 here we go welcome everyone this is the Jenkins governance board meeting it's november the 14th 2022 thanks everyone for joining topics that we've got on the agenda for today include news ideas action items elections cdf topics and forum and community topics are there any other topics that need to be added to the agenda let's see what i am able to document is a silly until we reach the topic okay all right okay let's see and i need to make a quick note so that i've got list of who's here etc bruno basal gavin serash oh like great so brief notes okay in terms of news any items that people want to highlight i just added it but 2.361.4 just is either being released or is released i don't know the tense of that um yes go ahead sorry no i'm just thinking more news but always finish whatever you're doing because i don't know anything about it oh oh so it was with the fix for a an issue that was blocking a large some large deployments some large-scale use of jankins at at high visibility customers at high visibility users so thanks to to basal for leading that and to tim jacom and um alex brandas for making sure that it happened all the way to the end i haven't double checked the release checklist but i know that tim created the release checklist and i've seen the the release changelog and upgrade guide appear on jankins.io as expected i figure if it's not out right now by the time this gets posted it'll be out so exactly certainly yeah good point so 2.375.1 is the next lts baseline uh scheduled to release november 30th 2022 any any others that news that other people would like to highlight okay then let's take on the next topic gavin i believe you had added this and thanks for doing it um so the first these were ideas on how to make i think ideas how to make the governance meeting more effective and one was set up the empty agenda for the next meeting at the end of the previous meeting and i agree with that one that let's put that one as a mark weight action item just just the empty one so that we can add topics before an hour before the next one type thing exactly i think that makes sense good okay very good uh the next one is something probably longer term but as i'm working on building web components and building out the the header i noticed and actually all the issues with the operator i've been noticing that there's uh two two sections two lists of sub projects and they they don't match up and a lot of them are not really valid anymore so like like the menu drop down here doesn't list blue ocean but the page does this blue ocean and whether or not we want to call blue ocean a sub project and then things like jenkins x uh actually jenkins x is not on there but i was thinking it should be under the cdf now because it's it's pretty much unrelated to jenkins these days other than by name so things like that i think we should uh this is i think a board topic because things whether or not they're an actual official project or not also i don't really understand the difference between a sub project and a sake so i thought we should kind of organize that a bit yeah so i had it on my long term wish list before i went to a kind of sabbatical but yeah i can explain the status so for sub projects page basically this page is generated monitor so for six-cylindic page it's generated automatically i wrote it uh news i'm a woman i was in harm a woman i was uh prepared that but projects remained manual and one of the reasons was because somebody wanted to show blue ocean highlights etc that page despite the alphabetical order but what we can do at the moment my suggestion would be given is right we should remove it but i would suggest just create another listing for archived projects and put them there so basically retain all the links maybe add a header that this project is archived keep the content and remove it from the listing i like that that feels like a good a good a good way to approach it so create it you set an archive projects list that way we retain the links yeah good okay uh yeah and there was a separate part difference between sub projects and six so i guess it'd be discussed at one of the contributor summits for me in practice there is no difference so i would try to squash them into a single list at the moment we discussed that uh yeah we have never implemented that i'm not exactly looking forward to implementing any code with abstract these days but yeah in principle it would make sense to complete it but i think it should be completed along with archiving connective six as well because many six like cloud native one i'm not sure about the status of platform seek it's definitely around but uh platform sake is very active yeah uh it's your your point is well taken cloud native sig pipeline authoring sig there are several that are on the list that are chinese localization from what i know is also inactive right yeah i can only ask rick but from what i know they wanted to move to the cdf level the cdf level didn't exactly play the ball so i was the sponsor we started it but then there was no meeting organized by seek organizers in over two months so we kind of archived this effort as that arrival uh but uh yeah why would archive it and drink this too well i like the idea of archive again it's not a destruction it's rather a moving it into a separate status right that says hey someone wants to bring this back we're ready to bring it back yeah so for cloud native seek i would definitely like to keep the content because yeah the pluggable storage discussion keeps happening every month or so um so i would appreciate if you could keep these links even if we archive the seek right i like that okay um i'd also really like to get rid of the chinese site because it's really out of date it's it hasn't been updated in least 2019 if not 2018 and to me that's worse than having a partially translated site but uh should we send a notice to rick i'm not gonna lead that charge so i don't care what happens it's one of those things i'd like to see fixed no it's okay i cannot send a notice to rick okay so i guess no one would object the question is how we archive it so what exactly it constitutes because for example we can remove this redirect which has been a pain for quite a while but whether we should keep hosting it because from what i remember we still hosted the site from our infrastructure i i don't know because there's so much of that sake that's been self-hosted in weird ways i think we we maintain it and we host it but i don't know it's just it's a it's a confusing mess yeah i'm pretty sure we hosted at least i was participating in the discussions together with audio here when we were rolling yeah um but to go back because there was a message in chat about what does removing jeng's operator mean i was proposing when i wrote this up this is a higher up mark um higher up okay uh to remove it from the sub projects list because i don't feel like jeng's operator is a sub project it was something that was people were like yeah let's make it a sub project and then it's always been in its own isolated environment which is kind of what a sub project seems to be but same time i don't really want to advertise it because it's a support nightmare right now because no one's answering questions and it does things on its own and it's using old versions of jeng kids now so again these are not so much i'm saying get rid of the project but i don't want to advertise it anymore yeah so my only advice would be to send the notice to maintenance before it happens it can be done for example through the issue list or through the email i've created issues and no one's responding okay then people people are on on the slack and no one's responding so i i agree with this shouldn't be done in in isolation but i'm very very frustrated i confirm that they're not responsive too much at the moment so i have one question like i mean since we are actually using jeng kids operator in our infrastructure so i think we are going to be having another next release right maybe in month of december or january something like that we have any leaders around it mm-hmm veracode is not responding and they have pretty much insisted that they're the only people i'm sorry is it virtuous lab they've they've insisted that they're the only people that touch this operator we had uh volunteer and trying to engage with the operator in the past and they're like no we want to take control and then they disappear for a year and then the issue gets raised again and then a fight happens and then so i'm very biased against this i don't i don't like this group right now yeah so just to share some content context so you remember there was a drama between two operators one is virtuous lap one another one is redhat one yeah so basically when we gave a trademark usage approval for jeng kids operator and for virtual slab a part of the discussion was that we introduce open governance for the project and at that point the maintainers were open to that if the situation changed afterwards then i don't know i haven't been open governance was kind of confirmed yes then well i burned out then i left cloud bees so i didn't follow up on that but for me there was a confirmation that we proceed with open governance for this project these representatives from three entities so with the slab one of the members potentially redhat and one of jeng kids governance board's representatives yeah the only thing i can speak to is that's the apparent i i don't even know i don't i don't join slacks but apparently their slack is quiet dead and they're not responding on the forums and they're not responding to github issues so i don't uh there is another explanation for that because i do not know how operator is organized but then they span out the enterprise service so basically disappear operators are on a job and managed to a separate startup so maybe they just forgot to move community somewhere maybe but to me that it's not the makes us look really really bad you know people are coming in saying hey this doesn't work we're like yep we can't do anything about it right so either someone from the active community takes over from the project or they start responding or something but right now the the key thing for me is i don't want it listed i don't want a dead project listed on the site because it makes us look bad okay so the question is is it dead or is it looking for new maintainers because i opened the repository last committee day is june 29th so five months since now yeah i don't know uh if you actually look into the history of the religious i'm thinking like like in another maybe december or january there might be some other release and surash surash are you with virtus labs or what's what's i'm interested in that i'm just curious what your insight is that would hint that there would be an upcoming release um basically i'm actually just started you know working on creating genkins using genkins operator so they're like i'm exploring this genkins operator actually yeah okay but you're a user not a you're not not with virtus labs or with red hats okay thank you great all right i do know there's issues with java with them in java 11 which is how this came up right yeah so i i agree i think there's a new i feel like i've seen someone that someone mentioned there might be a new release with new genkins coming out soon but i can't remember where i saw it honestly i could have dreamt it for all i know okay so my proposal yeah i see your issues gavin i see there is no response so my proposal would be to explicitly say extend the maintenance list i can probably create these issues a board member because we had these conversations i can pull up the meeting notes but for me to suggest the strategy would be to basically encourage adoption of this project not to kill it yeah i don't necessarily want to kill it but i don't think it should be a sub project right well if nobody maintains it we archive it if someone steps up and takes over the maintenance or if virtus lab becomes active then it's a separate story yeah my this this whole subject is about whether or not we want sub projects and not whether or not we want jenkins operator yeah but i i think oleg's got a valid point that it's worth considering the whole the whole expense a whole thing not just the i i agree jenkins operator as a sub project doesn't make sense it's not active enough let's let's take that action immediately wholehearted agreement there the the bigger question if it's not adopted archive then archive it i think is worth carrying it forward into future board meetings for discussion to be sure hey what's this what's the status from virtus labs or others have we found someone to adopt it i was looking at the list of projects and i see remoting and configuration as code listed as well and that content on both of them is fairly out of date for example the configuration as code sub project has some reference to a meeting that doesn't occur anymore so you know one thing i could do is just migrate any content that still is relevant into their github readme's and then we could um either archive those two pages or just redirect them to the github readme where any remaining content would be left yeah it's reasonable well configuration as code its development is not detective at the moment well core functionality is stable there is of course a lot of things to happen but and for remoting i do not know so basically i guess it's a question to bazel whether and to jc whether they want to maintain this page i think there's already a lot of documentation in the github readme so i don't see a reason to highlight it elsewhere i mean it seems more like a marketing thing to me to kind of highlight that repository on the sub projects page but i don't think we have a real need to do that right now and at least not anymore than we would for any other Jenkins component like stapler or anything else so basically the whole point of projects remoting was to list all associated repositories because it's not just a remoting library it's also distributions for agents and installer models which are now plugins actually right so well and since they are plugins that code is archived so it needs an update but yeah it could be cleaned up i still think it makes sense to have it somewhere this listing yes it could be we could just keep it there but the first thing i would kill is remoting github chat because it's a reference from the page i just opened it there was a question in august obviously nobody answered to that so i think that we should just pull the plug on things that do not work yeah any meetings that no longer occur sorry any meetings that no longer occur or mailing lists that are no longer monitored and replied to i would not want to keep but i see your point about listing all of the repositories in that in that space in some kind of list you know that that list has slowly gone down a lot because now it's just uh remoting itself and a handful of other repositories for the docker images that that package remoting so it's a small number now there used like you said there used to be many more with the modules and i think that list could live in the respective readme's a feature repository i mean they could all just refer to the others if there's only two or three of them yeah might be so i don't feel strongly aware to put this content i definitely agree with you that we should remove the content that is no longer relevant and basically when i was introducing metadata for main increase for charts the idea was to facilitate discussions for particular areas well and to some extent it worked but now since the main channels are no longer active we just need to clean them up um on that note um if i think well okay so a hypothetical um infra proposal i want to make is to spin up a um a jenkins matrix server um purely for name spacing um i'm i got a couple ideas and a bit of research and i want to reach out to a vendor for it but the idea of matrix actually has a concept of spaces which would look look essentially like discord or uh slack workspaces and i'll write up a full um proposal on it so mark if you want to just like write a high level stuff and i'll write a proposal later but the idea is that we could you could tell people to join a um jenkin space and that'll list all the channels you can see what's active you can see it's kind of like what Gitter has but a little bit more control a little bit more that we have managed to right now Gitter is kind of a free form um so i'm going to look into that i'm still you know looking at options and stuff like that before making a full proposal but the idea is i want to make sure that you know our chat rooms are very clear which ones are active which ones are not where they're active how they're active that kind of thing because we have you know some projects having um Gitter chat rooms some having slack some having IRC and it's a mess it's confusing and it's hard to find and hard to trace and i kind of just want to finish cleaning that up so um i do intend to write up uh an info proposal pretty soon but just haven't got to it yet i have been doing a bit more research well we created chapters for sub projects on community the Jenkins.io yeah so i would argue that most of communications in the community are supposed to be asynchronous so using discourse for them is perfectly fine yeah and we can just close Gitter, IRC or whatever and direct people to discourse were relevant and to create matrix charts or whatever charts only for the cases where there is real time and discussion between contributors collaborating on the things yeah i don't think the contributors end up needing real-time chat i think they're quite happy using github and prs and stuff like that it's the support that wants the real-time chat well we don't provide support in the community so if someone wants to provide the support for a new component they're running crowd they're welcome to go ahead but i don't think that we should create charts just for fake notion that you provide some kind of support it would make sense for support of contributors let's say so in captain for example we had a help contributing channel which might make sense to have as a chart but i don't think that it's in the scope for this convo all i want to do is make sure that all of our stuff is in one spot that we can reference i'm not suggesting creating new chats in fact i want to shut down more chats but i don't want them when the current state where like one is on slack one is on discord one is on gitter one is on matrix and you have to go to each sub-project to find out which one's active in which spot and all i just want to have one spot listed easy to maintain easy to monitor that kind of thing i think we have discourse for that so yeah so by default i would take discourse it's fine i don't think you're uh it's a uniform belief though some people like they think some people don't right i i find i find the chat channels actually quite helpful on occasion for for quick conversations but valid point that so gavin you'll bring a you'll bring a proposal there you're evaluating it further yep getting some ideas uh i actually turns out i have a connection to the actual creator of matrix so i've been asking him questions so yeah i'm going to write a proposal pretty soon great all right so did i say that correctly considering the matrix name hosted namespace okay great excellent all right anything else on on the sub-projects topic or am i still let's see no we've still got more so gsoc 2020 projects i thought again that was just that was listed under sub-projects on that page okay so this is all you might want to move that one you just put in out of this section because this is all just about right got it thank you yes okay put it here yeah got it okay and again like we have infrastructure and gsoc as a project and we have the six so i was like i don't know if we want both yeah so so this one i the google summer of code where we've already started the preparations for 2023 uh john mark is is thinking about that and i like it being under sub-projects here what was your concern about having it there i think that should be renamed to sigs and put sigs there oh i see what you're saying i'm saying don't have them as sigs and sub-projects i yeah so if you squash them uh then it won't be a problem anymore i see okay so instead of calling it sub-projects here we conceptually could say this is sigs or special interest groups and then just list those here okay or move all the sigs to sub-projects i just don't want both got it i see yeah okay thank you so maybe we should just we could just squash them to working groups because i'm not a big fan of how sigs are organized now because let's say most of sigs being started now would be just temporary so for example java 19 compatibility working group which is the kind of under the umbrella of platform sikh in the current framework but i couldn't imagine starting a new long-term sikh which we would foresee to be happening let's say in a few years in the current state of the community so maybe just send the projects sigs whatever all of them are just working groups whether they are advocacy or whether they're component-wise nobody really cares right okay and we archive them as we want and that'll help a lot with the newsletter as well yeah okay so so that feels like a reasonable proposal to me and i think now we just got to figure out how to implement that any or so i'm this whole topic i mean yes i agree with that you know the concept of merging into working group was literally jenkins.io though if you go back to the tab you just had open uh mark uh if you scroll down scroll down literally here you'll see uh summer code on this page not on the menu on this page yeah it's my fault this one starts talking about oh maybe i'm looking wrong one of them was specifically talking about uh 2020 projects and i'm like that to me feels bad because it's 2020 and not no so this one's up to date oh okay right the the problem was that this is all a bit of a mess like there were things that are talking about 2020 and things are talking about 2022 and who's active and who wasn't and all i was saying is that we need to clean this up and get it organized because it when you talk about things that are two years old and not been updated since it feels unmaintained right so but i do like uh alec's comment of making more working groups i think that's a good one in general okay all right so in terms of a specific action item is that we we've got an action item to propose a transition to working groups and a restructure of the jenkins.io site to implement that so it would unify unify sub project the concept of sub projects and the concept of um sigs did i understand it correctly i'm sorry i'm muted um yeah i i think you got it right mark i think that's what mark and i were talking about i would also like to just specifically say any if we're messing with the nav bar i want to be tagged in a pr because i'm trying to make web components for the nav bar and i want to make sure they stay in sync i'm getting very close uh fighting with agolia right now but i'm very close oh cool all right and i think the new i've made the i mean it's unrelated to this topic but i've made the nav bar into a jason block so it should be a lot easier to add or remove things to the menu instead of trying to get that exact html right because it's kind of hard so very good all right so then does that that then yeah the same one with infrastructure i was confused why it was listed as both a project and a sig but it sounds like yeah the overlap isn't necessary it was a historical thing so we had a disagreement with lim where it has to be because he had strong opinions about where particular bits of community governance go so finally i ended up creating both uh i think we've seen much sense in that but i think working groups calling them working groups will help that a lot because uh as you pointed out a sig is a long-term thing and nifer is always going to be a sig but there are working groups that come and go and if we call them all working groups some long term some not that fixes that problem good all right so then i think anything else on the sub projects topic no i'm sorry that ended up taking half an hour i thought this would be a quick chat uh thanks for bringing it yeah i'm not complaining i just wasn't expecting the right people in the room to actually have the conversation oh leg knows history i know some history well done yeah okay well if i have some time this week maybe i'll give it a bite and try to implement no promises because i have examined french on saturday but uh yeah let's see okay all right next topic are we okay going on to next topic give this one should be relatively quickly i just find every time i load the the the google docs page it takes forever to load and render and i'm wondering if we want to archive the old stuff somewhere um i'm not even sure what we want to do longer term because mark's been putting them on the on discourse which may be good enough for archiving but yeah good good good point on discourse so i followed the the pattern i've used with other sigs and i've created an archive called archive zero one for december 2019 through september 22 and if no one if there's no disagreement i will remove the the content that's already copied to archive 01 from the master from the central copy so that we get back to having decent load time i don't want it in google docs oh yeah my recommendation would be to export to markdown actually now it's supported so you can export and put somewhere on the repository for example jkci governance we discussed a few times before okay all right i would rather start to that repository move with uh there i'm okay with the active notes being in docs um i do think the collaboration tools and docs are still better than most other ones um but i don't want it long term um especially because we just hit that with the meetings archive we lost the meeting archive from in the past because one of the servers are shut down so we should be making sure everything's in github because if github goes away we're screwed anyways but anything short of that i think we're you know we're good and it's easy to move out of github it's not easy to move out of every other service so i think archiving should go into github did we lose uh meetings dot jenkins ci.org uh we don't agree that we exported that before yeah no it did exist on a server but that server has been shut down when clonson should shut down so those files don't exist anymore so they're trying to track down and find it and it's in frozen on it but yeah so me everything should be archived to github like we do with wiki and everything else okay uh yeah i can check because when uh we were discussing github with olivia when we were moving the remaining mailing please yeah i'm pretty sure i asked to archive everything but i'm not 100% sure what happened next it was archived it was just we didn't archive the machine it was archived too yeah i might just have local backup yeah i said to reach out to you and i literally might have an actual snapshot of the machine so yeah that's an info discussion that they should be handling not me i just saw it on irc okay okay so so just for my clarity the preference is export to markdown and place it you said i put it in github yeah okay github is a big space i would put a new repo under jenkins info called meeting archived archives and put all these in it put the ones that we lost on from meeting site i don't think they need to be on the jenkins website i think it's just gonna be messy to put them there um but we can just start store the raw files somewhere okay that's not actually to create a repository for governance because remember something like one year ago we were discussing having a kind of task list uh open task list so that people could contribute to governance well now you can create fancy dashboards projects on github so we can could just gradually consolidate some of these runtime activities on the governance repo okay also for example i could put for example cdf governance updates on project status etc etc so i think the repo would be beneficial ah good all right so so and jenkins info is okay then because it's really not code jenkins info is a reasonable organization so my my distinction is if it's if end users are going to use it it goes in jenkins ci if it's part of the jenkins project it goes in intro or sorry it's used to host the jenkins project it goes in intro i think that it rather goes to jenkins ci uh because i don't have opinions well it's the main part it's more discoverable for contributions plus if we ever decide to move topics like roadmap etc is beneficial for us to have it on jenkins ci because there is no way to make great between organizations on github which is pain in the butt every time you try uh so i would rather keep it on jenkins ci right away yeah no objections from me either way are you okay with it either way gavin i i slightly think info but i don't have a strong opinion wherever it goes is fine okay all right okay well so and and let's put the action in mark discussed because with damien uh as part of the the meeting archive recovery right because that that's a good a good place to say hey should i be placing more things there sig meeting notes uh google sum of code meeting notes all those kinds of things that should and i don't mind doing the actual export so like if you want to wouldn't you talk to damien get sorted out i can separate each meeting into multiple files and do like just like the previous meeting things was um i don't mind doing that work it's kind of put music on and get it done type things so yeah all right so what uh other projects normally do for example in ccf tax and six they create a repository for each entity and basically let them control it as they wish for example in jenki's we already have cqx repository yeah so maybe we could just make it a kind of normal that all six well working groups and whatever they have a separate repository for their content and manage them at that there they can also create a roadmap in their repository uh whatever they want okay and actually even get half discussions if they dare to take get half discussions but yeah we can discuss it later kevin because i do have some funny news for you but yeah it's a separate thing i just don't want to have more silos of communication yeah fair fair enough anything else on meeting agenda truncation nope okay next question was from gavin and this one gavin this is a personal one for me i'm i'm more and more dismayed at the at the low quality of search that is affecting me personally and directly on it's getting worse it's getting worse it's like i i know i'm reverting on occasions to search with google i don't using site colon jenkins.io and it's like oh that's really bad um i can't upgrade to the new ui the new ui is nice but all that's done by management in the dashboard that neither you nor i have access to i'll reach out to damian but i think i'm going to get really aggressive with this because their support isn't responding and they've always responded really quickly so either we've annoyed them to the point where they don't want to deal with us or just going through something but i'm going to start going through social like networks and social media i'm going to post on linkedin and be like anyone i know at agolia that can help i just wasn't sure if how comfortable we are with that because they are a sponsor yeah i i think and i'm sorry that we've lost that i i fear that it may be me i just can't find any indication in any of my email that i was the one who received that yeah no it could have it could have been like in a spam it could have been in the flood of or one of the times you're on vacation who knows it shouldn't have been just you anyways so um i'll chase i mean i think it was olivia nice olivia and nice who set this up originally for plugins so i should be on file anyways but i'll chase i'll chase quite aggressively starting this week because i want to switch to the new v3 ui for the nap the web components i do have v2 working so it's not the other world if we don't get there but it's it's so not good search right now right and i think the ui changes have been making the indexing worse which is fine i rather see the ui changes um but there was it was uh there are doc searches based on like um css selectors and if we change the css selectors a bit then their search went wrong so i think we need to go and update that and we can't update that with the getting access to their crawler which we don't have so well and their current implementation you know they're not they're certainly moving ahead with their product evolution right and if we stay behind we're we're suffering by not not keeping v3 is great it has a nice ui it's very responsive but we don't have access to it yet so i'll chase them i just didn't want to do anything that would make the project look bad by asking publicly yeah i i think i think it's reasonable be be kind but we really we're we do need some help it's we're i'm personally embarrassed that i have to ask for help on this one but it's not going to get fixed unless we ask yeah i'll take care of it thank you all right anything else on the the topics we had there around ideas no okay action items uh community jenkins i o for jenkins docs lists still not happen probably not until december at the earliest you want to get kevin to do it oh that might be a good idea consider asking kevin to help yeah that's a good idea good suggestion yeah nice thank you um easy cla for oleg oleg i assume still in progress or still a pending i'm halfway through good congratulations okay yeah in november and december i will have a bit more time uh for jenkins at least this what is my plan uh but yeah i will definitely start from catching up on some beats where i can help from the history okay yeah that wasn't very available in the recent year or so i still don't commit to be available much because i prioritize various kinds of volunteering in anti-war campaigns etc but yeah i would like to spend some time to reduce my backlog great thank you last one last action item open from previous was i have a the action item to create a pull request documenting the web application server support policy and i'm gonna actually just call it policy because that's what we've called it for linux and for windows it's our our statement that hey we support and actively test jetty we believe other web application servers will work if they support the correct versions of java ee but we don't test them and it will accept pull requests and happily accept people contributing if they want to become contributors and want to write tests and write to submit pull requests okay i did see i did see on the forums people have started already saying that i think we don't support i don't know the names of any of them but the web one and even tomcat they're like tomcat should be supported there are people use it but we don't know anything about it and then people were able to look up stack overflow links a lot better because they knew that we weren't going to be able to help them so it turns out more recent versions of tomcat do jankins home differently and so if you weren't catching that and i think someone even found out how to fix the crumbs issue which i think mark and i remember that went on like two months when someone kept saying it's broken and we're like we don't we can't help you without more details and so apparently that has something to do with katalina and how remote ips are not passed into the thing anyways it's someone found a stack overflow thing for it so yeah and then tomcat the newest tomcat is probably going to break us so we want to get this out before that gets out of the door so basically speaking our java slash windows slash web browser support terminology we put all web containers to tier two which literally means that we accept contributions but we don't actively test it yeah at the same time we don't deprecate well probably we could move for some known limitations to tier three if we know something's broken like flat out broken we can say hey we're gonna i'm not aware of when you're right so i know that jankins runs well on real fly on tomcat not anymore they don't well isn't it based on java ee version i think basel is the one who had guided me on this one that if they're recommending the new spec it doesn't work yeah we are still on java ee we are not on jacarta so the question is what we actually want to maintain plus there is a version of java in question because i would bet that whatever works on java 11 doesn't necessarily work on java 17 so yeah right so which which for me is is still part of of tier two right tier one jetty and winstone that that container we test we know it works well winston jetty because our winstone jetty so just to be clear because yeah there is jetty in theory you can launch external jetty and run jankins with it most likely it won't work exactly as you expect so what i would say that there is a bundle to web server which you expected to use uh unless i don't know because to be honest i see no well there are some weird corporate requirements like external permission manager external audit log external sso but apart from that i wouldn't dare to even run a web container with these i can tell you right now that wildfly and tomcat have issues they are fixable issues but they have issues based on all the foreign topics we get yeah on this page we're very nice to just be like yo you know unfortunately we don't support it uh we open to any that fixes things but we're not going to test or maintain it right well yeah so for us we are still happy to accept poor requests that at least these web containers work with default settings but uh many of our settings many of our feature flags so they are just designed for jetty only right also yep yeah someone someone filed a stapler issue about wildfly and as far as i could tell uh the issue was the java versus jacarta imports and i think the latest version of wildfly is using the jacarta imports but earlier versions of wildfly used the java imports so we would support earlier versions but just not the latest one in theory great okay anything else on action items no we got 10 minutes for the hardest topic yes let's get to the hardest topic and let's let's bring it okay so elections is the challenging topic so first first top first point i guess maybe we need a timeline reminder so nominations have closed for uh this year's elections for elections uh the nominees i've sent the list of nominees thanks for that sent to the board um gavin and oleg are you okay if i share the i put the the list here because these people had acknowledged that they were willing to not time tim are you okay if i share those who have not yet acknowledged or would you rather i do that later i'd rather you talk to those people before you show okay good all right so good i will hold on those then so the officer nominees right now we have only one nominee in each of the officer positions so this was a condition we had last year for most of the officer positions as well and the answer is we don't need an election for those so that's positive that's nice and simple board member nominees we have nominees but need confirmation and we'll need that before the announcement date of november 17 when we start the when we start the voting on friday uh correct here so i can and i'll take the action at a marked mark seek confirmation from the nominees i mean should be the election committee not you but yeah well and i talked with damien about that since since i'm actually not i guess oleg and and uh gavin to your quite to the question to you since i'm not putting myself up for documentation officer this year i'm actually not up for any nomination therefore are you okay if i assist the election committee in that way i don't i don't have a strong opinion i just feel like the election committee should be doing the work and so right now you're not part of the election committee so if you want to join the connection committee that's different but i think damien should be the one reaching out or kevin even if he is nominated yeah yeah it's actually the election okay good good point so let me let me ping back to them oleg any comment from you now so i think that we basically also need to to vet candidates on the board level okay uh so at least that this is an expectation in the process so that it's the entire board uh makes that you can not just a election committee well the election committee will prepare the nominations and send them to the board right that's the way i feel well we told what happened uh well mark sent it yes uh so you can yeah but vetting the nominations is part of the the governance project which we i don't think we did last year we should have well it also wasn't very many candidates last year or so yeah so but we and i assume just for to be sure on project process i assume ovet the nominees in the board mailing list so it's done privately yeah but that that's the place where we'll vet them and the goal is complete before voting starts november for thursday so essentially tomorrow and the day after all right okay so so still we're we're sort of touching on easy things because the big challenge for me is this one my proposal to change the change the rules and whoops let's make it big enough to read my proposal to change the rules is proposing to allow two elected board members from a single company rather than the current requirement which is no majority of all board members including the permanent board member mark i think you go to the chop that incorrectly so i requested the change oh basically on the wording because we do allow two elected board members from a single company uh so the question in 77 the number of elected board members affiliated with one company must be 50 percent or less which means that uh up of five you can easily have to the problem we've been discussing in previous years and maybe this year too is that for cloud bees with kosaki being still affiliated with cloud bees it means that uh there is and kosaki being de facto not active in the Jenkins community unless a big escalation happens it means that cloud bees might have only one representative apart from Kiki so this is why i requested the change because if you are trying to address that your current proposed wording doesn't really change it so i i think i need to see your proposed change they know like help me with that i didn't propose a change i just said that the current one doesn't work and basically my proposal if you open conversation my proposal would be to keep so if you really want to resolve this conundrum and have let's say two employees so before that we had two cases well one case when mark and me were unable to be on the board and at that point mark got the second number of votes but wouldn't be able to join uh so my proposal would be instead of changing wording uh changing what actual affiliation means because one could argue is even if kiki is advisor for cloud bees kiki doesn't actively engage let's say in product strategy and in defending this product strategy at least this is my perception of current kiki's role in inside cloud bees i'm not 100 percent sure that's also my perception uh yeah so if you to change something my proposal would be to become clear what actually affiliation means because i basically when organizing first elections with tracy and then secondary elections we took the most strict possible rule if the person is affiliated they are affiliated so for example if they are a major shareholder or if they have a contract with cash flow with the company then they are affiliated we could reconsider that and i think that the currency that is more legitimate that allowing basically three people from a single company which would constitute 60 percent which would diminish the neutrality statements so i think i think we did find out there are no neutrality statements but i i agree i don't think koska is considered affiliated officially anymore he is listed as an advisor in linkedin but the cloud bees website doesn't mention him and wikipedia doesn't mention him you know his his his connection to the company is minor at best so i have i have a little bit of concerns with the word associated um as well but i also don't know if this needs to be done before the election this year because i don't think it changes who's got nominated yeah my preference would be to change it after the reaction tool because the ship for this election is sailed and if we change it now unless there is a desperate need to do that it would smart taking the list of nominations right now i do not see a particular need to change that to be honest but we need to do confirmations and before that and after that we can decide accordingly but yeah so there are two questions firstly when we do change it and what we change so i do not want to block a change if it's needed to have a healthy board but yeah right now i'm not convinced that we do it i have to do it now okay so given given the voice that i'm hearing both from Gavin and from Oleg that your your perception based on the list of nominees that was shared is that we may not need this change immediately uh i i think i'm i'm okay with that i'm a little concerned about it but it's it's a valid point um what i think i'm hearing then is we vet the nominees over the course of the next few days confirm that the nominees accept the nomination and then proceed from there and we can then revisit this question after the elections complete because your point is hey this is not a an urgent thing in terms of direct impact on current election yeah i agree though i i don't think Koskay should be considered a blocking blocking new board members but i also want to keep it fair and for the future yes i'm i'm not sure for me the challenge there is Kosuke probably i don't know his his his shareholdings in cloud bees he is listed as an advisor and so as an advisor that might be a use of the word affiliated so when we were doing the elections in 2020 if i recall correctly uh autism of 19 i reached out to a few people in cloud bees and basically my information was that even after Kiki stepped down he has a cash flow with the company and that is something i have not audited right i don't know if he's receiving yeah so i cannot control whether it's still a keys right and i that's not yeah that was that was a level of detail that i didn't want to i mean we could change the word affiliated with to employed by and and there's a there's a term for employment that probably he is not considered an employee of cloud bees since i don't see him listed as an employee of cloud bees i would consider advisory role as employee because we have so many advisors we have so many advisory board members uh here and there i'm actually curious where you're seeing he's actually other than his linkedin i don't see him being listed as an advisor anymore anymore oh i thought it was on the wikipedia page that for kosuke wikipedia is probably not a great reference yeah so maybe one of the ways is actually for marco basel to reach out to call these folks and verify the current status yeah i can certainly do because it could be a one of the street forth ways i mean if so if tell me tell me then about the threshold that oleg you and gavin you would set for the use of the verb affiliated in this case if he is receiving funds from cloud bees is that affiliated if he is titled an advisor is that by definition affiliated or is it does there need to be if he's a majority shareholder is or if he's if he has a significant probably not a majority shareholder if he has a significant shareholding is that considered affiliated i'm hoping that the problem sells itself and i don't have to make that distinction like if he says i am not involved at all with cloud bees we don't need to make that distinction if he says i am you know making thousands of dollars off cloud bees every day we're like we're not going to make distinction you're still considered affiliated right but anything in between then we can discuss yeah so personally i would like to take a definition from another open source institution so that we don't have an event our own but yeah my ballpark would be that if he is employed obviously it's affiliation right uh whether as a contractor or as a permanent employee doesn't matter so i can be whether if he is a major shareholder but even better you would have to answer what is major so yeah and i don't know that that's i doubt that there's any public location where shareholder partitions are disclosed for cloud bees so i'm not sure i can obtain that information in any public manner i mean i'm also concerned because if we're getting too specific about the rules i think olig and i still considered affiliated in some way with cloud bees right we are x employees i don't know i don't remember if we have stock i don't think they went public and have stock but i mean the definition of the word affiliate is really weird in this a sentence because but it is by definition and i had to look it up repeatedly it's officially attached to connect a person to an organization and i don't really know what that means so i would say ask koske what his role is that cloud bees that he's willing to make or ask cloud bees what their statement is if they're saying he's just like a token person on the board i'd be okay with calling it he's not affiliated if he's like an active board member that actually shapes a company then i would say he's affiliated and i think at that point we can kind of you know get the wording right i don't think mark likes the sentence if we have a minute i wanted to address the changes that olig requested on this pull request so if we have some time i have have some responses to that i can stick around for a bit yeah so is oh like do you have time he said yes okay great so basal go ahead right i wanted to address the point that marx pull request doesn't change the situation for cloud bees and if you read the wording of marx pull request specifically wrote that uh that the number of elected board members has to be 50 or less so that so if kaseke has a permanent seat then not an elected board member and so the second half of olig's contents that you would need to allow for three members from a single company or 60 of the board well marx pull request does in fact allow for that given that marx pull request the wording around the 50 percent is strictly for elected board members and not appointed so extrapolating the elected and appointed board members together that would allow for 60 percent to be from a single company you're right it's me who didn't carefully rip the elected part so yeah in this case of course it would work for having three people affiliated with club bees including kiki yes let's say lucidation that the chain is that we're requested we're based on a misunderstanding rather than okay so definitely i need to retract uh a bloke and come uh yeah because i definitely missed the stoop well it's even a written in the title but it's no problem i just wanted to make sure that we were all i missed it i missed it too i didn't read i mean that that does that was going to be my point was like do we want to make special rules for kaseke as the the dictator for life type thing was going to be like that would be the the more beneficial way of saying to people because i didn't want to say company could take over but i also kaseke is kind of a special case so i like this wording um i would still like to wait to hear before we merge it or change the actual process i would like to hear back from the the current nominees if all the current nominees say no then we might need to merge this and find some more nominees but i do want to stick with the the procedure we laid out last month as this is the this is what we're adopting for this election period of what would be the reason for that for waiting right well because we've already started the process i don't want to change the process in the middle of the process okay plus let's agree that if you talk about a board election process change it's not something that can be decided just on the government's meeting call so one would rather need to start voting the main increased etc then we would need to give some time to give feedback so let's say one even better this point creates some problems for the timeline you find us incorrectly so in i do feel strongly that so if we need to maintain a healthy board i would rather prioritize doing a change the link election if you needed then but you can have a healthy board without doing changes at the last moment we can do that i mean there's a very good chance looking at the list of nominees that everyone will say no if that's the case we will revisit this and we get some new nominations and i would say that would be something we can do this week if all the people say no um but we'll just have to delay i mean the the officers will get elected anyways that's going through the board will have to be revisited and if we don't if we don't have our nominees don't accept we're gonna have to go through the process anyways and at that point i think it's the right time to get this changed okay yeah and i think i think i'm okay with that that's i am okay with that i shouldn't say i think i am let's be very explicit i am okay with that i think that is a good a good description so guiding me on i had intentionally used this word elected specifically for the the reasons that basal noted because because the permanent board member is a special case right he really is a a very special case i like your wording um i agree with all like it probably shouldn't be the five of us on this call making this call um i don't think the i really i mean if you take a look at the us elections i don't think the us elections should be deciding their rules for their own elections it should be much broader than that so i agree with all like that this should be a discussion on the deb mail list i can't imagine people are going to have issues with it as long as we make sure that people understand the difference between number of board members versus number of elected board members um but i don't think the board is going to have an issue with it are the dev list is going to have an issue with it but it shouldn't be just the five of us making the decision okay fair point so for for example in the current state i would be perfectly okay with doing this change but imagine one month later tk decides that he is no longer a fan of distributed testing can he returns back to cloudbiz let's say as let's say new cto of the company uh do we have a problem after that yes we do so yeah this is something to keep in mind and this is why i would rather go through the level of affiliation than through making tk an exception uh but yeah again if we do this election cycle without that it's my difference um i would though however like to get actual official clarification even if it's in uh an email to the board from cloudbiz saying that uh koska is no longer directly affiliated like if we don't have to make it public they don't have to make a public statement but if they could email the board and saying uh this is his role and this is his affiliation then we don't even have to change the document because that would handle uh this the scenario where he's like in name affiliated only and not actual day-to-day and if that changes then this can you know the affiliation threshold can take effect yeah what's for me i'm just not sure that that again the marketing organization is going to accept my my saying yes let's disclose whatever thing there i i don't know i know but they can if you if you've fired off an email you can i don't think it should be marketing i should think it should be higher up and just say hey uh jenkins board is a little concerned about uh a koska's affiliation can you clarify his affiliation to the board he doesn't have to be a full you know public broadcast uh and then we have that in writing so that if it does change that's fine i think his affiliation is if if anything's still in name only i don't think it's any more and then that solves this problem if they are not comfortable with us then we'll have to revisit this but i'm always with opinion we might as well get it done right before we change the process i mean i can email if you rather i can email someone from cloud beast oh no no that's it's i think it's a much easier process gavin if i make that if i ask that question yeah they they then they can always tell me they can tell me blunt things if they need to and say mark you're not allowed to say the following five things when yeah that's no totally but like i said it doesn't have to be public i think i think emailing the board is good enough i mean it's kind of shady being like oh no it's fine we have we've had discussion but that is part of the board is there are some sensitive things that the board should do there are topics that the board discusses that are private they really are that's intentional and if if it comes back that he's affiliated and then we can revisit the topic but i do think you can also submit this to the dev mail in at the same time not for this election but if for whatever reason the nomination come back saying no then we'll have already started this process like i don't i think you can do it in parallel without doing it in waterfall zero i i'll i'll do that that i can do okay anything else on the elections topic no okay yeah maybe one thing do we accept a risk of not having collections so let's say we have two candidates for the board who accepted the nomination what do we do in this case do we want to do and i find three candidates to have an election or do we just proceed without an election but in the past our pattern was to proceed without an election if we have just enough candidates the the election is complete gavin your comment that's a little good to say yeah i think i haven't seen anything in all the stuff i've read recently about requiring an election even there's only two candidates i don't think he was ever thought something people thought up but yeah it's certainly in the elections in which i just participated in the united states when there was only one candidate they would put the candidate on the ballot and that was it right we were done there was it was only because the ballot needed a space for that they would put it in and we were done it was obvious it was going to be done in russia okay i we are not going to go there like because we could have a lot of fun with that conversation that's and someone's have to get back to work because it's middle of the day exactly thank you very much any other time are you okay if we just defer cdf topics and forum and community topics to another time given our schedule i don't have any cdf updates since the last time i think it's worth throwing the mail in this link in the forum topics because they're not the mail in this the newsletter link i think every week we should i'm very excited that the the newsletter has started i actually told the the matrix guy i met that we are stealing we're inspired by their monthly mailing list because i thought it was a really good idea i will insert it there thank you all right anything else okay thank you very much end of meeting meeting will be recorded oh sorry i missed a bunch of of chat yeah it's fine i'd handle it okay bless you thank you very much it's very kind of you all right