2025-01-15 Official Meeting Notes

Date

15 Jan 2025

Disclosures

Participants

Agenda

• December 11, 2024 Meeting Minutes (link) - 5 minutes
• Confluence migration for workgroup updates (Rafael) - 5 minutes
• BoD Policy Adoption Status Update (Andrea, Jeff, Rafael) - 15 minutes
• Existing Group Participant and Voting Rights establishment (email) - target January 31
• Transition update for existing groups: Register your participants and assume all decisions will be made under new policy.
• Transition update for existing non-ratified specification: Register your participants and assume all decisions will be made under new policy.
• Summary of how to start a new group
• Updates to Lifecycle Guide underway to reflect new policy - target publish February 3
• New policy FAQ - target February 3
• Open discussion topics:
• Does the new policy support Dotted Line reporting? No (Rafael)
• Do official meetings count toward vote attendance? (Andy Dellow)
• Does the declaration of participation take effect immediately? (Andy Dellow)
• Does voting restoration occur in the second or third meeting attended? (Andy Dellow)
• Does Ratification-ready voting only require TSC approval? (Jeff)
• Do official meetings require a quorum to occur? (Jeff)
• Proposal for Working Meetings – TSC, Tech Chairs, Tech Committee Chair Coordination – (Andrea) - 30 minutes
• What happens to Plan Milestone presentation review?
• Broad notification in advance?
• Still hold Tech Chairs review?
• How is CSC made aware?
• LFX Meeting Migration Update (Greg Sterling) - 15 minutes
• Status email: link
• Demo of meeting schedule

Notes & Action Items

Summary

• Introductory remarks
  Jeff welcomed everyone to the first meeting of January 2023 and outlined the meeting's structure and policies. He emphasized the importance of running more formal meetings, including publishing agendas, approving previous meeting minutes, and tracking participants. Jeff also mentioned the transition from Google tools to Confluence for better accessibility and encouraged collaborative editing in the Confluence wiki. He then moved on to discuss the agenda, which included updates on board policies, a proposal for working meeting minutes, and a discussion about LFX meeting migration. Nick raised a concern about an unresolved action item from the previous meeting, which Jeff agreed to address.

• December 11, 2024 Meeting Minutes
  Minutes reviewed and approved without objection.

• Confluence migration for workgroup updates
  Rafael introduced the technical risk alias and the process of creating new spaces in Confluence. He explained how to use templates for meeting minutes and voting rights, and how to share files. Rafael also mentioned that they aim to have everyone with their own space by the end of the week. Jeff discussed his work on creating tools to pull historical content from Github Admin Repos and Google Drive into Confluence. He also mentioned the goal of having all agendas, minutes, and slides in the Admin Github Repos deprecated and migrated to Confluence. Jeff also clarified that participants are not automatically added to the meeting minutes and that quorum is determined by the number of voting members. The team also discussed the process of migrating existing files to Confluence.

• BoD Policy Adoption Status Update

  • Voting Rights Policies for SIGs

    Jeff, Allen, and Greg discussed the differences between official and ordinary meetings in terms of quorum requirements and procedural rules. Daniel raises a question about whether the new voting rights policies apply to Special Interest Groups (SIGs) as well as Task Groups (TGs). Jeff explains that while TGs working on specifications must follow the new voting policies, the value for SIGs is less clear but still recommended as good meeting hygiene. Nick suggests that SIGs should follow the policies when they need to make decisions like spinning up new task groups. The recommendation remains that SIGs follow the policy until we have any more clarity.

  • Voting Rights in Entities Discussed

    Nick raised concerns about the voting rights of entities and individuals within them. Jeff clarified that voting rights are granted to entities, not individuals, and these rights do not change with individual roles or participation. Ken added that while a designated voter can make things easier, any representative from the entity can vote. However, if a designated voter is absent, the entity still retains its voting rights. Jeff also mentioned that disputes could be resolved by appointing a new voter if needed. The team also discussed the importance of consistent participation to ensure that voters have a clear understanding of what they are voting on.

  • Transition to New Group Policy

    Jeff emphasized the need for all active groups to transition to the new group policy immediately. He also highlighted that new Technical Groups (TGs and SIGs) will be spun up through this process and that the new policy applies to ongoing specifications. Jeff also mentioned that the policy will be clarified further and that an FAQ will be written to aid in its implementation. Rafael then presented a diagram outlining the new process for starting new groups, which includes a fast track and a technical committee formation. The new process requires a proposal of work, approval from the BoD and TSC, and support from premier and strategic members. Greg Favor suggested making the requirement for supporters explicit in the process.

  • Task Group Creation and Maintenance

    The team discussed the process of creating and maintaining task groups within their organization. They agreed on the need for a more formal charter and a gap analysis to identify problems, which should be part of the proposing stage.
    The team also discussed the possibility of freezing a group if there's no immediate interest, but decided that this wasn't currently part of their process. They also discussed the need for board approval for policy changes and the potential for overlapping steps in the proposing and infrastructure setup stages.
    The team agreed to continue refining the process diagram and to consider the proposal of freezing a group in the future instances of the Polices and Procedures.

  • Refining Chair Elections and Development Process

    The meeting focused on refining the process for chair elections within task groups. It was clarified that the process would involve a call for candidates, a two-week period for people to identify themselves, and a vote among participating members. The new process will follow this (same) process, but will vary at the vote – election by members, versus prior selection and confirmation vote.
    The meeting also discussed the development and rectification of specifications, with a new phase of stabilization introduced. The process involves internal review, addressing feedback, and obtaining approval from the project committee and governing committee. The meeting also touched on the need for a formal voting process for each step in the development and stabilization phases, and the need for a separate vote from the governing committee before moving to the ratification phase.

  • Fast Track Voting and Integration Process

    In the meeting, Guy asked about the voting process for the fast track, to which Rafael clarified that it's controlled by the governing committee. Philipp mentioned that the fast track process will be addressed in a future update of the policies.
    Jose asked about the fully integrated versions, which Rafael explained as a process where each new task group or specifications are forked from the main IC repository. Allen pointed out the potential for merge conflicts in this process.
    Nick raised concerns about the role of the project manager and the mention of the CEO in the policy, which Jeff acknowledged and promised to address.
    Paul Ku asked about the timeline for using the new policy, to which Jeff advised to use it and assured assistance in getting it done.

• Proposal for Working Meetings – TSC, Tech Chairs, Tech Committee Chair Coordination – (Andrea) - 30 minutes

In the meeting, Andrea proposed a new working meeting structure to reduce the number of meetings from four to two per month. The first Wednesday of the month would be dedicated to a technical discussion, focusing on strategy, technical updates, and presentations. The second meeting would occur on the third Wednesday of the month and be operation-focused, reviewing dashboards, checking progress, and discussing blockers. The second and fourth Wednesdays were agreed to be “overflow” timeslots for the previous meeting.
The proposal was well-received, with suggestions to have an overflow meeting for each if needed. The team agreed to maintain the current meeting duration and to be conscious of the time zones and personal challenges of the attendees.
The presentation is attached in the Presentations table and was sent to the tech-chairs mailing list (link).

• LFX Meeting Migration Update
  Greg Sterling covered the migration to LFX, providing an update on the status and sharing some learnings. The team discussed the importance of taking ownership of meetings and the need for more succinct communication. They also discussed the issue of meetings not showing up in the tech calendar and the need for better control over which meetings are added. The conversation ended with Greg demonstrating how to find participants in a meeting and download a CSV for meeting minutes. The team agreed to continue the discussion asynchronously via email.

Action Items:

• Follow up on the questions raised by Nick Kossifidis during the previous Tech Chairs meeting (2024-12-11 Official Meeting Notes)
• What about the Project Manager Role defined in the new policy? Asked by Nick Kossifidis

Presentations

Adjournment

• Motion to Adjourn Made By:

• Seconded By:

• Time Adjourned: