/
2025-09-18 TSC Minutes

2025-09-18 TSC Minutes

DRAFT MINUTES

Attendees & Representation

TSC Members may indicate their attendance with an X in the far column

Representatives

Organization

Role

 

@Herbert Damker

Deutsche Telekom AG

Maintainer

X

@Shilpa Padgaonkar

T-Mobile US

Maintainer

x

@Jan Friman

Ericsson

Maintainer

x

@Toshi Wakayama

KDDI

Maintainer

x

@Ludovic Robert

Orange

Maintainer

x

@Tanja de Groot

Nokia

Maintainer, Release Manager

x

@diego.gonzalezmartinez

Telefonica

Maintainer

x

@Jose Luis Urien Pinedo

Telefónica

Maintainer

 

@Eric Murray

Vodafone

Maintainer

 

@Mahesh Chapalamadugu

Verizon

Maintainer

x

@Nick Venezia

Centillion.ai

EUC Representative

 

@massimiliano.troiani

Verizon

EUC Representative

 

@Doug Makishima

Summit Tech

EUC Representative

 

George Glass

alt: @Olta Vangjeli

TM Forum

TM Form Representative

 

@Henry Calvert

alt: @Mark Cornall

GSMA

GSMA Representative 

x

Community members may use @name tag to mark their attendance

Community: @Kevin Smith @Murat Karabulut @Sébastien Dewet @Pierre Close @Jorge Garcia Hospital @Rafal Artych @Mahesh Chapalamadugu @Artur Krukowski

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action Item Review

LF Staff: @Casey Cain

Agenda

The project's Antitrust Policy is linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important when multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review it, and if you have any questions, please contact your company's legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.

  • Review and approval of previous meeting minutes

  • Action Items Review

  • General Topics

    • Governance & project management issues

    • Release Management

    • API Backlog

    • Commonalities

    • Identity & Consent Management

  • Specific Topics

    • Progress on MCP Whitepaper

    • Zulip Discussion (Casey Cain)

  • Any Other Topics

Minutes

Review and approval of previous meeting minutes

Action Item Review

Governance & Project Management issues

Release Management (@Tanja de Groot)

  • https://lf-camaraproject.atlassian.net/wiki/x/FQApAg

  • M4

    • 60 APIs from 40 repositories are delivered in the Fall25 meta-release

      • All release PRs are available.

        • 10 stable APIs (9 updated from Spring25 and one new: device-swap)

        • 23 new APIs

        • 27 updated Spring25 initial APIs

    • M4 declaration

      • At the target date Aug 31, all API release PRs were available.

      • Release Management reviews have been running till Sep 15

      • 38 API repositories have been released for M4.

      • 2 API repositories are still to be released.

        • A few small comments remain to be integrated and the APIs will be released shortly. No major issues are outstanding.

      • Based on the above it is proposed that M4 is declared in this TSC: accepted

  • M5

    • M5 date: TSC meeting of September 18

    • M5 declaration

      • Given the above status, decision of the TSC on the M5 milestone declaration is: yes

    • The CAMARA Github home page will be updated after the meeting with GSMA input on the API categories.

  • M6

    • As part of the feedback period about the meta-release several proposals are ongoing and can be reviewed. You can also provide additional feedback. please see the minutes of the last TSC meeting (Release Management / M6 part).

  • Spring26 meta-release

    • Commonalities and ICM are preparing content for Spring26

    • Request to make a new time plan for the Spring26 and Fall26 meta-release based on the new approach

    • The meta-release progress reporting and the release process itself will be automated forward (kudos to Herbert)

API Backlog (@Jorge Garcia Hospital)

  • Topics to be approved:

    • API proposed for review for Sandbox: Sponsored Data:

      • Proposed by Telecom Argentina, original issue #223 and API proposal #224 (with additional information).

      • Sandbox repository to be independent.

      • Decision on last TSC (link): [delayed] - Due to short time to review an offline approval will be done by vote (by next Thursday)

        • Vote: 6 in favor (+1, 2 abstain (0), no objections (-1) => Sandbox API Repository is approved and can be created

    • #253 [Repository Transition]: Join DedicatedNetworks into Quality On Demand Sub Project

      • Objective: To request the formal incorporation of the DedicatedNetworks Sandbox API Repository into the Quality On Demand Sub Project, and to seek API Backlog WG endorsement for TSC approval.

      • Background: The DedicatedNetworks, QoSBooking, and QualityOnDemand APIs are all focused on managing network connectivity quality. Although DedicatedNetworks is currently outside the Sub Project, the three APIs are strongly aligned in both scope and contributor base. This proposal builds on ongoing collaboration already taking place between the teams.

      • Rationale:

        • The APIs have natural synergies: Dedicated slice provisioning (DedicatedNetworks), on-demand QoS assignment (QoSBooking), and general connectivity triggers (QualityOnDemand).

        • Collaborative work is already happening

      • Next steps (pending approval):

        • DedicatedNetworks remains a Sandbox repo but becomes part of the Sub Project

        • Wiki page is relocated under the Sub Project section

        • Regular joint meetings continue with breakouts as needed

        • Sub Project renaming to Connectivity Quality Management is under discussion (QualityOnDemand#498)

      • No comments or objections from the Backlog WG

      • Decision: No objections - approved

  • Other topics:

    • Update on Proposal “Dual-Phase Meta-Release Strategy”: https://github.com/camaraproject/Governance/issues/194

      • We've started collecting feedback. In the KYC WG (Sep 16):

        • General support, no objections raised.

        • KDDI backed the model, including the 1 meta-release/year option. They request a transition path for commercially deployed APIs not yet stable, to avoid breaking changes.

        • TIM supports the Spring/Fall split and proposed 3 criteria for declaring an API Stable: (1) Spec is mature (WG-approved), (2) 2 commercial deployments, and (3) 1 full GSMA certification KDDI agreed with these criteria.

        • DT confirmed alignment.

        • 📎 Main issue: #194

        • 📎 WG discussion: KYC #35

        • Decision: More time for feedback on the proposals, but also start working on planning next steps as more details are needed to be discussed

          • Proposal from ReleaseManagement for a potential time plan for the next two meta-release (Spring26 and Fall26)

          • Analysis of impact on existing documents in Governance and ReleaseManagement

        • Separate issue on the criteria for declaring an API Stable in Governance (current criteria, proposed changes)

          • e.g. requirement on test statements which we have today, but mostly not delivered

    • Upcoming Archiving of Inactive API Proposals

      • In line with the Frozen API process, we’ve identified several proposals that have reached or are approaching the 6-month inactivity threshold. All relevant API Proposal owners have been contacted. Unless objections are raised, formal archiving will proceed in the next Backlog WG meeting.

    • Clean-up processs

      • This is an early draft proposal under discussion in the API Backlog Working Group, aiming to introduce a lightweight, transparent and reversible cleanup process for inactive contributions in the CAMARA catalog — specifically onboarding trackers and repositories that show no meaningful progress after initial approval.

      • Context: While the “frozen” label applies to API Proposals, no governance mechanism currently exists for:

        • Onboarding trackers stuck in an incomplete state

        • Repositories without signs of validation, activity or adoption

      • Draft Proposal (Work-in-Progress): Introduce unified archiving criteria that would be reviewed after each meta-release cycle (Fall/Spring), allowing the Backlog WG to propose archival when:

        • Onboarding trackers show no progress after 6+ months

        • Repositories lack commits, WG engagement or release inclusion
          → Archival is proposed if 3+ criteria are met and no response is received within 2 weeks of notification.

      • What It Aims to Enable:

        • Consistent lifecycle logic (proposal → tracker → repo)

        • Better visibility and expectations for contributors

        • Noise reduction across GitHub, backlog and Wiki

      • Next steps: formal presentation at the next TSC

Commonalities (@Rafal Artych )

Identity & Consent Management (@Sébastien Dewet for @Axel Nennker )

MCP Paper progress

  • Content is copied into the wiki to discuss the editor comments, session is recorded and made available to the editor

  • Merged two categories of audience (AI developer and Enterprises)

  • Waiting for next edition from editor

Zulip (@Casey Cain)

  • Zulip

    • Alternative, open source alternative to Slack, target platform and partnership selected by Linux Foundation

    • No requirement to change, an offer by Linux Foundation

      • Long-term message retention, option to use bots

      • More functionality than Slack free plans with no costs to the projects

      • Web UI available

    • Request to join and get a feeling for the platform to prepare a decision in future, give feedback to @Casey Cain

    • Decision about communication tools in the project will be taken eventually within the TSC

    • Create issue in Governance to collect feedback on potential change to Zulip @Ludovic Robert

Any Other Business

  • none

Next Meeting

  • Next TSC Meeting will be on October 2nd, 9:00 UTC

  • Specific agenda topics backlog:

    • ...

    • ... 

Action items