them.
06:13:44 I think the content is the same. I explain my understanding of the modeling subcommittee process as we've been used for the past years.
06:14:00 Yeah, Maybe I was explain it here a bit. So we are following a two-step approach.
06:14:07 The first step is to set up an email Po, and the second one is to in the modeling subcommittee call after that pole to summarize the result.
06:14:19 And actually on that pole. We will, Catherine.
06:14:23 Information. opinion from different companies again, and make the the final and formal decision for that
06:14:32 And i've given the and you know I think happened in 2,019.
06:14:37 It's not the same as the current one but if
06:14:46 Also a case that we have some agreement in the poll, but not in the call.
06:14:52 Afterwards. So I think, basically, I would suggest we just Stlc has no approval for that.
06:15:02 There's we just go back to the modeling subcommittee and continue the discussion, and following the process.
06:15:08 We've been using for several years. maybe it's not on clearly enough for the members.
06:15:19 But I think it's useful and has been working well for several years.
06:15:27 I would just suggest to continue the discussion thing. Also, Catherine is suggesting that as well, but modeling part we can seek further discussion and opinions from standard products as well.
06:15:41 So, count that's my opinion so thanks okay that's Magnus here.
06:15:53 I don't agree at all with this You are just repeating the same thing over and over again.
06:15:58 I think that what Kenny was sending out was a explanation.
06:16:05 Very thorough explanation where we very well sort of thought and and and explained, and and they've I think the end result was that we have a clean state for the models.
06:16:21 That was what Kenny was sort of concluding in his mail.
06:16:27 I think that's as clear and that's you and he was actually explaining the sort of the impossible sort of situation.
06:16:37 If you have you, you have a discussion, you end the discussion.
06:16:42 You have a poll and then you bring it back and everyone it doesn't like the poll can start discussing It's not a discussion.
06:16:50 It's just postponing something because you don't want the others to move on.
06:16:56 I I don't clearly I thought that the explanation from Catherine was based on Kenny's mail, saying that we have a clean state for the models.
06:17:08 We have to move on, and we can further discuss this we can bring it to Etsy.
06:17:14 But that might. That was my under my assumption that that we didn't argue anymore.
06:17:19 We let can be sort of explain and and sort of make conclusion And now you're bringing up again.
06:17:29 That this is not right. It should be further sort of discussed in modeling subcommittee.
06:17:35 I also want to point out that it is a open source community.
06:17:41 Those who make code have a have sort of a is driving forward. The the community, if you don't contribute code and and just sort of bring, sit in subcommittees and have opinions 2. that is not in the spirit of open source thank
06:18:03 you so if if I can jump in here and i've got a couple thoughts.
06:18:12 The first one is kind of unrelated to process.
06:18:18 One of the things that that I seem to be picking up from some folks is that that there appears to be this perspective, that by moving forward with the asd model that we are somehow never going to follow Etsy again, and and we're
06:18:45 just abandoning that this is nothing could be further from the truth.
06:18:53 We can't do that as a community we just can't I mean. so we we will always continue to work with the standards.
06:19:05 Organizations to try and get various aspects of what we do as an open source community, driving, driving the industry forward at a rate that an sto can never achieve.
06:19:20 So we should be pushing forward and we should be working with the standards organizations to you know, basically adopt some of the things that we're doing.
06:19:34 So I I not sure where this this perception and maybe i'm just wrong in in what i'm picking up.
06:19:41 But there's no way own app can abandon etsy and and that but we can't wait for them, and I think that's that's the key thing here.
06:19:54 The second getting back to the discussion of process , If my extremely extremely strong suggestion to the modeling, and to every single subcommittee that we have. If you take votes, if you do polls you're conducting, business in
06:20:33 that way. You need to be very clear on what constitutes a voting member.
06:20:43 You need to be very clear on the criteria for a voting member.
06:20:49 You need to be very clear that every time you initiate a vote it is done according to the quorum and the own app charter and the own app community.
06:21:10 Document. Well, what we have here a published process that is not the process used based upon the conversations that i'm hearing.
06:21:26 I not , I have been never i've i've never heard of a of a process where you have a vote, whether it's a live vote, whether it's a poll whether it's a whether it's an electronic vote,
06:21:47 whatever you want to say to make a decision then the results of that are just considered an interesting data point rather than a decision that confuses me.
06:22:07 So I realized i've taken 2 completely different topics here and and matched them up together.
06:22:13 But I One of the reasons that this project is hosted within the Linux Foundation.
06:22:25 It is our job. It is my job. It is the job of every staff member here to look at these things in an impartial fashion, as it applies to process as it applies to governance.
06:22:47 It applies to keeping things fair and a level playing field, and If you have a process where you take a vote and then go back and say, Well, this is still open for discussion, even though we've voted 200 that is not a level playing
06:23:06 field. So my my my recommendation here is exactly what I said in the email processes published.
06:23:26 The published process was followed. there's a process that is taking place, then that is not not that decision-making process.
06:23:41 It should be published. it should be agreed to by all of the voting members of the community for that subcommittee.
06:23:52 That is the process that should be processed, that that is the process that should be published.
06:23:59 So please help me understand what I am not what I don't See here, Thanks, Kenny, if I may respond to your heart tape.
06:24:16 So the first find, I think, actually, I totally agree with you that the open source community can and should be able to ahead of the Sdos to explore the possibilities and to drive the work.
06:24:36 And actually, if possible, we can lead our work back to the as deals to let them to a use or adopt some solutions.
06:24:48 We have and wakes for, and that is the very reason we are suggesting to have further discussions.
06:24:57 I think the the key conflict between the the 2 size. maybe I 6. say that.
06:25:04 Say that as we are different, we have different opinions on the future of these models, as we are trying to pursue a way for the standard body to adopt this approach, and we referring to that as submerged solution so trying to it's
06:25:27 costly St. deals to find a way to enhanced, were modified.
06:25:33 They are current solution to support this approach. Well, the other side says it's not possible, and we are not considering to put that into that steals.
06:25:46 So that's the main differences. we or different opinions. we have for now.
06:25:55 Okay. So so yeah, I just want to check. I just want to check my understanding.
06:25:59 So sorry for interrupting you so from from the perspective that you're expressing. there is a feedback that what is being proposed currently is being proposed something that would be completely outside any of the discussions, or any of any of the
06:26:30 the technology or models, we would be trying to work with Etsion.
06:26:37 That was my opinion. I think one group has that opinion.
06:26:44 Well, we are opposed disagreeing with that.
06:26:47 So we are trying to to propose a solution that could be that that adacy can can adopt this approach.
06:26:57 Okay, so let me let me say from my perspective that I didn't.
06:27:07 Now granted I haven't been on any of the subcommittee meetings.
06:27:12 So you know there's that but I haven't heard anything that has ever indicated that.
06:27:21 So we may just have a simple misunderstanding here.
06:27:25 Okay, thin. I think that you had your raised your hand in response to this.
06:27:38 Yes, my comment is didn't realize that first is a charter of modeling subcommittee.
06:27:52 The I am resource. team has the leverage or charter that has to ensure whatever proposal coming into that modeling should or shall align with the industry standards didn't matter etsy or Onf or tm forum
06:28:16 or math model. I wouldn't be aware of that I think the spirits of open source that we have multiple alternative and explore different type of model.
06:28:28 Now, second comment, hallway, or individual member of modeling subcommittee, feel that they there should be a alternative to that 2.
06:28:41 They should go directly to Etsy and consult with Etsy to see what they they have, and still saying, Now take thing we lost you after you said take is never yes,
06:29:05 We lost you after you say, after you said go to etsy yeah,
06:29:12 What I'm saying. is That the the subcommittee is asking this to be merge or integrate or consult with Etsy.
06:29:23 I think that's a problem is that this is individual proposal project work as alternative.
06:29:36 Never intend to to try to merge. now. we can always talk and see, to improve.
06:29:41 Etsy a model for evolutions. But to hold this as hostage or mandate that need to be moving forward has to go through Etsy for consultation.
06:29:54 I think that's just way our our bound in any kind of open source, community, or even standard body.
06:30:03 We never even stand there saying that We have to go to someone else to get their approval or their the decision comment on input so I think that's little bit a bit strange as I speak last week.
06:30:20 We are open. Will you continue to discuss with
06:30:27 Any communities to explore how to improve their model that's up to individual company, to contribute to that that domain to that area.
06:30:38 If they're interested in those evolutions of other models that's all.
06:30:47 Okay, thank you. b, youngoo, I see you have your hand up
06:30:53 I'm gonna pause here for a moment though okay for folks that are.
06:30:58 I'm just going to ask this is a point blank question for folks that are working on the Asd proof of concept.
06:31:11 And the Asd model. This intended to be something that would never be part of Etsy or would.
06:31:20 There is. is this something that we assume going you know through time working with Etsy will be incorporated into their model. I mean, we can't guarantee that anything will be because it's a standards organization and we'd have
06:31:32 no control over them. But is this intended to be something that that would never touch Etsy and never be incorporated into one of their standards?
06:31:56 Okay, so I I hear nothing. So I assume that this is one of the misunderstandings that we currently have.
06:32:07 I mean what I've heard is is that we should be continuing to work with that scene.
06:32:12 2, and making sure that we are feeding them information that they can incorporate so that's again Kenny's perception in terms of what i'm kind of hearing looking at at at sides and and trying
06:32:27 to to be in the middle here. Dunmo, please go ahead.
06:32:33 A couple things. Yesterday I received a cannis email.
06:32:37 I think it was Korea. So he explained all the governance procedure on Tsc.
06:32:42 Subcommittee so you know he's saying though is the way the process in the modeling subcommittee is authentic, and we should expect and their company can have different idea in open source.
06:32:57 There's no within stem company they have different idea that's. why we did voting and polling process the porting process, no matter what you know.
06:33:04 The other party. You know the insist it is done is we met.
06:33:10 There are the requirement and move on, and Tsc. yesterday. they say is authentic.
06:33:17 So this is done. There I don't know Why we kept talking about the additional things on top of their customers emails app to, you know the Keny's final. The confirmation.
06:33:27 So this is no point to we spin the will here.
06:33:32 We move on. Ok. Secondable, talking about Sc. Asd: the was created to our an alternate solution of Sc.
06:33:41 Okay, and also Yes, the last Tuesday this Tuesday we had a workshop in Sc.
06:33:47 And I asked the question. the alignment howway and other company talking about what's the scope of the alignment of Sc. Se.
06:33:57 Is not just about the modeling, not just about so one soul and the to use and model.
06:34:02 We need additional specifications. So 3, so 5, and also need seamano component like Nfl.
06:34:11 And then also V. Nfm: So So Ecosystem: Okay, not just the modern and packaging part.
06:34:17 So so I ask a specific question. what's the scope of this alignment.
06:34:21 No answers. Then what are we talking about here? We already pull the asd. We decide to move on.
06:34:26 Tsc: you know. authenticate that process of committee process and move on. Okay, And also, if you're not separate if there's a separate discussion.
06:34:36 Okay, so that's my point is I think the to me to my understanding as a magna set is done is approved, and the process is, we let not acknowledge that.
06:34:50 Tst and knowledge edge is authentic Ok. so I don't know why we kept spinning the way here.
06:34:55 That's my input Okay, maybe let me continue respond to I think this is also related to Kenneth.
06:35:05 Yours. second point, you mentioned Maybe you can open my email again.
06:35:12 Let me explain the example we have in 2,019.
06:35:18 Is Is this big enough about the sea, or do I need to make it bigger?
06:35:27 We can reinvent. So let me continue so first.
06:35:36 I want to say on the approved own app model governance wiki that is used as an evidence for the actual.
06:35:43 The model is a community process. I should say it's not 100% aligned with what we're really using for the past years.
06:35:58 Noticeable on thing is we never mentioned the polling in that wiki page, all using the voting.
06:36:08 But actually we are not using the voting actually I remembered on in the one of the modern subcommittees, The former co-chair, Thanks Way and Andy mentioned that it's based on the charter the
06:36:24 mowing subcommittee. cannot anything. So we are changing the word that we are trying to agree on something and to move the model proposals to the clean State to show that we have some Rafman census or Consensus
06:36:41 within the community or the group. So I don't really think the process written on that with the page is aligned with what we have, and on in more detail.
06:36:58 You can see as the second parallel, and the third part, maybe.
06:37:01 I was just take the second one that's a real example happened in 2,019 when we have a discussion, and actually a poll on the business interaction information model at that time. We also have a 2 week initially But in the end
06:37:24 It's 3 week. now, you can open that This is triggered by Andy the the co-chair.
06:37:35 At that time on the business interaction. information model and as you see it's a poll, and it's set there, as you see before the 2 world session.
06:37:48 They say we will address rough consensus during the main fortunes modeling subcommittee.
06:37:55 That is the the process we are taking. We have a poll for 2 weeks, and then on the modeling subcommittee call right.
06:38:05 After that we will try to addressed a rough consensus and as you scroll down, I think we have no response within the 2 weeks, so it's decided to extend that Poll for one more week, and then we got can you maybe
06:38:24 you can scroll down. let's grab after the extension.
06:38:29 We got one guest from Kevin and it's a delegate from Agent.
06:38:35 There. for the hope and there's nothing happen before the deadline then, and actually we for the poll we have only one yes, and no, no no abstinence.
06:38:54 So if we are falling, the the process we are helping the governor's speaking, then we should just announce it.
06:39:06 But actually we got an email, I guess, after that. Yes, you know, from Mikalla.
06:39:13 And also we got the comments on the models community call as well that they have some further comments on that, and requires further discussions and saying we will not go into 3, helps but sexually based on something related to the tm that
06:39:30 specs in concepts. There we want to clarify and to change something.
06:39:37 So we actually based on this input, we do not make any formal decision on that modeling subcommittee call.
06:39:45 Even when the power says it's yes, well the actual result is sweet.
06:39:51 Yeah. So so your call is on the may the 20 first at my time i'm not i'm not sure.
06:40:01 So right after the poll also attached the minutes of the that calls on the on my email as well, You want.
06:40:11 You can also click that link to see the minutes So actually on that call, we, you do not reach any agreement for this proposal, and the only suggestion from the team is to have some offline for their discussions and as this evening in
06:40:31 the email. Can Kevin actually take that with Michaela and doing some folder modifications and changes to the models and bring it back again on the call.
06:40:45 After that. So it's thank kids well in the 20 fourth or something.
06:40:53 But in in that call we reached the raft consensus, and then finally approve that.
06:41:01 So from from from from my perspective, this actually supports the published process because there was a vote put out to vote.
06:41:18 Yeah, Glad there was , According to what explained vote required.
06:41:24 The vote requires a two-thirds majority. Okay, a single vote does not meet the criteria.
06:41:32 Of 2 over 3 the vote was extended. it still did not meet the criteria of 2 thirds; therefore, taking it back as a discussion, would have been the only alternative, because the criteria to even vote had not ever been satisfied
06:41:55 no God is a very different, That is a very different thing.
06:42:04 Then conducting a vote, having the vote meet the criteria of the published process, then saying, The vote doesn't qualify.
06:42:14 This is a very different thing, This, this, from my perspective, absolutely supports the published process.
06:42:27 Well, we have different interpretations. if you want, I can also find some examples that we only have one.
06:42:34 Yes, or 2. Yes, and then it's approved okay, So So if if if when, if the subcommittee is operating on a consensus based, and you are making those decisions based upon a single vote, single vote does not
06:42:59 constitute consensus under what any way, shape or form.
06:43:04 So either the rules apply or they don't so I also mentioned that in the email, I think why we are paying this two-step approach to first have a Pole, and then in the model and's a wendy call to have
06:43:24 to address the rough consensus is because we don't request any quorum for that poll.
06:43:30 Okay, So that is a mailing of the subcommittee, you know.
06:43:34 That is a failing of the committee. then. yeah.
06:43:41 I think, on that wiki page we don't request any quorums for that it's said a two-third of the votes.
06:43:49 But 2 thirds of the vote is definitely quorum i'm Sorry i'm sorry.
06:43:52 Wait, wait, wait, wait, I misspoke I misspoke I miss, I don't think that's a coral.
06:43:57 Yeah, No, no, you're yeah I I totally misspoke they're my apologies.
06:44:02 I I will be happy. I will be happy to look back for any subcommittee vote that has been taken, and where a quorum of membership, as published on the membership page has not been satisfied validate those votes and
06:44:25 run a new vote, i'm. very happy. to do that I will go back and review every single vote or poll that has ever been taken and I don't know where this is leading. are We
06:44:47 to what's the what's the owen own up. it's open.
06:44:52 Do you expect people to to read all the males, and know all about this sort of secret, non published habits that that the subcommittee has?
06:45:04 Then you will exclude anyone who wants to come in. to this.
06:45:10 It must be based on a written and well and sort of easily a reachable description.
06:45:22 Yeah, and and Magnus to your point that that's basically where i'm trying to take this is the we we operate off of published processes here, and we have to follow those published processes, and if we don't then we run into situations
06:45:39 like this. Randy, you've had your hand up for quite a while.
06:45:42 Now my apologies. No, not from i'm trying to see if we can reach some pragmatic approach here.
06:45:53 Obviously stakes are high, and, to be honest, I I My gut feeling is that we should follow the letter of the law.
06:46:04 But I and and consider this model clean. but i'm also sensing strong concern from the members of the modeling subcommittee, and I think not addressing this concern in the long run would be detrimental for all
06:46:18 sides. I think the people working on the Sd. might need to come back to the modeling.
06:46:24 Some committee in a few weeks months, and then approve updates and they will just face resistance, or or they will just fail to vote then.
06:46:33 So I don't think just saying okay there was a vote. Let's move on. is is the only thing we should do.
06:46:39 We should also address the Concern and i'm would like to ask both the members of the modeling subcommittee and the Creators of the Asd Proposal. whether It would make sense to have say one more meeting in
06:46:55 the modeling subcommittee where the specific concerns will be addressed, and see if that could put the mind of the modeling some committee.
06:47:06 It is, and move forward with a broader consensus, and not just that.
06:47:12 People walk away with the bad days in her mouth, and feeling that they were forced to accept the decision that they're not a 100%.
06:47:21 Okay with so. but i'm i'm asking if it would make sense to have one more discussion in the modeling subcommittee, where specifically, those concerns of how it can coexist with that c.
06:47:34 Will be addressed, and assuming there will be a good explanation for that that maybe default can move forward and support the the existence of the Sd.
06:47:42 Model chewy as the considering the the process. I wanted to say something.
06:48:01 You know from me. from my perspective, I think I I see the email call. I I more like it is like some, not a vacation to make us notice for everyone to see the And if this is okay, ready to multiply, if one side Yes,
06:48:27 that means, hey? The The company has no more comments, but if they express no that means, he still think it.
06:48:35 There has some comments that need to consider so you see we use the email polling you with all your zip email.
06:48:47 What if they don't consider, you know it some some people made me mount yearly attendant among some committee called by the way he see the email?
06:49:02 He will also propose some very good comments on the model, so that make the model into a family really good to auto clean way.
06:49:11 We do you know, from the server ears my if we don't consider those comments, for the know I think is also obey the the open source spirit, and you know, I think the modern subcommittee somehow is not is
06:49:28 a little special ends up is a cool community, because it is making the specification
06:49:37 So to some. Sometimes we may also follow some rows from the Sdos, even use Rgpp or accident when there has been no, and the proposal cannot be passed, we we will. The The proposal. it has the only when there is
06:49:59 no more comments on that. So and for, furthermore, I think you will be really conduct the the vote.
06:50:14 The meeting. Then, as you know, there is no debate, which is the how many water?
06:50:22 Yes, how many will not know, and we can make this decision directly.
06:50:28 Yes, and and assume. Yeah, maybe you know, in the following days 2 we should.
06:50:33 We should also, from my perspective when you also need to, you know, consider the the quorum mode. But
06:50:45 From the current process southeast. What hikes is that we have using those process for only 5 years, and many models be improved according to the process.
06:51:01 And I never saw to that way we would somehow someday has a device upon the process.
06:51:08 So that is all. what I want to say. Thank you all.
06:51:14 Thank you for that. Dan. I see you hand your your hand up.
06:51:20 Yes. Iii. I want to pause here for a moment and and just say that one of the things I just heard was that everybody has to be in agreement to move forward on the modeling subcommittee.
06:51:53 Is that a true statement? Everybody has to be in agreement on the muddling subcommittee for anything to move forward.
06:52:06 Is that a true statement can, if I may respond I think that's not always the case.
06:52:14 Okay, if I remember correctly, we do have some just majority opinions.
06:52:22 And then we we move forward. So I think there's was once, perhaps. but the yeah, it's not all this that case, but it's almost the case.
06:52:34 I should say that. okay? and here we have a case, where there was a a vote, a poll, whatever it was, take, and it was done in some official context, and the majority of two-thirds or in favor of it.
06:52:49 So I don't see why iii I just don't see how that is. because stand it.
06:53:04 That is because, as I said, we the final decision is made on the modeling subcommittee call after the pole, and we kant the majority on that call for expressing the opinions for it.
06:53:18 So it's not the poll it's not the poll that matters, but the final decision on the modeling subcommittee call matters what I said.
06:53:29 The rare case where we have the majority opinions to approve the model. it's also happening on the motorcycle.
06:53:40 When I think that time only one company raise comments while all the others seems to be happy with the proposal, then it's moving forward.
06:53:49 And how is that this kind? How is that different now? The difference is in the poll.
06:53:58 This time we have 2 years and one No, but on the modeling subcommittee call we have additional comment from fat, and actually
06:54:11 Now we have more comments on the Wiki page.
06:54:15 So if we we are considering the situation, on the call it's 2 to 2, actually a half to half for to requesting for proof to model or just, we say, move the model to a clean state, and to companies requesting to
06:54:33 have further discussions. So it's not as simple majority based on that call. and that's the reason why we I think, at least from my perspective is following the rule that we need for the discussions.
06:54:48 And there's no agreement. Okay, so there is the problem here is that there is no published rule that says that what I look at and and and I understand this is the way that that maybe the the
06:55:10 subcommittee's been operating for a number of years.
06:55:12 I understand that that may be the case. Okay, if there, if I am in traffic, if I am driving my car and there is a stop sign.
06:55:32 But no one ever stops at that intersection. Everybody just drives through without stopping.
06:55:38 If I drive through without stopping and there is a police officer I will get a ticket because the rule is, I am supposed to stop at the stop sign.
06:55:56 It doesn't matter if a 100 people in front of me, drove through the stop sign without stopping right. So in this case the process, as it's published, needs to be enforced and if if the subcommittee
06:56:17 wants to change the process. The subcommittee then needs to vote on changing the process.
06:56:27 I will ensure that that vote is done in accordance with the published charter, with the published governance stocks in the community.
06:56:39 Docs for own app that's fine going forward but the rules as are published today, saying that a two-thirds vote is the deciding factor.
06:57:04 Those are the rules published today. Now to randy's point I you know it's just discussion can continue That's that's fine.
06:57:24 But the decision has been made based upon the rules that are published and in for today by the document that is the agreed upon process that the subcommittee is supposed to follow.
06:57:50 I think what i'm trying to explain here the actual process we are enforcing, maybe not aligned with the wiki page.
06:58:01 Okay, but that's that that is that's that is something then, that the subcommittee needs to vote on and fix going forward.
06:58:10 But it can't be retroactive well I I interpreted differently.
06:58:16 Think we are following the roots We have and this time Somebody says it's not aligned with the public published Wiki.
06:58:27 We have. So there are criticizing that the actual process we are using It's not the same as the the papers and and the problem you can criticizing on that.
06:58:40 But, isn't the problem is to change the written things to be aligned with what we are really using.
06:58:48 That is the current solution. That is the correct solution yeah I don't think the thing is saying.
06:58:56 No what you you've been doing for several years is wrong and now I didn't.
06:59:02 I didn't I didn't say I that what is doing is doing is wrong.
06:59:11 I. What I have said is what is being done does not match the officially published process.
06:59:25 That's if the process that the subcommittee wants to use is the one described, then great.
06:59:34 But the subcommittee needs to vote on that.
06:59:36 It needs to be formalized, and it needs to be possible right now.
06:59:44 That is the equivalent of a secret rule and you can't have people say it can't I have secret rules the gut the but I don't think it's a secret rule and I i'm using for several years
07:00:03 and open to all the modeling supporting members and we don't have any objections.
07:00:10 We're raising any comments before until this time I can't even.
07:00:18 Yeah, go ahead, then. Yes, i'm gonna try to address a couple of points.
07:00:25 First of all divine stand correctly to follow the rules.
07:00:31 Tsc. and Linux Foundation reinforcement all members that we need to follow what's published rules to resolve this issues, and I believe that Tsc.
07:00:43 In Linux Foundation. All right, Indicate what action need to be taken as a decisions based on the email.
07:00:54 And I think that need to be done and close the difference.
07:01:00 Opinion, either by co-chair, subcommittee, individual company, highway, or or else they may have different opinion.
07:01:12 And I think, Kenny, you just need to note those companions, either by company or by the co-chair on the main minutes and then move forward.
07:01:23 Now moving forward. I would also suggest Linux Foundation or the Tsc.
07:01:32 Which is the top level of subcommittee, to follow up with subcommittee modeling, to help them improve their process and resolve.
07:01:41 Some of the this process that not rins or defying and then conflicts, and the other improve that, so we don't have that.
07:01:49 That's just to move forward. I would suggest kenny to help them, and like those clean up moving forward, so we don't have any.
07:01:58 This debate. Now the answers rainy suggestions. I think Kenny kind of answer already.
07:02:07 The vote's already been made the decisions already been made but I, as even the day one the etsy model, we always want to improve that model also.
07:02:27 So there will be always continued discussions of not just Asd or any other proposal coming along. 2.
07:02:34 We always gone, Individual member always going to be exploring to see how to improve that, because there's no point of of not merging it, because, to strengthen their proposal, even the direct path modes they're going to look at
07:02:47 that, and discuss with other not just etsy but to me It is so wrong for one committee subcommittee to say one proposal, thou be aligned with another sdo.
07:03:08 There's no charter in subcommittee anywhere in the own app that give that authority to one committee to mandate that certain projects need to be aligned that's so wrong to me so I think to
07:03:23 close up, we should close it. The decision we made and now let's look at forward how we can make the process and working to make.
07:03:34 Oh, now, cloud negatives, better solution, and more adapt and more flexible, and have multiple alternatives approach to the industry.
07:03:48 Thank you. Okay, Shu yang. Then dang Hui and Then i'm gonna cut off discussion.
07:03:56 Thanks, Kenny. Maybe you can scroll up to your email on talking about the Tsc.
07:04:02 Boat. I I think we have different and standings I think based your on your explanations on.
07:04:11 Think there's one in the saying from the linux foundation's perspective.
07:04:15 The vote taking last week is considered as fail I Think you have that one and it's just same.
07:04:25 Answer Cursor. Now, and you've mentioned that it only means that pse did not confirm the approval, so I don't think I don't think any I disagree with any statement that the
07:04:41 Tfc. has already say that is clean and my question is actually, I think we are discussing about the last paragraph, Kenny.
07:04:52 I'm. not sure if that is to a personal suggestion or it's a Tfc.
07:04:57 Suggestion here that saying it's already that we may move to Clayton.
07:05:08 So I am not quite understand that, as I saying from email that the Psc.
07:05:12 Vote is failed, and I just recommend, based on the trotter, and maybe we just moving back to the model of something.
07:05:19 Some committee for further discussions. it does not say, Move back to the subcommittee for further discussions.
07:05:24 This is not a Tsc. missing, and this is not a Tsc.
07:05:30 This year decision. This is my evaluation. This is my independent evaluation.
07:05:39 The process as it is written as yeah I understand that's your is, you gotta like written, I mean, is there anything on charter sets in this situation that we need to follow this.
07:05:59 What the Charter says is so, so you cannot have a governance document that is published.
07:06:07 That is not the rule of law, for how things run and the governance process.
07:06:15 The subcommittee has published says exactly that there's A.
07:06:25 It runs for 2 weeks. A 2 third majority wins and that's what took place.
07:06:32 There is nothing. there is nothing that supports the idea In the published documentation that supports this concept of a vote is conducted first and then second.
07:06:50 A discussion. this takes place to gain consensus whether that vote is valid. There is nothing in the published process that says, that is the process.
07:07:04 It doesn't matter how the how the how the committee has been operating, whether it's been 5 years, whether it's been 10 years. There is nothing about the published governance document that supports first conducting a vote and then having
07:07:26 a discussion if that's the way the subcommittee has been operating the subcommittee has been operating in violation of its own process.
07:07:36 I don't care whether that's 5 years 10 years 15 years, one year, 2 months, one week, just one last comment on this.
07:07:49 I don't think the current governance document describe anything that we are actually taken today over the dentist.
07:07:59 They had nothing about the poll. so it's normally saying voting but actually we are polling.
07:08:07 I don't think they are the same so I don't think stating that there's something there and just we need to follow that I would rather respect.
07:08:20 Think that in another way that what we are using maybe not aligned with the published version, and we just maybe need to align that by changing the worse.
07:08:32 Now that's my last statement. Sex thank you Yes, so I have 3 things I want to talk so first of all I think she has made a very clear, so they never said ponies are vote.
07:08:54 I have seen. Nancy has been stayed about a pony of vote.
07:09:00 Please show me we are using the process If you think this process is not valid.
07:09:07 Let's do that again. so so I think that's my first recommendation secondary.
07:09:14 I think you're a motorcycle community has never recast Tsc.
07:09:20 To red. Discuss this again. They only requested last time the concurrent is fair, so i'm confused without a modern subcommittee request why people still are discussing here.
07:09:35 So then, thirdly, I think there's a huge risk for the own app to violate the intellectual property
07:09:47 From another standard body. We need a series. Consider this not just to.
07:09:52 You can know everything. I'm Sorry I need to stop you right there.
07:09:58 How are we violating? Ip: How does energy? Yeah. violate?
07:10:05 Ip: So there is a Wiki page shows the commonality similarity between the 2 specifications.
07:10:14 There are many things as similar or common i'm i'm scared.
07:10:19 So if you do these. So that's just my personal recommendation is not any official. okay?
07:10:26 So so that I i'm i'm sorry I don't understand that perspective.
07:10:37 There. I see no ip issues here. i'm not an ip lawyer, obviously, but in in I I I don't see it.
07:10:44 I i'm sorry I don't see it so yeah you you you know that.
07:10:50 But there is Wikipedia you show the similarity of between 2 to respect.
07:10:54 I think that's a on the on that wiki Page Kenny can make a quick comment on this.
07:11:07 Yes, I would suggest the contributor of that Wiki page need to further identify and pinpoint specifics before making any acquisitions of one or 2 or different proposal violate ip.
07:11:26 Or copyright. I just want to leave it there. I would strongly recommend either you go further, investigate and bring concrete material before making any any kind of verbal comments on Tsc.
07:11:47 And I would also recommend. Meanwhile, you do that work which draw or remove that statement on a wiki page.
07:11:56 Thank you. Okay, I think if there is something being done here that so do I need to bring forward a meeting of the legal subcommittee and get all of the lawyers involved, here, all of the lawyers involved, here all of the lawyers involved
07:12:48 here I didn't think so. so I I I think that that is a pretty extreme thing to bring forward.
07:13:11 That is Kenny's personal opinion now as far as the decision made.
07:13:23 It goes. I am looking at this impartially in my role, the technical community architect for the open own app community.
07:13:37 I am looking at this impartially through consultation with others here at the Lf.
07:13:49 The vote, the poll, whatever you want to call it. that was taken the criteria of the published process.
07:14:06 If the perspective that this, this vote as it was taken, does not meet the published process, it will also invalidate any vote that came back.
07:14:29 Any vote or poll that came before it. That also did not follow the published process.
07:14:42 I am very happy to go back through every vote that's been taken to verify that that vote in fact met the published process.
07:14:58 I will invalidate everything that has been done that doesn't meet what is written today on that governance document, because that is the only fair thing to do.
07:15:17 I'm being a bit of a hard ass here but the bottom line is as a community.
07:15:28 We can't operate with one set of rules that are published and another set of rules that are executed that don't that are not published, and don't match as I said it doesn't matter if that's how the
07:15:45 committee's been operating all along what is written about how the community that subcommittee makes decisions in that document.
07:16:06 It is in that document right here, if the subcommittee is operating in violation of this document, i'm happy to go back and look at any vote, or any poll that's been taken and I will so is that what the
07:16:48 subcommittee wants complete audit of every vote ever taken.
07:17:00 Can he? If you do that? maybe you need to check first the governance process?
07:17:05 Governance process. i'm sorry the governance process is published here.
07:17:12 Yeah, that is the government. You need to check it first, anyway.
07:17:20 I this was mass modified in 2,018. Yes, that is the reason why we think it's not a line question.
07:17:29 Well, it doesn't matter. if it's not aligned it doesn't matter if anyone aligned this is, this is will not argue on that kenny I think that's your personal opinion. So first.
07:17:44 I , I inspect that. But but i'm not sure how we would handle that.
07:17:52 Is it a Tcsc or raymond or suggestion that we should follow, or something that it's just a suggestion?
07:18:01 And second, if or maybe just let's let's have another round of the rope.
07:18:13 If people cannot agree, that is mostly easier than you. just go back to every checking every world we have, and reok again.
07:18:23 One vote was as multiple possible once. Maybe we just take take one more long.
07:18:34 So. so why would we do that this time? Why would we do that this time?
07:18:42 I think so. Why, why would we just change the rule this time?
07:18:46 We are changed into the process. We have Okay, wait that's exactly the question, Why would we change the rule this time when what I have here highlighted?
07:18:56 This is the rule. This is the rule. Why would we change the rule this time.
07:19:09 That's a very good question. you Never change it to rule I think so, because we always do consensus call during the multi subcommittee.
07:19:19 That is a vote. Okay, please, please, show me where on this page it says that's the process.
07:19:27 After I mean I mean even there again, and you them again.
07:19:48 If you think that's what would have to give yeah a lot of time around this discussion.
07:19:58 But I have another question: Do we need the modeling subcommittee to validate any new feature we develop in on app.
07:20:12 A proof of concept, as as Catherine said in her message, can be done by anyone.
07:20:20 Yeah. So why do we spend all this time discuss that go?
07:20:29 We want to have, so that we can work I mean there's a tiny issue.
07:20:37 We want to be able to do the park based on something that has been agreed, a model that has been agreed and and otherwise, why would we put all this sort of work in?
07:20:51 And next, what happens is that the model has to be changed.
07:20:55 We have to redo everything. Is it? Is it sort of unfair or unreasonable to ask for that?
07:21:03 We have a review of the model, and it looks like, okay, this.
07:21:11 This looks fine without sort of bringing in all the world Etsy lawyers everything.
07:21:18 Is it really worth so causing this sort of trouble all this time?
07:21:23 And this crisis for that isn't it reasonable that we have a that can have a stable model.
07:21:35 What's what's the real reason behind this I don't understand it?
07:21:39 What's what's the big cost here just because some people think that we should be more at sail line, which has never been the case for Ac.
07:21:55 So so. my, my! I guess again. Can you suggestion to revolt everything?
07:22:01 You modern Staff committee in order to approve meat if people won't do something very quick.
07:22:07 Then let's do rape again to make a and fair output.
07:22:14 Oh, that's not spend too much time to waste the tse to discuss this again again. I don't think it's fair.
07:22:20 The story because it's done that's not fair to the way it is not fair. Ok, it's the fairness.
07:22:28 Yeah, yeah, it will last 5 years. What do you think that that's not fair for past 5 years.
07:22:35 We do this all same. Why, you change this time if you change this let's change all of them.
07:22:41 But but but yeah, I, man, is there anyone on this call there Anyone on this call that disagrees with the fact?
07:22:59 Own app operates under a charter there. Anyone that disagrees on this call that own app operates under a community.
07:23:20 A technical community document there. Anyone on this call that disagrees that subcommittees operate under their published governance model published governance model, is what I have currently displayed on the page.
07:23:49 The process was followed. If the subcommittee wants to change the process.
07:23:59 Moving forward that's great Write the new process debate it discuss it, vote on it, prove it, and publish it.
07:24:17 But as things stand today, the charter was followed. The technical community document was followed, and the approved own app model governance was followed.
07:24:36 Therefore, the decision has been made 2 to 3 royal penny.
07:24:45 If we are sorry to interact. If we are saying the smaller governance, then place rate it always are.
07:24:53 We just really falling everything that we can here. it says a mal lead must also call for official wheel for the page, as we never done that.
07:25:08 And then why was it put out following that why was it put forward as a vote?
07:25:17 But it's not following the process. right Okay, So So now we are in process that we need to follow right I mean the the world.
07:25:34 The polling. we already have it's not following this process exactly as well.
07:25:38 So if we are arguing that we need to follow this process exactly as it is, it is then we probably need to recheck our roles.
07:25:47 We have revolt everything, I guess. No, it exists.
07:25:53 The suggestion. Then Exactly. which. Yeah, you statistically you can let's do everything again to check every world.
07:26:01 We have everything that's happened here written here we need to first have a model lead vote, and then the model subcommittee will, exactly as we have here, for that agree abandoned with those comments of everything Okay,
07:26:16 i'm sorry. but what I understand can be people requesting to follow the rules.
07:26:27 Then let's follow the rules. no everything that that is written on this page. True, may I speak?
07:26:32 I don't know sometimes you speak as highway or co-chair, so you please.
07:26:34 2. state what your column is speaking as coat hair.
07:26:39 Guess talking about the rules than those calling the rules. My understand?
07:26:44 From what kenny said earlier, he followed what the the this wiki page show right on the screen, and he applied that, and he's from his technical perspective.
07:26:56 He analyzes, and what the vote art resolves are even made.
07:27:01 Now he may follow up comment, saying that if the subcommittee follows some other process in the past, but other votes in the last 2 years, he beheld to go back to check them, to see which one invalidate because
07:27:18 they did not follow the exact, the law of the rural books.
07:27:24 Then from there the subcommittee and Tsc.
07:27:26 It can make a decision of how to handle those invalid.
07:27:30 One never suggests that we are going back to vote I mean it's like you didn't like the result.
07:27:37 So let's go revo and and change the rulebook and revoke.
07:27:40 I just failed to understand any of these processes there is a process.
07:27:49 Okay, I don't know why they nigh forks are gonna pass out. magnus.
07:28:01 Sure you're not muted. I mean I never I never imagined that 5 years down the road this would be the the type of discussion we would be having.
07:28:29 I mean it's it's it's it's it's ludicrous, if you know to be honest, that's my fault, and I honestly apologize speaking for the eggs and only somebody can
07:28:41 be chair. but I apologize for that if we never followed Then that's catch up with my man.
07:28:52 Mistake. Thank you i'm sure you thank I mean I mean it is.
07:28:57 It is the communities need to change Emma adapt over time but when we do that, But we need to write down what what the new rules are, and if we don't write down what the new rules are the old rules still apply So I mean
07:29:21 we can't take this single vote and go backwards if we go backwards.
07:29:31 We go backwards the way. Yeah, she says we can' the shocker just to comment on going backwards.
07:29:45 The decisions that were made 5 years ago have already been implemented in the code.
07:29:54 They have haven't they okay so so so so we're gonna be very careful about about doing so.
07:30:10 Unless we are all willing to go back, and the code that is exactly what it would imply shocker.
07:30:19 Yep. that is exactly what it would imply because decisions that were made following an unpublished process a year ago. we're already under separated into the code base Exactly. I'm.
07:30:38 Not I'm not i'm not making a statement on whether the process was followed or not, and I trust and believe that the process was followed right.
07:30:49 It could have been slightly misinterpreted, but was, I would have to believe that was unintentional.
07:30:55 But we have to be careful about There was that i'm making my comment is, we have to be careful about what's doable at this point in time.
07:31:07 Right. My last statement, is instead of focusing on or differences can we focus on what's common for all the parties, and see if there is, if that would allow us to move forward. and I don't know if I lost everybody no you
07:31:56 didn't still you you did. you did not think I think that this will?
07:32:07 What Catherine is confusing in her email let's continue to discussion.
07:32:13 Let's see if we and tell let's see what we've done. see if they're interested I think it's a it's a good proposal but it's not it shouldn't be used
07:32:28 for as a tool to be stopping something that is already ongoing.
07:32:40 I think the Kenneth mail together catherine's mail make perfect sense.
07:32:48 We are not always. I are going to agree in an open source community.
07:32:54 We will I mean it's just the nature of things they're different technical perspectives.
07:33:02 They're different business perspectives. there's a different geopolitical perspectives.
07:33:07 This is this is the world we live, and this is the world we operate in.
07:33:12 Right, so I mean even you know we aren't always all going to agree.
07:33:20 But we have to move forward, move backwards my statement while true that I would go back and reevaluate Every book, every vote that's been taken is absolutely ludicrous.
07:33:42 Exactly for the reasons that shockers mentioned exactly for the reasons of the amount of time it would take to go back and do so.
07:33:55 My time the time of our membership and it just doesn't make sense.
07:34:06 We need to move forward, and it is okay, if we have disagreement.
07:34:20 It's Okay, if we have disagreements but need to move forward.
07:34:32 That's what open source any I think now speaking as a holy delegate.
07:34:40 We are not stopping. we're not trying to stop in this Ssd.
07:34:46 Or intention to do that. So please feel free to do the implementation at the Park from all its perspective. And what we are requesting is just from the modeling perspective.
07:34:59 Maybe respond to Magnus. Yes, one Intention of us is to align with that sea, but is from the technical perspective that we think something from at sea is useful for the Sd model.
07:35:14 And it's better to have one unified information model Then having 2 separate ones, especially considering. Again I mentioned it again.
07:35:24 We are thinking. This current model is building on top of Etsy, and we are seeking an alternative approach.
07:35:34 The merging solution we mentioned to trying to influence Ec.
07:35:39 To adopt This intention is technical perspective that we think is a alternative way to make the modeling better and more complete.
07:35:51 So that's the reason why we are now requesting more time for discussion, and it's not the intention to stop anything from implementation or park.
07:36:03 And actually we are grain that the intention of the Sd.
07:36:07 Model ispatible. I think we've expanded thinking as well in the in the meetings before.
07:36:18 So I agree with kenny that going back to every vote. It's not a work that can be done is a tough workflow, Kenny, as well.
07:36:26 Way of stuff time. so let's just deal with the current one as Catherine suggested.
07:36:35 We're just continuing the discussion I think now we are proposing some more concrete proposals.
07:36:41 Now, and we also have the mappings. We got feedback from that seat.
07:36:47 Experts, maybe now not a formal one, but from individual targets.
07:36:53 But we are getting the feedback, and also we got feedback from Fred on the Wiki that we have plenty of technical things that we need to address.
07:37:03 I really think, from this perspective more time for discussion, I think your own app should make its own decision.
07:37:13 We are not sort of subject to any criticism from an outside organization.
07:37:21 I would I would like to ask you to see if Etsy would like to to get sort of criticized or mandled with by own app.
07:37:31 You'll see what they will say, I think this is a impossible situation.
07:37:39 We have a coordinate community coordinator that handles the discussion between the organizations.
07:37:47 How can we say that that we should bring in Etsy experts?
07:37:53 We have our own experts, and we are doing open source.
07:37:59 Why are we mixing everything open source should go move forward and we should be pushing, not asking for for a approval from an Sto.
07:38:14 It's it's a I mean there's some notion of how you work in open source is something that I I can't I can't subscribe to to be clear we never asking approval from sdnf on this
07:38:32 model. We are just asking their opinions on the proposal and asking their opinions for having a marshal solution.
07:38:43 And yeah, So then, you then, do a solution it's it's. we are never.
07:38:48 We are never stating that we need official approval from Fc.
07:38:52 To approve this model. So so you just said that yeah i'm I'm gonna i'm gonna cut things off here almost 10 min over as as the independent arbitrator as the independent arbitrator for the own app
07:39:18 community. there are disagreements resolved by the Tsc.
07:39:33 Resolved by the community. I step in as an independent arbitrator based upon my findings.
07:39:52 The model has been marked, as, clean, there's Nothing that would prevent the modeling subcommittee from continuing discussions, trying to get alignment, etc.
07:40:04 Etc. etc. will work with the modeling subcommittee to make sure that whatever process they want set is established, agreed to and published, so that these types of discussions have very clear outcomes in the future.
07:40:32 But to Catherine's point we we we need to move on.
07:40:42 We need to move on here. i've applied the rules, as they are published, not as they are practiced as they are published, because that's what I go on.
07:41:05 So we're you know, or 10 min over at this point this is occupied.
07:41:14 The majority of my time for the past week or 2 it's occupied the majority of the time from many people on this call for the past week or 2. I'm not saying there's any wrongdoing i'm Not
07:41:27 saying anything like that. it's just we need to follow what's published So as as your community's independent arbitrator to keep things moving forward, need to make a decision I need to make a decision on what has been
07:41:48 published, and that decision is the process was followed as it's published.
07:41:59 There was a two-thirds vote, two-thirds were in favor of moving it to a clean model.
07:42:06 And that's where we stand can you I think this is your personal personal opinion, right?
07:42:17 It doesn't shows anything. consensus from this community right so my my suggestion for move forward there are 2 ways.
07:42:27 One is, we either can rewrote everything the I that's that's changes to gambling governments to match the pole class.
07:42:39 Rough consensus that's fine We can do some little but we can't go moving forward.
07:42:43 We could do that, moving forward we can do that but we can't, do it retroactively. thing wait on I'm absolutely in agreement that we should match the process to what's actually being practiced I have no problem with
07:43:04 with with that I but it can't be a retroactive application.
07:43:10 So if you personally would like to to think to I mean arbitrary, randomly match this vote or polling, plus rough consensus.
07:43:25 This government. I think they are not equal I do not think this is the much the process it's not equal.
07:43:37 They? they aren't the same process. but what is published what is published? if holy, what is now have been mentioned in the process, and you said they are in the process, please show me where is polling then?
07:43:56 We we heard a pragmatic proposal by Kenny to market is clean.
07:44:02 Continue the discussion and amend the charter. Not just a clear, I see.
07:44:07 Yeah, thank you. I sense that so i'm asking you what is your pragmatic proposal.
07:44:14 My pragmatic. I also already mentioned the 2 ways.
07:44:18 The first way in order to match all the modeling sophistication process, we can do reward for everything.
07:44:25 It's not so much publication let's face it.
07:44:33 Okay, the face is a pragmatic the second I mean 3 approach the second approach.
07:44:39 That's too reward again. to match this process exactly the third approach. Let's change It's a process governance to polling past raft consensus.
07:44:53 Then all of the past publications has been much with an updated approach.
07:45:01 I think all 3 approach. We are not cost too much time will all be pragmatic.
07:45:09 Then I think that's much. The charter the much to process. Thank you. In my opinion we cannot apply Lou retrospectly test, Kenny said.
07:45:21 This chocolate said, We cannot do that if you want to change it.
07:45:24 Moving forward. Next case you can apply the new change to our governance, but we cannot apply the you don deal that's respected.
07:45:33 Then you will cause chaos that's my input retrospective application.
07:45:41 Any rule would indeed cause chaos, because it would not only be specific to this community or to the to the modeling.
07:45:54 So committee it would set a precedent for own app that any rule or any decision that's been made can be revisited.
07:46:10 It can't be applied retrospectively and people are dropping from the call realize that there are folks that do not agree with my perspective as the independent arbitrator that's fine any time you
07:46:35 haven't difference of opinion you have an independent arbitrator someone someone's gonna be disappointed someone's gonna be happy.
07:46:50 I will work with the committee to make sure that that the the rule are updated.
07:46:59 Going forward. Happy to do that that's what needs to be done need to let the vote as it has been taken to poll whatever you don't say, Paul is a vote.
07:47:15 Please don't say that that's a liar Well, I don't appreciate being called a liar.
07:47:35 However, I have to stand by what is written, whether it is a poll or whether it's a vote.
07:47:48 If it goes out 2. If some goes out to a subcommittee that says to vote, Okay, you can vote. It's a vote, regardless of what name it?
07:48:41 Has. It is a vote, I think that's for polling people can caskets won't, but that is not that vote.
07:49:05 Yes, I should, I think since so I think it tree may not have good in you to speak.
07:49:13 Speaking capability, and that's not a way we are talking about well, so so.
07:49:18 But Andy says the same thing the one that was referenced for Andy said the same thing.
07:49:27 I understand we need a rob consensus that's he's a vote?
07:49:33 What does raft consensus means? The raft business is not a vote.
07:49:40 Rough consensus is also not 100% agreement is that a vote rough consensus could be considered a vote.
07:49:53 That's a easy vote. We can how can we do double world.
07:50:01 But I could cut in for a moment. Yeah, Tony, in the ietf is another sto.
07:50:10 They work on rough consensus also, and they use several different working groups.
07:50:17 Use different means of determining rough consensus the way you determine.
07:50:23 A rough consensus can be done to through a vote, through a poll, through a hum which is commonly used in the ietf.
07:50:33 Those are different means of determining whether you have rough consensus.
07:50:38 So there is a differentiation, and how you determine a rough consensus and rough consensus is the what was determined by how you determine it.
07:50:54 So just a small comment on nomenclature that's common in the Sdos, and I think applies here as well.
07:51:07 Has it hopefully useful. Thank you, Tony. I think that's useful I think people don't say we are doing that of world.
07:51:18 I think it's a if we Do not match the government process then why not? We do that again?
07:51:25 If you think that is important for the channel, how was the process?
07:51:33 What you can't do it retrospectively you just can't you can't do a retrospective. We did it.
07:51:41 We did a raft consensus for past 5 years, but this time people are saying that we do not respect the raft consensus.
07:51:48 Unfortunately, yes, that is that that is the point and rough consensus in this context, based upon what's written was that two-thirds.
07:52:11 That's his not a raft consensus that's just a poem.
07:52:18 Okay, we have a difference of opinion. This is a This is a We have down the process.
07:52:21 Everybody agreed, and for past 5 years. But if you you have different opinion, I feel strange.
07:52:29 My opinion is based upon what's written so can show me as a pony.
07:52:34 We ice pony? i'm not gonna get into semantics here, whether it's a pole whether it's a vote, I mean there's no polling in the process that you say that's a process you
07:52:54 Kenny, Canada, the Shankar I This call is going beyond 1030.
07:52:59 I would I would suggest we should start from Catherine.
07:53:02 Same ill and find a way forward. I need to end this call because I have another one that needs to start.
07:53:23 I will work with the subcommittee, make sure the rules are changed.

Agenda Items

Release Status

TSC Updates

RelEng/Infrastructure

PTL Updates

Subcommittee Updates

LFN Cross-Organization Updates

TCC / ONAP Liaison Updates

Task Force UpdatesCNF, Wiki 2.0, ONAP Enterprise

TSC Activities and Deadlines

Upcoming Events & Housekeeping

Zoom Chat Log

Task Force Updates
CNF, Wiki 2.0, ONAP Enterprise

Browser not supported