BRIDGE: https://zoom.us/j/661303200?pwd=TFdRd0c2MTJUem8xa252UGJHTE1Mdz09

Passcode: 209247

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.

Attendance is taken purely upon #info in Zoom Chat 

Zoom Chat Log 

05:53:16 From  Sai Seshu  to  Everyone:
    #info Seshu, huawei
05:57:54 From  Alla Goldner  to  Everyone:
    #info Alla Goldner, Amdocs
05:58:09 From  Fred Oliveira  to  Everyone:
    #info Fred Oliveira, Self
05:58:28 From  Timo Perala (Nokia)  to  Everyone:
    #info Timo Perala, Nokia
05:59:13 From  Ranny HAIBY (Samsung)  to  Everyone:
    #info Ranny Haiby, Samsung
06:00:10 From  Yuanhong Deng (China Mobile)  to  Everyone:
    #info Yuanhong Deng, China Mobile
06:01:20 From  Dong Wang (China Telecom)  to  Everyone:
    #info Dong Wang, China Telecom
06:01:40 From  Jackie.Huang@windriver.com  to  Everyone:
    #info Jackie Huang, Proxy of Bin Yang, Wind River
06:01:42 From  Martial Ngueko(AT&T)  to  Everyone:
    #info proxy Catherine Lefevre
06:01:50 From  Bruno Sakoto  to  Everyone:
    #info Bruno Sakoto, Bell Canada
06:02:17 From  Magnus Buhrgard  to  Everyone:
    #info Magnus Buhrgard Ericsson
06:02:47 From  Andreas GEISSLER (DT)  to  Everyone:
    #info Andreas Geissler, DT
06:03:21 From  Eric Debeau  to  Everyone:
    #info Eric Debeau, Orange
06:04:40 From  N.K. Shankaranarayanan  to  Everyone:
    #info N. K. Shankar, STL
06:06:37 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    link to survey: https://linuxfoundation.surveymonkey.com/r/HHDNMN8
06:11:14 From  Vijay Venkatesh Kumar (AT&T)  to  Everyone:
    DCAEGEN2-3022: Remediate log4jshell vulnerability
06:15:19 From  Thomas KULIK (DT)  to  Everyone:
    https://docs.onap.org/en/latest/release/releaserepos.html#doc-releaserepos          AAI        9.0.0            2021-11-04    missing     CPS        2.1.0-SNAPSHOT        -        ok     DCAEGEN2    9.0.1            2022/01/31    wrong release version number?     DMAAP        9.0.0            -        missing     POLICY        9.0.0            2021-11-04    missing     SDNC        Istanbul        -        missing     VNFSDK    1.6.3            2021-04-01    missing
06:20:57 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    #info clarification provided that 9.0.1 is the correct release number for Istanbul maintenance
06:26:00 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    #vote Does the TSC approve the Maintenance Release of Istanbul as complete and released pending the completion of all release notes? +1, 0 -1
06:26:05 From  Andreas GEISSLER (DT)  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:07 From  Ranny HAIBY (Samsung)  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:07 From  Eric Debeau  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:08 From  N.K. Shankaranarayanan  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:10 From  Alla Goldner  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:10 From  Fred Oliveira  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:11 From  Sai Seshu  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:12 From  Magnus Buhrgard  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:12 From  Timo Perala (Nokia)  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:14 From  Martial Ngueko(AT&T)  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:15 From  Bruno Sakoto  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:22 From  Jackie.Huang@windriver.com  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:26:41 From  Yuanhong Deng (China Mobile)  to  Everyone:
    vote + 1
06:26:46 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    #endvote
06:27:01 From  Dong Wang (China Telecom)  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
06:27:21 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    #AGREED the TSC approves the Maintenance Release of Istanbul as complete and released pending the completion of all release notes.
06:40:20 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    #AGREED the TSC approves the exception of a top level repo for the purpose of Release Management without the creation of a project. Details of PTL and Committer information to be provided to the TSC for final sign off.
06:56:23 From  Xu Yang  to  Everyone:
    rh
06:57:08 From  Lingli  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:00:58 From  Magnus Buhrgard  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:01:07 From  Fred Oliveira  to  Everyone:
    RH
07:03:42 From  Timo Perala (Nokia)  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:04:46 From  DENG Hui   to  Everyone:
    rh
07:07:45 From  Ranny HAIBY (Samsung)  to  Everyone:
    RH
07:12:10 From  Magnus Buhrgard  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:12:15 From  DENG Hui   to  Everyone:
    rh
07:12:20 From  Timo Perala (Nokia)  to  Everyone:
    +1 to Ranny
07:13:53 From  Timo Perala (Nokia)  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:13:59 From  Byung-Woo Jun  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:15:37 From  DENG Hui   to  Everyone:
    rh
07:18:08 From  Chuyi Guo  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:19:24 From  Magnus Buhrgard  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:20:51 From  Zu Qiang (Ericsson)  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:22:06 From  Sai Seshu  to  Everyone:
    Rh
07:22:43 From  DENG Hui   to  Everyone:
    rh
07:22:53 From  Thinh NGUYENPHU  to  Everyone:
    RH
07:24:30 From  Magnus Buhrgard  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:25:16 From  Byung-Woo Jun  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:26:51 From  Byung-Woo Jun  to  Everyone:
    Lh
07:27:44 From  Chuyi Guo  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:30:45 From  Timo Perala (Nokia)  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:34:25 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    #vote Does the TSC confirms the approval of ASD onboarding IM and ASD Onboarding Packaging Format by applying the Approved ONAP Model Governance? +1, 0 -1
07:34:28 From  Magnus Buhrgard  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
07:34:31 From  Timo Perala (Nokia)  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
07:34:31 From  Andreas GEISSLER (DT)  to  Everyone:
    #vote: +1
07:34:32 From  Fred Oliveira  to  Everyone:
    #vote 0
07:34:34 From  Ranny HAIBY (Samsung)  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
07:34:35 From  Martial Ngueko(AT&T)  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
07:34:37 From  Alla Goldner  to  Everyone:
    #vote +1
07:34:38 From  N.K. Shankaranarayanan  to  Everyone:
    #vote 0
07:34:47 From  Bruno Sakoto  to  Everyone:
    0
07:34:49 From  Sai Seshu  to  Everyone:
    #vote 0
07:35:05 From  Yuanhong Deng (China Mobile)  to  Everyone:
    #vote  -1
07:35:23 From  Eric Debeau  to  Everyone:
    #vote 0
07:35:27 From  Jackie.Huang@windriver.com  to  Everyone:
    #vote 0
07:35:34 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    #endvote
07:35:34 From  Sai Seshu  to  Everyone:
    #vote - 1
07:38:54 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    #info noted Sechu vhanged to -1
07:39:55 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    #info vote results pending review by the LF for clarificaion
07:41:36 From  Eric Debeau  to  Everyone:
    Sorry. I have to drop to another meeting

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. 

06:02:35 Thanks. Okay, Recording has been started as has the transcript.
06:02:49 Please keep yourself muted unless you're speaking if you are on a phone line.
06:02:53 You can always use Star 6 to unmute yourself. If you send me a private chat message, I will happily cut and paste it into the public minutes.
06:03:01 When the meeting is over, Andreas, good afternoon to you.
06:03:06 Thank you always. we'll start off meeting by talking about our anti-trust policy policy is important where we have multiple companies, including potential industry competitors participating in these meetings, sp policies linked from the project and all of the lf
06:03:26 websites. Please review it. If you have any questions please contact your company's legal counsel, members of the Lf may also contact Andrew Uptog.
06:03:33 If the firm gives me upt Grove, llp.
06:03:35 Which provides legal counsel to the Lf. Mr. De Boot.
06:03:39 Thank you. With that I want to share. Okay, have a kind of a busy agenda.
06:04:06 We'll talk about release status and istanbul maintenance.
06:04:14 David and I have proposal that we want to run past the Tsc.
06:04:19 We'll do our normal checks on revenge if there's anything there talk about the azure lab request discussion around Asd.
06:04:29 I know this is in a couple places here on the on the agenda.
06:04:37 We Won't talk about it in both places but the relevance in terms of the the where it's the the touch points are with the Cnf task force in the modeling subcommittee There was a
06:04:54 Spc. meeting. Catherine was interested in hearing what happened there.
06:05:01 Talk about the Wiki task force or normal community things.
06:05:07 I know that Catherine is not here. She is in a set of management meetings.
06:05:13 So Marshall is Here is her proxy and our normal housekeeping.
06:05:17 Is there anything anyone would like to see added, Okay, with that just Saudi Arabia and late Hi, Shaker.
06:05:33 Thanks. With that I will stop sharing and turn it over to my steam colleague, Mr.
06:05:42 David Mcbride. I think skinny sharing's on all right. So I included a link to the weekly release update that has general release status information also along those lines.
06:06:08 Ice. send an email with a link to a survey monkey survey.
06:06:15 I've been publishing these release updates for about 9 months.
06:06:20 Now, and I just wanted to get some feedback on what people think about the you know the format frequency level of detail that sort of thing.
06:06:34 So a few of you have responded already to the emails that I sent out yesterday, but I've included a link here in the agenda.
06:06:43 So if you could take a minute or 2 to fill out the survey on the the weekly release update, I would appreciate it.
06:06:56 Thank you all right. there. There are some things that I wanted to go into, some more detail on, specifically, because we had determine that we want to try to sign off today for the istanbul maintenance release So we need to talk about that a little
06:07:19 bit Pavel, I think you you added this presentation.
06:07:26 Should we walk through that now, if possible, is just one slide to give you?
06:07:30 Short overview, could you please click on it? All right.
06:07:42 So basically, as you know, we had 4 tickets opened and that were reflecting.
06:07:50 Yeah, please, please attach pdfs Yeah, Yes, behave a lot better like let me download this.
06:08:00 I'll have to switch apps here if you want I can share.
06:08:05 In the meantime, maybe to be yeah, if you, if you have a company that would be helpful.
06:08:11 But I need to be co-hosts done. Thank you. Okay.
06:08:17 So very briefly, guys. So, as you remember, the look for the issue and instable maintenance release.
06:08:26 So we have. We have the 4 tickets opened. Fortunately all of them are are done, completed, and it was just a I think, today the oem code was matched for a and I.
06:08:45 So from second perspective, we are good to go to reduce the Istanbul maintenance release.
06:08:52 I don't know if there are any questions or comments there.
06:08:58 We. we need to synchronize our records and cheer up, and so on.
06:09:04 I appreciate your recommendation. but there, there is some cleanup work that we need to do in Jira.
06:09:10 And Garrett. but I I take your point.
06:09:14 I understand what you're saying we are we at least from the second perspective.
06:09:18 We don't see any blocking points from the nexus kinds that we were able to run last week.
06:09:26 I'm not sure if next to Scans are right now operational, or at least this week.
06:09:38 Pay for all this which I just wanted to update.
06:09:42 I mean there is one Dc. 3 fix still pending to be motion.
06:09:47 Oh, I mean that patch, I mean the containers have been updated a few weeks back.
06:09:52 So you won't be seeing that issue and these scan reports. but we still have at least one patch not yet merged in the oem problem. We do.
06:10:00 We have still around you guys that there. But I checked C demands.
06:10:05 The program is we still have some health check Failing right, right, I responded.
06:10:12 On that. So yeah, Eric. So I think that is some intermittent issue we have seen in the past, but it's not related to the patch.
06:10:21 We I mean I so we can expect to merge even if there's still this parameter.
06:10:30 Yeah, Yeah, I think I wanted to have a variation as a Tc. level.
06:10:38 To be sure that it should be okay. So if if Tse agrees, we can manage a dispatch.
06:10:51 Okay, so it's a decision point right david who you want to do some voting or
06:10:59 I'm not sure why. Why? would you hold up on the merge because of the health check is that what you sent is okay?
06:11:16 Don't worry so, for this measure is the dispatch appropriately in one head.
06:11:23 Shake for the Cia, but it's not due to this to the correction.
06:11:29 But the question mark is, do, can we? can we measure dispatcher?
06:11:35 We still have this programming the head check. You: Yeah. Okay, I no problem to do to wait on them.
06:11:44 My my, my recommendation would be to treat those issues separately.
06:11:47 So go ahead and and complete the merge. and then once we complete the merge, then diagnose the health check.
06:11:58 Okay, So the Dcae 302. That is the pending merge.
06:12:06 Correct. Yeah. kind of that's the open giro Ok. Thanks.
06:12:11 Dj. So what I would put forward would be for the vote.
06:12:17 Does the Tsc. approve the maintenance release of Istanbul as complete and released, pending the merge of Dca.
06:12:25 Agen 2, 322 but yeah hold on Kenny. I don't know that we're we're quite there yet.
06:12:33 We still need to look at the and we still need to look at the the results, and I'd like to get input from Macau.
06:12:42 On the test results, and also the thomas has an open documentation related issue.
06:12:53 So I don't think we're quite there yet okay jumped the gun.
06:12:59 So documentation is basically. then we're getting the release notes together and then writing them, Yeah, we just need to cherry pig.
06:13:12 I think. Yeah, so. What you currently have is the the composite release? Note that it's only a single line that so release will cover the lock for jay issues.
06:13:29 But at least for a number of projects. The project dependent release notes are missing. So I expect that the project will create something also in for Rita Docks domest small small amendment Maybe as we are focusing only on
06:13:47 the direct dependency. So I think it's worth to mention it explicitly right.
06:13:53 So, so we are able to solve the direct dependencies.
06:13:57 Transitive ones are still there, and I am. His team is is working on, you know, highlighting all the transitive dependencies so we could provide it in the release notes.
06:14:13 Is it to pay for you? Well, we we have for those projects who are who have changed something.
06:14:20 I check the the project. Dependent release notes, and they have they.
06:14:28 They are of. They have mainly the eastern bool.
06:14:33 Release 9 9.0 covered. But why you Why, you're suggesting they they do not update their release, as they know.
06:14:50 My point was that yeah, in the release notes we we should highlight that we are.
06:15:00 We are fixing direct dependencies right on the look for Drake.
06:15:04 So to be more specific. So the code that is part of on apps, and not from the first party. Repos. right.
06:15:15 I give you the example like like Network Controller, it is taking the code from the Odl Right.
06:15:23 So this kind of dependency can be solved by Odl right, and on the L.
06:15:28 Is working on it there will deliver to done some newer version that should have this problem fixed.
06:15:33 But there are also some other and let's say transitive dependencies that are coming to enough right, and we are not handling them within the Istanbul maintenance.
06:15:47 Release, because we focus on on the direct ones that we have that we have an influence impact on it, and we can have great.
06:16:00 So you're just looking for the the general release note to be clarified that these are only direct dependencies. Exactly. Exactly.
06:16:11 And yeah, and for the transitive ones we will be able to deliver the the information on more details for which complete and or project, there are some transitive dependencies for look for Jay right?
06:16:28 It's just information now but I think worth to to inform end and user on this or consumer of an app.
06:16:37 It's based on our scans. we know that there are some some dependencies.
06:16:43 Then you wanted to say something Tv. Yes, sorry. I just wanted to clarify.
06:16:48 I should probably clarify this in my release notes as well.
06:16:50 But for S. Dnc. we actually were able to patch the open open daylight distribution to resolve the log for J.
06:16:56 Dependency there as well. Yeah, we just had to remove one package and then install an upgraded version. We would do that.
06:17:03 Yeah, Okay, So it means Robert managed to deliver, You know you the the packet train?
06:17:11 No, no, we we actually we do. Yeah, we did it by ourselves.
06:17:15 Okay, Okay, Okay, yeah. So this is, I think also important information that for this particular sensitive dependency the project managed to to handle it internally.
06:17:31 Good news, then. Thank you. All right, I guess. There you go. It was just a quick question to Thomas, so I just saw the note on the posted.
06:17:47 So the version for the market maintenance should be 9 0.
06:17:49 One correct, or is that not the case I don't think I think it's a 9 1 0.
06:17:58 No, no it's 9 9 0 one that's correct yeah 9 0.
06:18:01 One is always our not one, not 9 1 0 9 0 one that's correct.
06:18:09 Okay, okay, and and the date, I mean, I post again part of the release notes.
06:18:14 I took the date, which was something Daisy was targeting last.
06:18:17 But should we? I know this was been an issue in the past, so I would assume the date is handled in a consolidated release notes.
06:18:24 But the projects? Can I have their their own ones? Yeah. okay.
06:18:29 And for what? a 9.1 would be reserved, for we have never used any dot direct dot one.
06:18:38 So we have always done the they with the maintenance releases with the on the second level with. if I followed the the discussion, so that would be.
06:18:51 The first is say that the first ditch is the main release.
06:18:56 Then it comes the maintenance release, and if the main or maintenance release needs a small or fix, immediately can be done.
06:19:07 Then you you will will. you will see a third the third digit.
06:19:11 So I still think a maintenance release should be the 9.
06:19:17 Dot one, but maybe i'm wrong no that's that's not correct.
06:19:22 It should be 9 point point one. We would do a 9.1 if we were adding or removing features.
06:19:31 For example, But but because we're we're just making fixes to existing features. Then it's it's just then it's the third digit. Okay, correct?
06:19:46 Yeah. okay. We talked about a variety of projects there I'm, wondering.
06:19:52 Would it be possible to create? Jura issues for each project that needs to provide updated release notes and then make your current?
06:20:04 It may make those choices to the the current issue that you file. Not sure.
06:20:17 So you want me to create Jira issues for a task that should be a integral part of the development in For yeah, because that way we can track the the projects that that need to complete release.
06:20:41 Notes. Yeah, and we'll come back also to to pavel then, yeah, let's see.
06:20:47 I will do. Okay, Thank you. All right. Okay. So I We kind of went went through some of this already.
06:21:09 But Let's go ahead. Take a look so these are This is the list of open issues that we have Here's the dce issue that Vj.
06:21:24 Mentioned earlier. and this is Here's the dock issued that Thomas just created to to track the update of the release nodes quick update.
06:21:38 So Sylvan just merged the patch.
06:21:39 So I think we should be okay to close the Dca.
06:21:41 Okay, was that this one? Probably: Yeah, the 3022: Yeah.
06:21:49 Yeah, Okay, Great: Okay, terrific. So we just need to get the release notes completed.
06:22:19 And then I think we'll be in good shape Okay, So I want to talk about testing a little bit me calorie on the call.
06:22:44 If someone from the integration team. Okay, So no. Okay, yeah.
06:22:58 So So these are the latest tests from Yeah.
06:23:06 Today, I guess. and so security is a 100% that's good. So if we, if we compare that to where we were earlier in the month, I guess this my second include the the check for a log, 4 J there must not be a
06:23:34 gating test and we've had some improvement in the smoke use cases.
06:23:56 So the question is, is this sufficient to go ahead with a release?
06:24:02 Approve a release. pending the completion of the
06:24:08 The release. Node updates the comments. I would go for it.
06:24:21 Okay, Yeah, that's that's what i'm i'm tending toward. also.
06:24:27 I was going to suggest that we hold off another. We give that we still had some open issues and then merge air requests.
06:24:37 But those have been resolved today, and so so my recommendation would be to go ahead with the the maintenance release.
06:24:48 As soon as the release notes have been updated.
06:24:56 So, Kenny, I think we can go ahead with them.
06:24:59 Vote, change the text that I had written. then. Okay, does the Tsc.
06:25:23 Approve The maintenance. release of Istanbul is complete, and release pending. the completion of the release notes.
06:25:30 Is that what we want? Sounds reasonable to me. Okay. One moment, voting progress.
06:26:30 Give a couple more seconds 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 to one, and that is resolved.
06:26:51 Thank you folks right. I assume it was approved. Huh?
06:26:59 Yes, okay, terrific. All right. Okay, the last thing related to release
06:27:13 We've been talking about in the unmaintained projects meeting That's the the Monday meeting that we and having for the last couple of months we've been talking about creating a new structured file.
06:27:32 Track repository status. So we we have information about project status.
06:27:41 But we really need to know down to the repository level what what's what's happening with releases, and we want to have a single file that this the source of truth that will show us which repos are
06:28:03 included in in a given release and so we've been talking about the organization of that file.
06:28:12 What data it'll track and and that sort of thing but you know one of the things that came up was you know.
06:28:21 Where Where do we track this? And so Kenny and I talked about this, and and came up with this proposal.
06:28:30 If I can open it. Yeah, I can share it i've got it open.
06:28:36 Okay, all right, go ahead. So to frame this up the what we are asking here.
06:28:49 There will be more information that we that will need to be provided ultimately.
06:28:55 But we wanted to make sure that directionally. we could pursue this first, because we didn't want to go to a lot of work.
06:29:05 If we're going to have to do a lot of different work, if that makes sense.
06:29:13 So there you go. Do you want to walk through this statement or Would you like me to go ahead, Kenny?
06:29:19 Yeah, we're not seeing it yet. Well, that's because I didn't finish clicking the actual blue button that says share.
06:29:28 There you go that's probably more polite of me so as David mentioned.
06:29:38 There's been this ongoing effort related to tracking unmaintained projects.
06:29:48 There's been demos put together a proposal for
06:29:55 What a file may look like, basically a a Yaml or a Json.
06:30:05 To track this. we need a place to put it through the discussions.
06:30:10 We kind of figured that that there isn't a good place that this file is kind of specific to release management.
06:30:20 During the discussion there were, it was noted that there could potentially be other files that are specific to release management; that maybe living in in other personal repos that that might be able to put there.
06:30:36 But primarily this this mapping file. we need a place to put it.
06:30:41 We want it to be under source code control. We do not believe it requires the overhead of an own app project structure to manage it, and then we don't want to pollute other repositories unnecessary necessarily
06:31:00 by having this file live somewhere else, that that really is not part and parcel of, and own app build.
06:31:10 So what we would be asking the Tsc. 4 would be an exemption, an exemption to create create a top level standalone release management repo without the creation of a new project for the purpose stated If this is okay with
06:31:30 the Tsc. Then we will proceed with with providing information on who the you know the who the Ptl would be?
06:31:43 The the committers for the project and in or not project I just got done saying it's not going to be a project.
06:31:51 The committers for the repo, etc. That is not acceptable to the Tsc.
06:31:59 Then we will put forward a formal project proposal to do so.
06:32:07 So thoughts from Tsc. members. this as a direction, it seems.
06:32:23 Cause in about 2 weeks. Okay, can you? I I believe that we we have some kind of report today in an app What repo would that be?
06:32:45 The Cia management, for example, is kind of report that is not managed by any product.
06:32:50 Oh, okay, i'm sorry we have a repo similar to that got it.
06:32:54 Yeah, it's not something new. Okay, thank you okay, can I mark this as directionally agreed to.
06:33:06 But can you just a question so sorry I wasn't part of the meetings.
06:33:12 But in the current repose we do have dean for dot yaml, and which has a state as saying project is active, or whatever state, it is right wouldn't that be sufficient to iify for someone that repose active or not I
06:33:25 mean it should be the problem that we have is when we we have ptls and committers that vanish.
06:33:41 Well, there's a little bit more to it than that we also Yeah, that's that that's one of Yeah, we have.
06:33:46 We have projects that you know they they do some refactoring
06:33:54 They get rid of, you know a feature, or you know, and add new features.
06:34:00 So some fall out of use so that's that's one situation. The other situation is that it's not always obvious, which project a repo belongs to so most of the repos include the project name in
06:34:23 the in the path of the name of the Reo, but not all of them.
06:34:27 There are, you know I don't know maybe 10% of the the repos it's difficult to figure out exactly which project they're associated with.
06:34:38 So so this file would show the status at the director or sorry the Repo level, and also associate it with with the project.
06:34:52 Okay, So basically, you're just introducing this new report to maintain that file.
06:34:57 Is that what I understand we're not moving these old source or anything.
06:35:00 No, we wouldn't right moving the old ones and one of the key things here is to use this for dependency tracing.
06:35:08 Okay, that makes sense. and maybe we can. We can think about to remove some of the values from the info dot Yama.
06:35:24 Because, as you said, if a projects, if a project get gets unmaintained, so typically typically, no one is taking care of updating the the entries in the info Yama.
06:35:41 So, especially the fields for Isis and this is a approach is an unmaintained project.
06:35:55 Maybe it's worth to think about to centralize this the maintenance of this this values so and to remove it from the a repository dependent info yama.
06:36:12 So it's A. It will be a future use for the for the for the file, as also stated dependencies, and of various that variation.
06:36:25 So we have dependencies from projects to to use cases.
06:36:32 We have dependencies from projects to other owner projects.
06:36:37 So we have it dependencies. if it comes to deployment time or run time, the weekend think a lot of tracking here in this file that make the life of release management security management and also documentation management a lot of easier If we
06:36:58 have this, this this information in a in a single file, and that's the file where we all can look into, and not having this this information spread over various wiki pages.
06:37:23 And but to your point, about the info diamo files we're we're aware the files those files and the information that they contain, and we're being careful not to you know be redundant with the data that we
06:37:39 store in this new file that that topic has come up over and over again that we don't want to do that.
06:37:47 So we're, we're being careful with that issue the picture of this of this one the people will be the rehabilitation.
06:38:01 You want to tell the one who would be the release manager?
06:38:04 Correct. Yeah, but there there wouldn't actually be a ptl because there wouldn't be a project that's sort of the point is to create the repo without having a project well I mean you the conceptually it's still
06:38:20 required the person responsible of it, meaning the the one, Yeah. Yeah.
06:38:26 And in that context keep just saying it's the ptl is is the most makes the most sense rather than creating a new designation.
06:38:43 Yeah. and the idea would be then that responsible people from the Projects maybe propose a change.
06:38:51 To this file if something has changed in in their project and in their repositories, and then David is the one who can approve this change.
06:39:08 Yeah, the the idea is that to keep this actor we would not make this a new release management task and just ask ptls to review the repos associated with their projects and make sure that the information in this file is is
06:39:26 up today. Okay, So if there's no further discussion and when I am going to Mark is agreed.
06:39:48 The Tsc. approves the exception. A top-level repo for the purpose of release management without the creation of a project.
06:39:56 Details of Ptl and Committer information to be provided to the Tsc.
06:40:01 For final sign-off. Does that sound good? Do we folks believe we need to have a vote on it because the vote can be done via email once the committer information is provided. looks good.
06:40:18 Okay, thank you folks, all right. So unless there any questions about release status.
06:40:37 That's it for me Drop that in here too.
06:40:52 Okay, Anything related to railing your infrastructure I know that we've got the discussion of the azure lab request Anything Relange related.
06:41:23 Okay, Michael, do you want to talk a little bit about the the resources you're looking for here for the as your lab?
06:41:53 I think we may always unfortunately not here and i'm looking yeah he was
06:41:59 So we've got the we've we've got the request. The main thing that we need to do next is see what what dollar amount is likely to be attached to.
06:42:17 That. So that's the next step here. that we will work on and I've maybe just for clarification is for it for staging or forgetting hypothesis.
06:42:33 I wasn't participating in the in the but I guess it is for the staging tests.
06:42:38 I think it's my that's my assumption now at tomorrow.
06:42:42 So. but As I was not participating in the in the integration meeting, neither ended Pto meeting.
06:42:55 Okay, moving then, and i've reached out to Eric to set up this long pending meeting that I was supposed to have done, probably back in November regarding basically just azure management in general
06:43:29 sorry momentary distraction there, who would like to lead them?
06:43:40 Asd discussion. Hi Kenny and the Tc. member.
06:43:46 This is a tree. So this is actually comes from the modern subcommittee that recently the model step hunting conducted the email pole over Asd information model and the packaging format, the poll results shoes.
06:44:05 Yes, from Ericson and Nokia know from Huawei, our mandate's modern subcommittee core.
06:44:13 They still have major divergence. Both sides insisted on their positions, and we County Rachel agreement
06:44:22 The Sd proposal is related to multiple projects in own app, and involves the coordination with other Sds.
06:44:34 So the modern subcommittee would like to hear the opinions of Tsa.
06:44:39 How to proceed in the next step. Kenny, would you like me to share for a moment?
06:44:45 Sure, just a moment. Yeah. there you go and let me stop.
06:44:57 So in the meeting minutes Wikipedia we recorded the different companies opinion and suggestion for this part, and on the top, their list of the main reasons of with yes or no from different companies, and the falls.
06:45:20 The decision, part list of attitude to towards the model approval.
06:45:28 So Hawaii is still host, is objection of the meeting and emphasis on the pro process is different with the approval of pool.
06:45:37 There is nothing in Governance Page about the polling and how to approve it.
06:45:44 Based on current discussion. There is no consensus to approve the Poll Nokia asking the chair to record the result, and a state of wiki pages are green State chairs do now to make this station so polling made the decision the end of
06:46:02 the poll shows it is approved, and every transpose.
06:46:06 No cas point suggested to follow the wiki page.
06:46:11 The end of the portion. that is the approach. So see!
06:46:15 And I thank you to the report to the Tsc. for final decision.
06:46:19 So that is the topic for the model in part. And Sochi, the yeah specific ask to the Tsc.
06:46:41 Is, yeah on whether the poll is complete or Magnus has lives.
06:46:53 Yeah, Okay, Kenny, I I I got an action point from the last Tc: and I put a presentation here and there in the Agenda.
06:47:05 Also addressing the same, the same issue. Yeah, can you, from the modern subcommittee part we now have to decide whether this model is up, proved or not, and how we can handle this part and including the relationship with the the coordination
06:47:32 with ads use, and maybe the Erickson Okay, and Hawaii can help to provide the mode details about their attitude to the you know.
06:47:50 So , yeah, I will stop sharing on my screen.
06:47:55 This is running. I just want to provide some more details. After the modeling subcommittee we had on Tuesday our Cnf task first meeting with people from original creators of the Asd.
06:48:08 As well as I think. One number of the modeling subcommittee were there, and there were some clarification provided, and and the decision was to have joint meeting with the Ec.
06:48:23 And S. 3 work group, and see how the 2 approaches can be aligned.
06:48:28 Or maybe the future merged. The clarification from Erickson is that at present it would be impossible to merge the 2 proposals, and that they see the asd as an alternative to the Etsy approach There was
06:48:49 some probably miss understanding about the Isd relying on Etsy and
06:48:56 The folks from Harrison clarified that the Sd.
06:49:00 Proposal is just kind of referencing some elements of Etsy as a reference, but not really relying on it.
06:49:13 But anyway, the decision is to have a meeting and there's one schedule, probably for next week.
06:49:19 The It Work group to see how these 2 approaches can consolidate in the future.
06:49:24 Ronnie. I think we should hear the Magnus the presentation first, because tomorrow, the next week, se workshops for information sharing.
06:49:36 Okay, So I think that we should hear Magnus presentation.
06:49:39 I think. , yeah, , giving together a few. I I would like to ask you to to share the slide that I put in because for our it department is is not fond of zoom.
06:49:55 So they put a lot of hurdles. I fear that I will not be able to present had an exemption, but some took it away.
06:50:07 Thank you. Yep: So if you go back one slide. Yeah.
06:50:15 So this is a presentation trying to show the Nokia nerics and view on this matter.
06:50:21 So it's a presentation from team on myself, with help from some of the respective colleagues, and then we can go to the next slide.
06:50:33 So last Tc. meeting I got the the task to clarify the area and find an agreement with the ownup modeling team, and as you heard the conclusion from the modeling subcommittee meeting this week was that it
06:50:52 was decided to report to Tc. for final decision. So let me give some some background.
06:50:59 I had a presentation last week as well. but this is more specifically on how we see this matter.
06:51:07 We think that they Ste. has been presented at on several locations, has been thoroughly anchored in in Tc.
06:51:17 And the cnf task force i'll get to subcommittee requirements subcommittee.
06:51:20 It's been preceded while seeing the lfm developer and testing Forum, and and we have felt that that it has been sort of received in a positive manner.
06:51:37 It was brought to the modeling subcommittee for discussion and approval.
06:51:42 So the deposit there is that there is a proposal it's put on a wiki page There is a discussion, and then it's transitioned to a clean state when there is an approval then there is an
06:51:58 established approved own-up, modeling governance.
06:52:03 And you can follow the link there. A procedure for this.
06:52:08 So it says. Once the discussion comments have well being addressed and resolved, the sub-team lead, does a call for approval of the Wiki discussion page.
06:52:19 And then there is a apple. So the modeling chair counts the votes.
06:52:25 The end of 2 weeks, and publishes the results to the same mailing list.
06:52:29 Approval requires two-thirds of their those voting, approving the contribution.
06:52:39 And this is a quote from this page that I put the link into so and and there was a poll.
06:52:48 So after the discussion, so the poll started twentieth of January open for 3 weeks, and resulted in 3 votes.
06:52:56 2 were approved from Nokia and Erikson, and one, and not approved from what we, with with the comment on why it was not approved so given.
06:53:10 The approval requires 2 over 3 of the voting.
06:53:14 The result was that it was approved. So we think there is actually no need for a decision, neither in the modeling subcommittee nor in the Tc.
06:53:25 We only need to follow the procedure that has been agreed and documented, and to respect the the poll results.
06:53:33 If we go to the next slide. Thank you. So regarding the request for alignment with Etsy and Fee, I think this is a big misunderstanding.
06:53:47 Not relevant to require ac to align with the alternative at the Nfv.
06:53:53 Monitor so, and Ac. is only one of the Cnf.
06:53:59 On boarding information model pache solutions, and we do support the Etsy based Cnf solution in parallel.
06:54:10 There are also other other possible solutions from a technical perspective.
06:54:15 Asd is not based on at Cn fee the philosophy behind it is quite opposite to at the Nfv.
06:54:22 It's a way to to be more cloud native then it's possible with Withetsi so asd complements cloud native templates, and while the H.
06:54:35 C. Nfv. vnfd overlaps them, and limits their use to only a subset of. therefore it's it becomes very difficult to to to see this sort of relevance of the aligning with medici and from
06:54:49 a governor's perspective. I think we have we had jeopardizing the the owner integrity, so conditioning and open model approval on external Sto.
06:55:01 Input This is quite abnormal as a practice, and we cannot think of any Sto that we degree to the same direct external involvement.
06:55:09 We make our own decisions. We take advice from others but we don't sort of move into common sort of meetings for for deciding, and the Asd proposal has been open for discussion from the start.
06:55:25 It's discussed a lot and there's been a lot of good inputs, and it's improved during that time.
06:55:31 But at some point I mean the information modeling in packaging specs must be stable to allow design to start with the with the solid foundation.
06:55:42 And we think that this modeling subcommittee poll approval means that we have reached that point, and the timing is right for the T.
06:55:52 Carter Park. So designers are ready, so let them start coding.
06:55:57 So our proposal here is that Tc. confirms the of the HD.
06:56:04 On boarding information model and a ste on boarding packaging format by applying the approved owner modeling governance.
06:56:16 So that's the and my presentation. okay discussion. Yeah, but bring this to kick.
06:56:29 You can clarify what what is the poc because it's it earlier brought Stc.
06:56:36 On boarding, or is it also about impacting a so on on other components?
06:56:45 If I may. Poc: Yes, yes, Poc score is asd package onboarding to Sdc.
06:56:54 And distribution, and also orchestration. So we are.
06:57:00 We are designed to create optional as source of component, not to impact as your core module.
06:57:07 And then we start So that's to our current scope and then we communicate with the they're kobonet.
06:57:16 So that means is very in architecture very similar to Cnf work.
06:57:21 But we have to ast management in the so sub component that's the scope, not just on body.
06:57:31 Okay, It looks like have a couple people raising their hands.
06:57:35 Zoom sex canny as the coach hair of suppling, modeling subcommittee.
06:57:44 I would add a few things First background information tree has summarized that for the email poll there's 2 yes, and one note what I want to add is after that the Monday call when we're summarizing
06:58:02 the the result of the poets actually more people raising different concerns and opinions.
06:58:10 The poll do only shows 3 boats, but There's additional concerns on, I think, raised from Fred, and also recently on the Wiki page for the proposal.
06:58:23 So I think they, and the for more co-chair of modeling supplement.
06:58:30 He also raised that in Tuesdays seen that task force call that in modeling subcommittee yearly, we still relying on Rob consensus on decision of this polls, not directly on the result of the poll
06:58:46 So I think that's the reason why we having after having the calls to the coach hair is finding there's no consensus yet, and we want to report it to the Tsc.
06:58:57 And for further decision, and that's the reason and next from as a hobby delegate next is our company's wheel
06:59:11 We still think I like Nokia and erkson's statement, We think the the current sd proposal is highly related to the Se.
06:59:20 Standards and concepts in several place of them they have reference to the Sc.
06:59:28 Concepts like virtual link and external collection.
06:59:31 Point, and for the packaging they are building on the current spec so there's a full. So we think it's still related to the Sis standard, and we to see there's a possibility that to pursue a merged solution for
06:59:47 that and back as a co-chair I think if there's a chance that we can find a merge solution, or at least 6 collaboration was the standard party.
07:00:03 We would like to pursue for that just for the sake of a good model, and also for collaboration between own app and the standard bodies.
07:00:15 So we do want to encourage this collaboration, and therefore for my personal suggestion for the Tsc.
07:00:26 To make decision today, as I stated in Tuesday, is that whether the Psm.
07:00:33 Members sings The The Sd. model is mature enough to be approved now, or we should allow more opportunity here to bring it to a broader audience like the Sc.
07:00:46 Members experts to see if there's possibility. for march solution, and we can refine models afterwards.
07:00:57 Thanks tailingly. Hey, guys, i'm sorry I haven't been actively involved in in this discussion, but I was also No notice that this discussion lately and I would like to clarify our company's precision regarding this
07:01:19 boat. we saw this there's lack of like opinion representation, and in this vote, because we are also concerned about this.
07:01:30 This is decision-making. but we thought that we're we're actually lacking enough information for us to make a informed decision, and that is why we haven't cast our vote, and on you know on the earlier one and we
07:01:50 struggle suggest that you know we could have another chance least you know, to allow different, you know, information to be exchanged before ration into a decision that would have a risk of fragmentation in the industry, and I think you know I
07:02:11 can also speak for a several other companies who have been experts.
07:02:17 There concerns and afterwards. and I I do really, you know.
07:02:23 Or like also to take this opportunity to to ask her both Cnf task force and also modeling subcommittee to work together, to to solve this problem, if possible.
07:02:39 And travel well, and other companies would also be like to be making more contribution to this. and we believe that this is a really important direction, and the decision that would be made in this community also matters a lot to to the future of the industry
07:02:58 Thank you. Okay, Magnus, you know it's I find it difficult to understand that you haven't been able to look at this.
07:03:18 Suggestion and solution. we've been talking about this for a very long time.
07:03:24 We've been very inclusive of everyone who wants to to make a nimble impact.
07:03:29 We know that, for instance, Huawei has made several good contributions to the solution, and enhance the the quality.
07:03:40 I think we need to think about a bit here if we've done this in the in line with the procedures that we have, and we do put the vote in.
07:03:53 I mean that should account for something if you're too late to that vote you could say it hasn't been shown it.
07:04:02 Hasn't been presented it hasn't been done in the proper way.
07:04:07 I don't think this is the case here we've since since long talked about.
07:04:12 This is been very openly. it's been presented I can't think of that!
07:04:18 You didn't have access to this information and if it's like that. You, when you put down the vote and and and the result comes up, for you don't like it. you can argue about the procedure and you can change
07:04:34 the procedure but not on the fly not once you've done devoting, and it's it's
07:04:43 I've never seen anything like this before. to be honest.
07:04:47 Okay, Fred. Sorry i'm sorry fred go ahead when we have responsible.
07:04:54 Please go ahead. adjusted a short response, is that i'm not complaining about the procedure what I'm saying is that we do definitely need more time and more discussion, and say, I believe we wrote privately to both
07:05:11 Erickson and Huawei asking for more technical clarification.
07:05:15 But we don't get the chance to discuss you know more that only especially in comparison with the existing at sea, and also the Mac, approach, and we believe that it is important also for ours to you know to get more information about
07:05:33 it, and that that is why we do not cast our vote because we Don't think that we have 200 enough information to make that decision, and I don't think that you know this extra dse call would solve that issue or would not would It have
07:05:52 not been appropriate to cast a no vote in that situation.
07:05:57 Knowing that there was a three-week period for the vote to be open if the feeling was that more discussion was needed.
07:06:12 You know the 3 week period I know that this shouldn't be an excuse.
07:06:19 But we usually have a 2 week like vocation for the Chinese New Year.
07:06:24 Sorry that we would just have been dealing with this since last week. Know this is no excuse.
07:06:32 But anyway, sorry just clarification. The Asd model has been present since September last year.
07:06:41 It is not just in January also the requirement approved in September, so I think there is enough time, not just during the Chinese holiday.
07:06:52 So we talk about this since September at the Cnf.
07:06:57 Task force, team and time time we introduced tsc so to me it's not an excuse.
07:07:04 Okay, So so let's let's let fred go I can I guess so.
07:07:11 I don't have a particular statement on whether but was valid or not.
07:07:22 I would suit personal opinion from my review of the as the information model is that it's the from my perspective is incomplete.
07:07:38 But again, whether I did not vote, and so I cannot say whether you know this vote was valid or not.
07:07:48 But I agree with fellingly and others perhaps that the information model needs some more review before it's accepted.
07:08:07 That's again whether the vote was valid or not Okay, thank you, Fred Teamo.
07:08:19 Yes, I I think just kind of minor comment. there was some reference made to how many folks voted.
07:08:29 I think we don't have any any gates on that you know processes and procedures.
07:08:35 I think that's kind of a mute point everybody has a chance equal chance, and they decide to vote or not.
07:08:44 So I think we shouldn't try to modify the rules on the fly when we go.
07:08:52 There is one aspect that kind of bothers me a lot when there's been made reverence to Ec.
07:08:58 Nfb. and and then the potential upcoming chat with them.
07:09:07 And it's if from no kiss and erickson's point of view.
07:09:10 I've understood that the differences between the 2 approaches are very significant, and especially kind of adhering to asd approach by its end.
07:09:21 If we would require nature revamp of their architecture that an architecture that they have been sticking with for the for the decade.
07:09:30 So I think it's kind of an wishful thinking that this would happen very quickly, which then leads to kind of conclusion that if we stick and stay with the collaborator and if we is able to develop then it will take a long time,
07:09:51 we are not talking about one or 2 on a reallyices but something much, much further down the road.
07:09:59 I don't know if that's so either a very beneficial for this community.
07:10:10 Okay, Thank you, Timo deng way. hello, everybody!
07:10:16 So I I just report what what, as the X modeling subcommittee chair every time we have been, we have cast more than rough I mean 100 times po I kind of low vote.
07:10:35 So every time in the modern subcommittee, I think, as Andy said, and you talk about.
07:10:44 So we every time one after the Po, is it Result is coming out?
07:10:49 We need a consensus from the modern ensemble committee to approve the poll.
07:10:55 So this is the procedure has been happened more than 100 times.
07:10:59 So i'm i'm i'm a little bit and sad to see people jeopardize this procedures.
07:11:07 I hope they can follow. follow that. Thank thank you dang Wayne Granny.
07:11:17 Yeah, i'd like to see how we can pragmatically move forward.
07:11:21 There's a lot of sensitivity here around the procedures, so maybe we can do.
07:11:27 I propose that maybe we can do both, maybe having to modeling Subcommittee approve the clean state of the model just Deering to the strict procedure.
07:11:41 But at the same time we can have a decision to actively continue this discussion with Etsy, and see how the 2 things can align.
07:11:52 I shared Ling these concern about creating yet another fork, and and having another method for dealing with Cnf: so I might.
07:12:01 My proposal is to do both to both follow the procedure and approve the green model, but also take a decision that we will actively pursue.
07:12:12 Further discussion and alignment with etsy Okay, Magnus, and I think that's a reasonable compromise.
07:12:23 We're not at all sort of opposing people to to have comments on this.
07:12:31 We're just worried that we will come into an endless loop that will take for very long, like like a team was referring to before.
07:12:43 So I think that this is a reasonable one, and we have scheduled meetings with with that, c.
07:12:49 And we are all for for working out any differences here. just emphasizing again that it's a it's a different approach than the Nazi.
07:13:04 Thank you, Magnus Bang lane Yes, I cannot agree because the the the proposal has break the the procedure of the modern subcommittee.
07:13:17 We're modeling some community it's a consensus based.
07:13:19 So we we approach something without consensus I think it break break the procedures.
07:13:25 So that's a really unfortunate but my proposal to allow some time.
07:13:30 If they cannot convert, then we move on with this proposal.
07:13:32 But I I strongly recommend me along some time let the take a nickel discussion to ask your friend also recommend I'm. more reviews, so we can have some technique to cash in to improve it.
07:13:45 If we've succeeded and that's beautiful for everybody thank you so.
07:13:56 Question. I have in response to that what constitutes consensus from your perspective.
07:14:10 So the the consensus that's the 2 type of consensus?
07:14:16 Why is the consensus the notice? without any objection?
07:14:20 The other one is raft consensus. the majority people think, and then the minority has no technical arguments like itf based on the raft consensus.
07:14:30 So because it so the previously modern subcommittee, as Andy and I chair, we were always asking consensus.
07:14:39 So for previous more than 100 times vote regards all of them consensus based conclusion.
07:14:45 So we haven't seen any confusion about the objections so. but but even we break that procedure.
07:14:54 I don't know how the new chairs and they can really, and behave just to make small salt.
07:15:00 Thank you, Teamo, you know. test to react on. Then who is comment?
07:15:10 I cannot agree with that. we that this wouldn't have been dealt with, according to the to the process.
07:15:20 I think that's that's not accurate and when it comes to modeling comedy they themselves state on their wiki page how they work.
07:15:30 They work according to rough consensus so that's whatever the definition for that it is I don't have one readily at hand, but it to me it kind of refers to that everybody doesn't we don't expect that
07:15:45 everybody always agrees 100% on everything there may be some differing opinions.
07:15:55 But but that's that's life, and then we move on There is another aspect of this, that when people refer to and own up, and at the end of the discussing, and then that's the end of it doing something based
07:16:10 on the those discussions that's not oh it's the end of it works.
07:16:15 They can only move forward and then agree on something that that's the Nfv.
07:16:23 Member of participant proposes and contributes so that it's not gonna happen in a way that owner has discussion with that team, and then they do.
07:16:36 They will have their own internal processes that's not in our hand to guide as a community.
07:16:48 So it's going to be a little bit more complicated than just having a discussion, and then it goes like on the Sunday day.
07:16:55 Thanks can go. I just want clarification for sc alignment discussion, and the scope is not just dealing with the modeling and then packaging because the 2 complete sc based the orchestration.
07:17:14 We have a more than that. We need to talk about the soul file.
07:17:18 We have to talk about. So 3, and we have to talk about se mono component.
07:17:22 We are placed, so that means ast current architecture we don't plan to use it.
07:17:26 So I don't know the discussion next week about workshop if we're just talking about model and packaging things.
07:17:33 I think that we have to bring the some other consequences because the without our mono component and modeling is reverseless.
07:17:47 So that's my point, says what impact is not just for modeling and packaging.
07:17:51 So if you're talking about seo alignment is more, much more, much bigger.
07:17:55 And then almost the concept is different. Anyway, so that's my input not just for modeling and packaging.
07:18:00 We we need to discuss with the Sc. Nfp. we discussed much more than that. Thank you.
07:18:08 Dang way, and yes, thank you chairman so the first of all I I think I think the people would like to have a modeling alignment.
07:18:24 But that's a good motivation not not a non-s.
07:18:30 Extend the scope to more wider. So I, I observing I would return back, and observing the discussion in the list, I I see some very good motivation, I mean surrounding in the least they are talking about how that could work
07:18:47 together. I think it was the iron to movement then, Why not that happen to, and that's are not influenced the the any parking for implementations.
07:19:00 And this is just a very simplified modeling power. right?
07:19:02 So I I still for the procedure I think people talk about.
07:19:08 I think i'm we are mostly talk about if you look at the you only talk about Poe doesn't talk about a consensus consensus product.
07:19:18 I think that is a means explaining our procedure in previous walk.
07:19:23 Thank you, shall we? I would like, on the behalf of the modern subcommittee chair to say something.
07:19:39 , you know I actually from the Mall in some community.
07:19:45 We would like to see it, the the model to be a better model.
07:19:51 And actually, I think the Sd model it is really a good topic.
07:20:01 But you know that is the own app as an open source community we shouldn't support the prosperity of the industry.
07:20:10 And I think that the model is up a committee, You know it can take the responsibility of collaboration with other Sdos and the communities. and you know you were in own app yourself, where we have the access alignment and
07:20:26 also the asd projects. So so I would like to suggest that maybe we analysis more about the same similarities and differences of different solutions advantages.
07:20:43 And these are along one pages, and they also evaluate the impact on the industry and from other subcommittee.
07:20:51 And then we come to make the decision, and they give the suggestion to clarify the division of labor in To avoid the argument.
07:21:02 Again. We can also invite more audience to participate in the discussion.
07:21:06 So that's all kenny okay thank you just a note of time.
07:21:12 We've got about 10 min left in the meeting Magnus Yeah, I I think we all know that the nap is not Standards body, and we take sort of standards seriously.
07:21:28 We can look at standards. We would like to be standards based, if if possible, and then done.
07:21:34 But what we are doing open source is coding and it's based on people that that raise their hands and start coding.
07:21:46 So it's It's not that and I think they the people that are ready to start doing work and start to produce code should also be respected.
07:21:59 In this we should not go back to be it as kind of a standards organization.
07:22:05 Then I think also that it's if you have a procedure and you have a polling.
07:22:09 I can't understand how you can if you don't like the poll result.
07:22:15 Then you go back to say that this should be rough consensus.
07:22:20 The understanding I have. is that the discussion took place and there was a poll?
07:22:27 I've never seen this sort of that you you go back and say, did we write?
07:22:30 Did we like the result, or have we? I mean the reason for having a poll is that you?
07:22:38 You have different opinions, but you decide that's the how you Decide Thanks, Shu Coin.
07:22:47 Thanks, I think First, I don't think in ownup we have a requirement to support.
07:22:54 Single on boarding model. we do support. multiple models so i'm not fully understand the requirement that we should have a unified model for the Cf. on volume.
07:23:07 This is a part I don't understand if that is something tic wanted decided from now on we only support us unified a single cf onboarding model.
07:23:17 I don't have problem let's let's make some decision here.
07:23:21 Number 2 that I think Don Quixote is challenging the pulling rule which we are following.
07:23:29 Unfortunately no one can confirm it. In the modern team discussed, I think Magnus proposed to have a vote in Tsc.
07:23:37 If we should follow it or not, I think that makes sense that's true.
07:23:46 Yeah, I guess i'm sorry i've been listening to thought of this, and I think personally, I am part of boot cnn, orchestration.
07:23:53 I have been, in fact, one of the leaders who had been doing scenario for station deep in with all the support from you people, and I also understand what is being discussed here.
07:24:02 So my U person opinion. I would rather say that we can continue with what we are trying to do with respect to Poc.
07:24:08 I don't see any problem in stopping it halting it up. In fact, we ever have been discussing the debase forward, and we need to discuss about details of how it can be done in the orchestration, on allboarding and all
07:24:18 that is something which is spending but I don't see any reason for us to stop the poc at this moment of time.
07:24:24 We can still continue with it, and coming back to the morning part, I can see one thing.
07:24:30 Maybe, instead of dropping at this point, we can actually have one more discussion, perhaps, to see how we can maybe take some questions which are coming up.
07:24:36 Maybe we can just verify the questions to see what exactly is the question there, because 100 What I see is that some people over here are asking for some clarification.
07:24:45 I know this has been there from from beginning. it's not something which has been put out of the 2 that is for sure.
07:24:51 But if someone is asking some clarifications, perhaps we can have one more meeting with them where we can discuss and clarify.
07:24:56 What is the question? they have at the same time having Ets element is truly good.
07:25:02 I know that it is not something which we can do overnight.
07:25:04 It is not something which can happen within this check out the release to so a Poc will surely provide a good understanding as to where we stand, and that will be a good candidate for us to prove our point also right why not this is what we have been
07:25:16 doing. The reason why we have the Oc. system is to ensure that we have a workable model, at least a demo sort of thing to to pack our addition or backup our our ideas, or or our scenarios and that will surely be a
07:25:31 good candidate for Jakarta release, where we have a Poc.
07:25:35 Then we can prove better to the Etsi and align further.
07:25:37 So. so I see we can continue with The Poc we can discuss about how it's getting done.
07:25:42 I know there's been a lot of effort from guys who have been participating in Poc.
07:25:46 I don't see any reason for stopping it or or packing it up right now.
07:25:51 I myself would say that I myself would be rather than happy to to help in any case we required for anything about Yourc.
07:25:59 And for modeling. Maybe perhaps we can have one more discussion to clarify the things and check for the ease element.
07:26:03 Also thank you. So in the absence of our chair, being presence and the absence of a vice chair being nominated or elected, I'm going to step in here, I want to separate out whatever was proposed and takes that off the
07:26:29 table. What I want to focus on the Us. What I do not understand is, if a poll was taken, published, the results were there, then that Poll needs to be confirmed by consensus.
07:26:46 I realize this is the process that has been stated is in use, but from what i'm hearing there's consensus that this is the way to proceed.
07:27:04 So I don't. I I I am sorry I have read through the modeling.
07:27:10 Such committees process, and I don't understand where this we've taken a poll.
07:27:20 Now we have to. Now we have to make sure that people agree to the poll, because from my perspective, once you take a poll, that's the result.
07:27:35 Certainly two-thirds constitutes consensus for those that took the poll.
07:27:41 So I will turn this to Chewee. Yes, Kenny, so help me understand the process.
07:27:57 Yeah, can i'd have to say that So traditional in ownup model.
07:28:07 Subcommittee. Yes, we we do. After the email poll.
07:28:11 We will get the consensus and make a decision on the modern subcommittee meeting.
07:28:19 But you early announced i'll prove something at the meeting in some situation we we go to the the objection and some comments.
07:28:30 You are in the meeting, and the the proposal presenter will take in to consider about them.
07:28:41 Then, if everybody is okay about that, then we announce that he's ready to motivate that to be the own app tradition on that modest application subcommittee tradition.
07:28:57 So what you're saying is that the the modeling subcommittee is not operating on a consensus on a rough consensus model, but instead it is operating on a full consensus model meaning complete agreement from
07:29:11 all participants. Yes, so you know. Wait, We that is not supported by our charter
07:29:29 100% consensus is not supported by our charter.
07:29:33 I think sometimes we just There are some issues in the models. but we all gray that can be postponed to the next releases also a way to really it's not necessarily means all the objections.
07:29:53 Will be resolved in the conqueredies.
07:30:02 So we you're only need the members to say that they are okay for the country release to stable.
07:30:23 Yes, we, you know, and because that and that 1 one model is always the Co.
07:30:32 Working of the Who subcommittee, because the presenter gave the proposal, and the other experts will will give with a very detailed said comments, for that you will, including some awarding or the name of attributes
07:30:55 So So you're a way where we really wanted to get that every all that the audience can make sure that the model is really clean to the to be documented.
07:31:14 So. so we will have the process. The final decision on the model.
07:31:18 September eleventh, so I if you if I allow I think the we are sort of the consensus or raft consensus in the modernist subcommittee, so we don't have experience the difference before I mean
07:31:38 we almost the you can say this the condenser you can also say it's a graph consensus because most people have obeyed this one.
07:31:46 What i'm talking about is the polling result it doesn't show the rough consensus in the discussion, because during the later modern subcommittee discussion there are more people raised the hand.
07:31:59 So I think it the poetry that I didn't show the raft consensus.
07:32:11 I. So the question before the Tsc. is twofold one.
07:32:30 The request is that the Tsc. confirmed the Asd.
07:32:36 On boarding information model the Asd onboarding, packaging format.
07:32:50 And basically they would do that by accepting the results of the poll as it stands.
07:33:09 I'm going to put this forward to a vote if you agree with it.
07:33:17 Give it a plus one. If you disagree with it give it a minus one. If you want to abstain from the vote, give it a 0.
07:33:30 But i'm putting the vote for forward it is written here the proposal that I have highlighted. did the word Stop, Kenny.
07:34:09 No I Haven't started typing it in right now, the the cut and Pace did some very weird thanks.
07:34:28 Okay, vote is in place, should have confirmed that we still have quorum.
07:34:53 2, 3. Yes, we do still have quorum. Okay, I will give it another 10 s. Can you?
07:35:40 Can you consume a second work? Just sorry. Yeah. I I Okay. okay.
07:35:54 So we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We have 5 votes in favor, one to 3 for 5 abstentions, and one think about 6 plus ones for 6, plus one.
07:36:33 Still in 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, you're correct there are 6 plus ones.
07:36:55 Okay, So we have a total of 14 people, I believe. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1011, 1213, 14. Okay.
07:37:22 So a total of 6 votes in favor would be short of the majority.
07:37:47 We down the abstention actually i'm sorry what was that Marshall?
07:37:55 Do we count people that abstain to vote the 0?
07:38:01 The people who put and on the counting for the I am actually, i'm sorry I can't provide the results here, because I'm gonna have to look that up, depend on them Yeah, it's kind of demand and I will put
07:38:26 in the the note here that says she's vote has changed and also info that i'm going this is pending review with Lf.
07:39:06 Legal Fingers work. Okay, So vote results pending review by the Lf.
07:40:04 For clarification, so that's my action item I will take that.
07:40:08 I will get response as soon as possible. That will be published to the General.
07:40:13 Tsc. list. Once I have had that call made and
07:40:28 The The only other thing that I want to make folks aware of is that Monday is a holiday here in the Us.
07:40:35 Do folks want to have the ptl meeting or not Okay, i'm gonna cancel it?
07:40:56 Okay, a bit anticlimactic, since I need to go and get the results.
07:41:02 But I will get back to you as soon as possible.