Agenda

Antitrust Policy

• Review the APIs which are targeting "stable" maturity in the Fall24 meta-release #189 
  Open "Review" issues from https://github.com/camaraproject/ReleaseManagement/issues

  • ConnectivityInsights r1.1 release review #74

  •  NumberVerification r1.1 release review #67 

  •  NetworkAccessManagement r1.1 release review #66 

  •  WebRTC r1.1 release review #53 

• ICM text should not state that Telco Operators are the ones providing these APIs #190

• ICM Public Release

Minutes

Topic 1 #189

• Added a comment to https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement/issues/189#issuecomment-2288892167 asking for timeline and clarification

• @Jesús Peña García-Oliva explained what he thinks needs clarification. Details in https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement/issues/189#issuecomment-2273260482

• @Axel Nennker said that ICM should not review Review Issues that ReleaseManagement already closed.

• @Jesús Peña García-Oliva thinks it worthwhile to check stable APIs might leak information like discussed in https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/issues/259

Topic 2 #190

• @Randy Levensalor raised an issue about the use of the term “Telco” in the ICM documentation, suggesting it should be replaced with a more generic term like "network operators." @Jesús Peña García-Oliva reviewed the issue and provided feedback in https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement/issues/190#issuecomment-2275216864. Jesus believes that there is actually a more fundamental "problem" with CAMARA and the references to "Telco". You could take a look at https://camaraproject.org/ for example.

• @Axel Nennker suggested creating a PR that rephrases ICM's readme.md 
  That would change ICM's scope and has to be approved TSC although the change is probably minor. (Replacing Telco by something else)
  Add to that PR explanations what other changes are needed if we want to replace "Telco" which would mean that subprojects have to change (later) because changes are in common texts.

Topic 3 #146

• @Jesús Peña García-Oliva expressed concern about when the ICM public release will be completed, which is blocking progress on certain ICM backlog issues. Because not doing so prevents other PRs from being merged into main.

• @Axel Nennker suggested to create branches for future releases but remarks that needs special care while merging.

@Axel Nennker thanked everyone for attending and asked participants to contribute/comment on ICM issues. Axel encouraged attendees to review older issues in the ICM backlog to determine if any can be closed.

Next Steps

• Clarifications needed: TSC and release management to provide input on the scope of ICM review and the "Telco" terminology.

• Backlog cleanup: (All participants) Continue reviewing backlog issues to reduce pending items.

Next meeting 2024-08-28