Open Community (TDC) Meeting, Thursday 25 April 2024

[github-actions]

Weekly meetings happen on Thursdays at 9am - 10am Pacific

This agenda gives visibility into discussion topics for the weekly Technical Developer Community (TDC) meetings. Sharing agenda items in advance allows people to plan to attend meetings where they have an interest in specific topics.

Whether attending or not, anyone can comment on this issue prior to the meeting to suggest topics or to add comments on planned topics or proposals.

Meetings take place over Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/975841675, dial-in passcode: 763054

Accessibility & Etiquette

• Participants must abide by our Code-of-Conduct.

• Meetings are recorded for future reference, and for those who are not able to attend in-person.

• We invite you to feel comfortable to challenge any language or behaviour that is harmful or not inclusive during this meeting.

• We look forward to your participation, but please consider these acts of etiquette:

  • Remain on mute when not speaking to prevent interruptions.
  • Blur your background to reduce visual distractions.
  • Use the Zoom meeting "Raise Hand" feature to notify the group when you wish to speak.

Blur My Background	Raise Hand

Agenda Structure

Topic	Owner	Decision/NextStep
Intros and governance meta-topics (5 mins)	TDC
Reports from Special Interest Groups (5 mins)	SIG members
Any other business (add comments below to suggest topics)	TDC
Approved spec PRs	TDC
New issues needing attention	@OAI/triage

/cc @OAI/tsc please suggest items for inclusion.

[handrews]

TSC: Please feel free to reorder / re-prioritize this list either during the meeting or by editing it before then.

Let's wrap up the issue label maintenance work:

• Audit, reorganize, and document labels (and probably also milestones) #3509 (comment)
  • Related to review label: If an issue is open with a clear request, no serious objections and no recent activity, it should be non-controversial to submit a PR for it.
  • I am not asserting that every issue in this state currently really can be treated as "approved for PR", only that it should be clear
  • Since that is not currently the case, we should use the review label (or similar new label) to get the TSC to make a call on issues and either close them or deem them available for PR. It's frustrating to submit a PR on something that looks easy and non-controversial and be told "I don't think we should do this."

Un-blocking OASComply:

• Limit interoperable parsing expectations (avoid type conflicts) #3732 (new approach to maintaining compatibility while restricting what is needed for compliance)

Other recent PRs that require some thought:

• Be more clear about format support (3.1.1) #3726 (set user expectations regarding format validation, as it causes a lot of problems)
• Correctly escape example operationRef URLs #3731 (is operationRef a URI that should be properly encoded, or something else?)
• Clarify how to model binary data in 3.1 #3727 (a potentially confusing topic)
• Clarify how to model streaming binary data #3729 (how to apply maxLength to byte streams, as suggested by the TSC in 2018)
• Explain that dynamic refs can implement generics #3714 (this needs at least one more review, but I think @ralfhandl and I resolved the questions that had me put it on this list originally)

Security PR round-up:

• ciba-grant-3.2.0.md #3615 (updated in response to feedback from the past week's call)
• Clarify openIdConnectUrl #3630 #3718 (new clarification) see also:
  • Where should openIdConnectUrl point to? #3630

3.2 Release scope question:

• Did we break 3.2 compatibility by removing the Path Item $ref special case? #3734

[miqui]

@handrews Should we also add #3731 to the agenda?

[handrews]

[EDIT: I was wrong, apparently we need to debate even this.]

@miqui I decided against adding all of the simple ones to the agenda- that's just a URLencoding error, it's either correct or not and shouldn't require discussion. If no one has merged it by Thursday I'll poke people offline. I've just been adding the ones that need discussions.

I posted like 15 PRs this week, there's no way we'd get through all of them in one meeting anyway, and I want to make sure other folks get included (which is why I included the security PR round-up in my agenda comment).

[miqui]

[EDIT: I was wrong, apparently we need to debate even this.]

@miqui I decided against adding all of the simple ones to the agenda- that's just a URLencoding error, it's either correct or not and shouldn't require discussion. If no one has merged it by Thursday I'll poke people offline. I've just been adding the ones that need discussions.

I posted like 15 PRs this week, there's no way we'd get through all of them in one meeting anyway, and I want to make sure other folks get included (which is why I included the security PR round-up in my agenda comment).

Hi @handrews , your point about not adding simple PRs to the agenda is indeed valid. I am extra careful

[spacether]

Where are the meeting minutes?

[lornajane]

@spacether We don't take formal minutes of the meetings, but a transcript should be available I think. @earth2marsh can you help me locate that please? Also if there's anything you're expecting an update on, the individual issues and pull requests are usually updated with discussion summaries as we go along - or ask and we'll do our best to answer! Hope that helps

[earth2marsh]

I believe the transcript is part of the video/audio assets available here: https://zoom.us/rec/play/UQAyguzJCoOdHEzNi2HMdMDjhVdfGWtFIj_AxHGoe3yNIoI0yRA66q426hRKxDtOYSBA25O0qc8TmWoU.qEPWbht216JE6QBz