2024-12-11 Official Meeting Notes
- Jeff Scheel
- Andrea Gallo
- Rafael Sene
Date
Dec 11, 2024
Disclosures
Participants
Agenda
Answer: TSC and subsidiaries only. No policy for CSC.
Answer: This subset should suffice: https://d106tm.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Quick-Guide-to-Roberts-Rules.pdf
Presentations
Title | Presenter | File | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CHERI Ratification Plan | Simon Moore, Alex Richardson, Tariq Kurd |
Votes
Action Items
Notes
Meeting Agenda:
The agenda was approved upon a motion by David Weaver and seconded by Andrew Dellow.
CHERI:
There are no issues with trademarks or other related concerns, as the University of Cambridge is ensuring that it is in the public domain.
Is there any impact on the hypervisor (see riscv-cheri/src/hypervisor-integration.adoc at main · riscv/riscv-cheri ) or the debug/trace functionality (see riscv-cheri/src/debug-integration.adoc at main · riscv/riscv-cheri).
How is this divided up in multiple extensions? (add the link here)
All initial 4 are extensively prototyped.
Freeze all as a package:
CHERI is disabled by default.
Coordinate with Memory Tagging Group on OPCODES (RVG-161: Memory TaggingActive )
By design, one HART can run with CHERI enabled while another runs without it.
Ensure Guerney Hunt have a deep discussion within the CHERI TG/SIG.
Robert Chyla asked to consider some time prior the start of the internal review to better evaluate the plan and the proposal.
What other security extensions can/cannot be used in conjunction with CHERI?
Performance: CHERI Core vs non-CHERI core.
Small performance penalty.
Python, C, C++, Java, Rust as languages/run-times supporting CHERI.
@Tariq Kurd Work with Allen Baum on ACTs definitions.
Convert Codasip tests to ACTs.
Extension will use a relaxed and longer period of time for reviews.
BoD Policy Q&A
Nick’s policy question (rationale, consensus building, …):
Core Issue:
The organization needs to formalize its decision-making process to ensure clarity, transparency, and member-driven consensus. This is crucial for maintaining its legal standing as a standards body and preventing issues related to anti-trust behavior or trade wars. The current lack of documentation and consistent procedures, especially concerning who is entitled to vote at various stages, poses a risk.
Proposed Policy Change:
The proposed policy introduces the concept of "active" vs. "inactive" members, with voting rights tied to consistent meeting attendance. This aims to ensure that only those actively involved in the process influence key decisions. Additionally, formal votes are added at specific stage gates (e.g., public review) to explicitly document consensus.
Concerns and Counterarguments:
Nick:
Argues that the policy's voting procedure isn't truly open or democratic. He advocates for asynchronous, private voting to cater to global time zones and protect individual opinions from influence.
Challenges the definition of "active" members solely based on meeting attendance, highlighting that contributions can occur through mailing lists, GitHub, etc..
Expresses concern that the focus on voting might overshadow the importance of genuine consensus formation through discussion and resolution of disagreements.
Krste & John:
Emphasize that the policy change centers on documenting consensus, not altering how it's formed through discussion and collaboration.
Clarify that the "active" member definition aims to prevent individuals who haven't participated from blocking decisions, ensuring that those invested in the process have a voice.
Phillipp:
Acknowledges the need for a more inclusive and asynchronous approach, suggesting formal meetings be reserved for urgent matters.
Highlights that the policy intends to formalize documentation of stage gates (e.g., public review readiness) where a clear record of agreement is necessary.
Robert:
Supports the necessity for a formal process to ensure all voices are heard, and requests or concerns are handled transparently, preventing them from being silently dropped.
Clarifications and Points of Contention:
Definition of "Active" Member:
Extensive debate revolves around how to accurately define "active" participation, considering various contribution channels beyond meeting attendance.
Concerns are raised about the feasibility of synchronous meetings for global members and the need to document contributions across platforms like GitHub and mailing lists.
Voting Procedures:
Disagreement persists on whether voting should be synchronous or asynchronous, public or private. Concerns about potential bias in public voting and the need to accommodate different time zones are raised.
Documentation and Tools:
The organization's use of multiple platforms for communication and contribution (Google Docs, GitHub, mailing lists) poses a challenge for consistent documentation.
Suggestions are made to utilize tools like Jira to streamline and centralize communication and record all contributions and decisions.
Resolution and Next Steps:
Despite the concerns, the board of directors has approved the proposed policy change.
Key outstanding issues include:
- Clarifying the definition of "active" participation to encompass various contribution forms.
- Addressing inconsistencies within the policy document and determining how to update it.
- Developing a rollout plan for the new policy.
- Deciding how to handle non-participating members and ensure their concerns are addressed.
- Specific action items arising from the meeting:
- Nick has submitted his detailed questions and concerns via email to policies@riscv.org.
- John to send the formal reply to Jeff for posting and dissemination.
- Krste, John and Andrea to collaborate on the rollout plan and tackle outstanding issues.
Tech Chairs Meetings in 2025
See email from November 26 explaining schedule (link)
Meetings scheduled. Reach out to help@riscv.org if you have questions.
Adjournment
Motion to Adjourn Made By: @Jeff Scheel
Seconded By: @Andrea Gallo
Time Adjourned: 09:05 PT
RISC-V International