Time

Agenda Item

Lead

Notes

3 min

• Start recording

• Welcome & antitrust notice

• Introduction of new members

• Agenda review

Chairs

• Antitrust Policy Notice: Attendees are reminded to adhere to the meeting agenda and not participate in activities prohibited under antitrust and competition laws. Only members of ToIP who have signed the necessary agreements are permitted to participate in this activity beyond an observer role.

• New Members:

5 min

Announcements

All

Updates of general interest to TATF members.

• The Governance Stack Working Group has a special topic meeting on Oct 20th at which @Drummond Reed has proposed to brief them on the Technology Architecture Spec so they can better understand the "governance targets". Who else wants to join him to help present the spec and answer questions? @Wenjing Chu to join Drummond

5 min

Review of previous action items

Chairs

ToIP Technology Architecture Specification Review Topics

Discussion of progress on the working draft of the ToIP Technology Architecture Specification (TAS). Links to relevant documents and diagrams:

• TAS GitHub Markdown version

• TAS GitHub issues list

• TAS Source Diagrams (Google Slides) <== SOURCE DIAGRAMS used in the TAS

• ToIP Protocol Stack Diagrams (Google Slides) <== All of all our past diagrams (some of which have been copied to TAS Source Diagrams)

• TAS WORKING DRAFT 03 Google doc version <== REFERENCE ONLY — NO LONGER ACTIVE

• TAS OLD WORKING DRAFT 02 Google Doc version <== REFERENCE ONLY — NO LONGER ACTIVE

• Evolution of the ToIP Stack <== NEW proposed companion document

• TATF Google Drive Folder <== WHERE ALL OF THE ABOVE may be found

5 mins

GitHub Discussions

@Andor

Proposal to turn on GHP Discussions for our repo. See this guide if you are new to GitHub Discussions.

DECISION: We will turn on Github Discussions in our Github repo.

ACTION: @Drummond Reed to ask @Elisa Trevino turn on the Discussions feature in our Github repo.

10 mins

Labels for GitHub issues

@Drummond Reed @Andor 

Andor raised issue #37 for us to figure out the set of labels we want to use for organizing and prioritizing our work on GitHub issues. The thread so far has arrived at this list (see the thread for more details):

• priority-1

• priority-2

• priority-3

• defer-to-V2

• editorial

• substantial

• correction

• needs-special-group

• needs-proposal

• needs-PR

• PR-exists

• last-call-to-close

Is this list complete? Any revisions or additions?

ACTION: @Drummond Reed to update the GitHub Issues Management wiki page to include: a) this revised list of labels, b) a table explaining how each label ties into the process, c) more detail about the Editor role, including managing issue assignments, d) the Maintainer role. DONE.

ACTION: @Andor volunteered to implement the set of labels in issue #37. DONE.

10 mins

GitHub roles and merge management process

@Andor 

Andor posted the following two issues so we can start moving forward at speed with issues processing:

• #45: Decide roles and provide permissions -

ACTION: Editors to come up with a list of proposed permissions and work with @Elisa Trevino to assign the necessary access rights.

• #40: Merge process discussion - Whats the process and who can merge? 

  @wenjing suggested break out: Editor and Maintainer.

  Antti:

  • Maintainer decides what goes into which version. Own the document/published version.

  • Someone needs to decide who goes into the release.

   

ACTION: @Antti Kettunen volunteered to propose a repo management process. DONE.

• Abbie:

  • It can help to assign a Lead editor who can help drive decisions among the Editors.

  • Drummond agreed and suggested letting the Editors self-organize.

ACTION:  @Christine Martin and/or @Drummond Reed to create an #tswg-tech-arch-editors channel on Slack. DONE.

10 mins

Review a set of issues and their proposed labels

@Drummond Reed 

To get us going, Drummond has added comments including proposed labels on the following issues: #36, #34, #32, #31, #29.

APAC:

We discussed issue #31, which concerns the differences between Figure 4 in Working Draft 03 (Google doc) and Figure 4 in the Github Markdown document.

@Andor very helpfully copied both figures into the issue so it is much easier to compare them.

@Jo Spencer added a comment about what he believes the essence of the distinction is.

ACTION: @Drummond Reed to collect his thoughts on issue #31 and add a comment.

5 mins

Plan for the upcoming week

Editors

Given that the APAC call consisted of just four editors (Andor, Christine, Jo, Drummond), we concluded that with the labels now set up and assignments being made, we should be able to proceed asynchronously at maximum speed over the next week.

ACTION: @Drummond Reed to post a message to the #tswg-tech-arch-tf channel urging all TF members to being self-assigning and working issues.

5 mins

• Review decisions/action items

• Planning for next meeting 

Chairs

Next week's meeting should focus entirely reviewing, assigning, and closing issues.