2023-02-01 TAC Minutes

Attendees & Representation (default sort: member first name)

TAC Members and Project representatives should mark their attendance below 
Non-TAC project reps do not count towards meeting quorum

X = Present | P = Proxy  (Indicate in the table with @name for @name

LF Staff: @Casey Cain @LJ Illuzzi @Ranny Haiby @Sandra Jackson (Deactivated) 

Community: @Timo Perala 

Agenda

• Start the Recording

• We will start by mentioning 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 LF.

  • Antitrust Policy

• Roll Call

• Action Items Review

• Agenda Bashing

• General Topics

  • Developer & Testing Forum February @Casey Cain 

  • New Technology research @Ranny Haiby 

    • New space for collaboration - 2023 Research (General)

  • Operations Survey @Casey Cain 

  • Review LFN Induction Process @djhunt @Casey Cain

  • Security best practices review @Amy Zwarico 

• Any Other Topics

Minutes

Developer & Testing Forum

• Is it too soon?  Feedback was presented to the program committee was asked if we should move the event to March?

  • @Gergely Csatari We discussed this on our TSC and agreed to keep the original planned date.  However it would have been nice to discuss this a bit earlier.

  • @Cédric Ollivier I'd like to see more sessions and less "Plenary topics"

New Technology Research

• @Ranny Haiby created a new space on the wiki for community collaboration:
  
  

  • https://lf-networking.atlassian.net/wiki/x/OGbv

  • Ranny asked that the TAC review the topics provided and to add any topics that they believe we should be discussing. 

    • @Gergely Csatari What is the purpose

    • @Ranny Haiby We were asked at the governing board to assess new technologies that the LFN should be collaborating with or expanding into.

Operations Survey

• @Casey Cain discussed the Operations Survey and requested any feedback be submitted to him.

  • https://linuxfoundation.surveymonkey.com/r/RN6HQYK

LFN Induction Review

• @Casey Cain @djhunt discussing the review of the induction process.

• LFN Project Lifecycle
  
  

  • @djhunt reviewed the criteria for LFN induction.

  • @cl664y@att.com  We should keep overlap to a minimum.

  • @djhunt If we artificially limit the projects, we may miss something important.  It is up to the companies supporting the LFN to decide who to support with resources.

  • @Casey Cain noted that there has been a question about how resources are assigned to "new shiny objects" in the LFN without maintaining appropriate resources for projects that may have production dependencies. 

    • @Frank Brockners Perhaps we need to specify in the review process that we are happy to review projects that have overlap, but there should be a statement about any collaboration efforts.

    • Wording in the template should be updated to be clear what is and is NOT required.  For example, not requiring information on how they fit in with other LFN project

      • suggest that make the template a Powerpoint, so not having to adapt the wiki template to a presentation

      • We should also review the Sandbox induction services.

Security Best Practices

• @Amy Zwarico we should focus on software supply chain security.

  • There should be a focus on a few things in 2023

    • Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) should be a focus of all of our communities in 2023.

    • There should be a cadence of replacing 3rd party packages that have gone stale

    • SBOMs should also be signed to provide some level of authenticity (extra credit). 

Action items