2024-02-22 API backlog minutes

Attendees

Agenda Proposal

• Antitrust Policy

• Approval of minutes of last conf. call

• Recent Updates & Recap

• Review of Action Points

• Discussion
  
  

  • OGW Drop 3 APIs: 336, 375, 376

  • Other APIs: 351, 372, 378, 383

  • Governance: 367

• Action Points

• AOB

• Q&A

Antitrust Policy

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 LinusFoundation.   Antitrust Policy

Open

New Procedures in API Backlog WG meetings

A number of improvements are under discussion with leadership team of OGW project (Henry), CAMARA Project (Markus), Product Definition WS (Helene) and TSC (Herbert). As of today, the WG adopted agreements are three:

1. To close the agenda SEVEN DAYS BEFORE the conf. call.

   • In case a WG participant wants to include a point in the agenda (e.g., present a new API proposal), this participant shall ensure the corresponding issue is opened in Github by then.

   • Exceptional situations will be treated separately.

2. New schedule of conf. calls

   • 2nd Thursday of the month (10-11 CET)

   • 4th Thursday of the month (15-16 CET)

3.  Send agenda to TSC mail list, to encourage more TSC member companies to join the call and provide comments when they identify APIs which are of interest for them. 

Meeting Minutes within Wiki instead of Github

• CAMARA community agreed that meeting minutes would only be recorded in the wiki

Approval of minutes of last conf. call

• Minutes of last API backlog WG call available here

  • DECISION: The minutes are approved. 

Recent Updates & Recap

Backlog table

• Table updated in PR#387

Review of Action Points

Discussion

Current Issues 

Closed Issues

New Issues

Action Points

Decision Points

AoB

Next conf. call: 14th March, 10-11 CET.

Q&A

How does CAMARA API pipeline work?

The pipeline consists of FOUR stages:
A. Submission of the API proposal.
B. Evaluation of the API proposal.
C. API proposal voting & decision.
D. Sub-Project setup.

The following clauses provides details on individual stages.

Stage A: Submission of the API proposal

Participants: API owner.
Description: The proccess is detailed here. To proceed with the submission, the API owner shall follow these steps:

1. Fill in the template available here and save it with the following name: "APIproposal_<APIname>_<owner>. md" locally.

2. Create a new issue in the API Backlog Working Group repository, labeled with "API Backlog".

3. Upload the filled-in template to GitHub repository folder for API proposals via Pull Request. This Pull Request shall be associated to the issue created in the previous step.

Stage B: Evaluation of the API proposal

Participants: API owner, API backlog WG.
Description: The proccess is detailed here. Upon submission, the API owner will present the proposal in the next API backlog WG meeting, to socialize it with the rest of partners. In paralell..

1. The WG chair checks that the template is duly filled in. Otherwise, the API owner is requested to provide missing information.

2. After this sanity check, each WG participant declares their support. If a company wants to become supporter of an API, then a delegate of this company needs to add the company's name in the 'supporters' column in the API backlog table. The more support an API proposal gets, the better (it may get more traction).

3. When the API owner considers the API proposal is in good shape to go for approval, it informs the WG chair accordingly.

4. Upon receiving this information, the WG chair merges the Pull Request into the main branch, and sends the API proposal to the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) of CAMARA. This action shall be completed at least one week prior to the TSC meeting where the API proposal will be voted upon.

The whole procedure (steps 1-4) should be done within 2 regular meetings of the API Backlog WG. Nonetheless, it is up to the API owner to decide if it wants to shorten or extend this time period.

Stage C: API proposal & voting decision

Participants: TSC.
Description: The proccess is detailed here. Upon receiving the API proposal and notification from the API backlog WG chair, the TSC studies the proosal and votes it at the next TSC meeting.

NOTE 1: Possible decisions outcomes:

• Not Accepted: The API proposal is rejected, and thus will not be included in any API Sub-Project. The TSC will need to inform the API backlog WG of this decision, and clarify next steps: either (1) remove this API proposal from backlog, with objecting companies providing justifications why; or (2) ask for changes (e.g., clarifications, corrections, gaps to be addressed) required in order for the API to be re-submitted by the API supporters.

• Accepted: In this case, the TSC shall specify whether the API proposal is to be hosted by a new or existing Sub Project.

NOTE 2: The TSC may also propose changes to an API proposal and take the decision considering these changes. The TSC documents the decision in the CAMARA API overview list (fills in columns TSC date and TSC decision / Sub Project; in case of a No-Go "Rejected" is documented there).

Stage D: Sub-Project setup

Participants: API backlog WG, TSC, CAMARA admin team
Description: If an API proposal is accepted and there is a neeed to open a new Sub-Project, the following steps are needed:

1. Supporting companies propose their initial maintainers to be added for the Sub-Project. The API backlog WG chair centralizes this information, and sends it to the TSC.

2. The TSC will use this input to oficially nominate the initial maintainers by next TSC meeting.

3. The CAMARA admin team creates the Sub-Project repository.

NOTE: After the initial maintainers are nominated, the criteria for further maintainers would be three months of active contribution to the sub project. Code owners are to be decided by the maintainers within the subproject.