 Hello, welcome to the Genkis governance meeting. Today is July 15th, you have Alex, Oluhafner and me on the call. So, it's the middle of July and everything is quite slow these days. Let's take a look at our agenda. So, regarding news, one major update that we have Genkis code of conduct, upgraded from wrong version of contributor component 1.3 to 2.0. So, it includes a lot of changes and we approved it with the previous governance meeting, but now everything is in place and published on our website. So, this is a code of conduct you should refer to. It includes several major changes including our pledge, our standards and also some changes in the reporting flow. For example, now CD Foundation is a second level of escalation. We also did a lot about the relation of board members so that there is a path for reporting that if somebody is concerned. And there will be some minor updates here and there, but generally there was strong consensus about accepting this code of conduct. So, hopefully everything is okay now. Alex heavily participated in this story. We also did some reviews. So, I don't think there are many questions about that, but yeah. Thanks for doing that, Oleg. Happy to do that. And thanks to all the reviewers because we had something like six reviewers and the main pull request also a lot of reviewers and a code of conduct change law changes etc. Thanks a lot. Any other news, which was mentioning. Oh, there is security release today. So, if you're interested in Jenkins security, we have just released a version with a lot of accesses changes in the Jenkins core. So, you can find it here. And please take a look because some of these vulnerabilities are high severity ones. So, if much all of them are high severity ones. So it's definitely a good time to update. Okay. Okay, so the next topic is terminology updates. We've stopped at the last meeting. We agreed that we need to select 10 items. And I guess the agenda for today is to agree on these top 10 items and unblock mark is so that we can start voting. Do you think Alex? Yeah, and I don't, I don't even necessarily think we need 10 specifically. I mean we talked about 10 but if there aren't 10 good candidates. I think we just need to select the number of good candidates night I really liked the recommendation we kind of look at it. In terms of like those sentences like, like only mentioned. I think that was helpful to me at least. So, do you have the document that we had all the options in? Or do you want to bring up the email from the governance? Or just just a second. So we have a Google doc with all options. And if you placed in the discussion from the governance board, I think it would be great. So. So I will just do it to the top. Alex, will you place the options here? Yeah, I'll put them in there. Open. So, by the way, I someone sent a request to Tyler for an interview about this. I don't remember which website and I did a little bit of an interview with them about kind of our progress and three reasons and stuff like that. So I'll, I'll provide that article when it comes out. Yeah, I guess it went through press contacts right. Yeah. I'm just checking whether it makes sense to just replace these press contacts just by Jenkins governance board email. But yeah, I'm not sure. Anyway, it's a bit out of topic. But yeah, anyway, thanks a lot for doing the interview Alex. Next. We agreed to use a professional term, which is easily localizable to other languages. This is our criteria, right? What's that? Sorry. So we agreed that we need a professional term, which could be easily localized to another language, right? Yes. The criteria we consider. This is kind of the list basically pared down from what we had, what I originally posted in the board. Governance board mail, removing the ones that were not kind of professional. As you mentioned, there are some items here actually, but these are kind of the ones that were the ones that kind of removed anything that had kind of language barrier in terms of translating as well as things that didn't sound quote unquote professional. And we also removed server and host right. Correct. In the last list. So we removed those just because it can be confusing. If you say Jenkins server, is that the physical server versus the, you know, that sort of thing. So we kind of removed those for that reason. I would have voted for servers still but it makes no sense. I'm, myself I'm leaning towards either primary or controller, but that's just my own personal opinion. I think we can roll these over if we're in agreement on these set of options we can roll these over to mark to set up the, the public poll. One question about primary. So it's just primary or primary node. Just primary. It will be Jenkins primary. Right. These terms like primary or main are really hard for other languages. Okay. They're more used as adjectives. For instance in Germany. Okay, but we will see it in the world. So I think it's okay to have them here and let everybody vote. So important thing that we select one of these options. So there would not be option 10, which we select at reviewing the votes. Now, we did, we did make it kind of, we tried to make it clear that this is just inputs to the governance board. And even the, if the, if the top voted item, it doesn't mean that that necessarily will become the name, right? It's just inputs. So we, that's the main thing about too is if the top voted item is something that we feel still doesn't meet the criteria that we want because of language translation type things, then we can still pick something else from the list. So just kind of get a view of what the community is, is thinking or would be clear to the community. Yeah, and we use the single transferable vote. So, but if option one is not selected and option two, you'll take adjusted. Okay, I think this is a good list. And we can just agree on that. Yeah, I'm good with it. And we'll just do anything else on terminal job, this topic. Not for me, no. I think we could move on. I'll send that list to Mark, just so he has the information. Okay, thank you. So, I guess it means that we would start voting until the next week, because Mark is off right now, but yeah, I think there is no hurry. We still need to prepare an announcement somewhere. Did we agree to do it in social media on the developer mailing list? We did not talk about it. We had a discussion at the last meeting, but I don't remember whether we had consensus there. I don't remember that we talked about it. I think it's good to have it on the mailing list. I probably built the user and developer mailing list. That way reaches a wider range of people. I'm not sure that too many people are using the user mailing list. Well, there is a decent amount of reads. But yeah, it's basically user developer and maybe some sick mailing please. Not sure. Yeah, we can start from that. The question is, if you feel that we want to have more votes, we can expand that reach. So, no blog and no social media. Okay, let's move on. So, quick updates, we have completed the checklist. And during the completion, actually, we made significant updates in our documentation. So, for example, the code of conduct was updated as we already discussed. We also created a new page, which lists adopters using the information we've got through Jenkins's other way. And if you want to add your company, please just submit a pull request. Everything is configuration is code now, documentation is code. And the other guidelines, which you can follow if you want to add yourself to the list. So, what else do we have? We have recommended the weekly releases. Apparently before that we had no documentation for weeklies at all. So, there was some circuit knowledge and discussions in the mailing list. But now we have a balance here plus there is maintainer guide, which was also slightly updated to document the weekly release process. So, yeah, we got some documentation. And what else? Yeah, basically everything was also referenced from our landing page, which was quite shallow on details before that. So, now there is just a bit more information. And this along with our CDF relationship, please, basically allowed us to say that we are compliant with all requirements defined by CDF for graduated projects. So, if you open this Google Doc reference in the mailing list, you can see that everything is passed. There are details attached to the right, which expand our response and private information, what exactly has passed. Later, you will like to need to convert it to another form. So, it's, but yeah, the form is yet to be provided by CDF and this form is okay to start the reviews. So, if somebody wants to contribute and wants to expand to these descriptions, please just submit a proposal. If anyone can send just changes in this document and we can keep improving it until the CDF taking to other site committee meeting on July 21. So, it's Tuesday next week. This, at this meeting there was, there will be a review of our application. I'm not sure what would be exactly the process. My plan is to just join the meeting and answer questions, maybe presented this document a bit. I'm not sure, Alex, would you do plan to join? Yeah, I would like to. It just spends on my work schedule, if I'll be able to. Yeah, so it should be something like 3pm UTC. Okay, so I'm, yeah, I should be able to do that. What about you? Where is, is there a calendar item that I can, that can be downloaded to add to my calendar? I believe I referenced it somewhere. I'll look in the email. That's fine. Yeah, so based on the discussion, we sent a message to review and everyone is welcome to join the meeting. So the meeting and say here, basically, they have spent. Yeah, it's in talk agenda, I believe. It's on the 21st. 21st. No time. Well, it's a really good reason. Yeah. So it's CDF talk meeting and he's saying if you want to join. Okay. So I guess that's all for CDF radiation. I think that everything is being pretty good shape there and it helped us to improve our own documentation. So we can move on with that. My only concern is about our governance speech. To be honest, this governance speech is really outdated. So I was thinking about what she did with it. So for example, just to show a few examples. So our philosophy is a key license is a key contributor license agreement. It's inherently outdated on its own, but it's a separate problem. Then what we have trademark yet trademark is okay. The attribution is okay. Okay, then there are some items here, which basically came from my very first generation of Jenkins weekend, which was also Jenkins site at that point. It changes. Some things just need to be updated. We updated the regularly, but for example, you just call down the rest reference to our scene or be the same for mailing please. Actually now the references are the proper link. Also, for example, we reference wiki, we reference Jenkins on Jenkins without reference and other services, et cetera, et cetera. And generally it's a key, but yeah, some face lift would make sense. So this is something I would like to do until the talk meeting next week, but I believe this is the last thing I would be doing for our documentation there. So do we need any special process for updating this page or is it fine to just have a simple majority. It's just a good in the pull request or what do you think. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, I didn't plan to change anything in principle. So rather, please leave and clean up all the text. Okay. So anything else about the city of radiation. One thing which was mentioned tomorrow, we will have advocacy and three seed meeting. And my understanding that we will be discussing marketing force for Jenkins graduation there. Because CDF wants to do a lot of promotion on their side. And I guess on the Jenkins side, we would also like to publish a blog post or something like that. So I will add a coordination of these efforts to the tomorrow's meeting. So there is a plan to host some webinars, some podcasts, etc. More details to come soon, but we will be definitely exceeding it through them. So that we can get more contributors to these activities. Any questions, comments about that. For that, I will definitely send a summary because right now I also don't have all the details of what would be expected CDF plans to achieve. So let's just wait and see. Okay. So current infrastructure initiative. So it's slightly related to graduation as well, because it's also a part of the graduation requirements. Passing current infrastructure initiative checklist. According to clarification by CDF, CDF is fine with our current 80%. We don't really block it by current infrastructure initiative, but we have two main sections, which still need to be finished. One is about quality. So there are two items. Sorry, it's about quality, about reporting. So we must acknowledge a majority of bug reports. There is one majority of RFEs. So this is what we are trying to address with the trash team in Jenkins. And recently we have integrated a full request. So now if you go to the maintain your guide. Now we have the community documentation about issue three and the recommendations of how to do that. And how to work with reporters, what is actually objective for issue 3H team. But there is still one major problem. We need to have 18. So likely I will be organizing something to do knowledge transfer or whatever for the next week. Just some discussion. Again, I'm not sure how many contributors we will be able to get there, especially during the summer vacation break. But at least we could kickstart this effort so that there is some offline content available to potential contributors. So this is what we have for issue 3H and the second part we have on the list is security. So for security, we actually have a lot of item stones. And for that, I submitted a draft to the security team and then we had a few cycles of reviews. And now it waits for final approval by Daniel, who is the Jenkins security officer. So once it's approved, we can actually close all these action items as completed. At least with my current understanding, we are compliant with all requirements and taking a little bit from the security team, which should be a case. So once we do that, once we do the 3H team, we will get to a bit more than 100%. And yeah, I believe that we will be able to say that this effort is also completed. And in the future, what it allows us, we can, for example, ask your next foundation and the CIA members for funding. Let's say security audit for the Jenkins project and many other items because CIA is a widely funded program, which is a lot in security. If we can apply it, it could be a helpful cause. Okay. Anything on that? Do you have a list of people who have kind of volunteered for that 3H team so far? And is it a big enough list or do we need to continue to kind of poke people and ask them if they're, if they'd like to help? Okay, let's see. Also, we have a number of responses in the mailing list. So, okay, so this should be my necropost. Oh, it's here. So after that, we got a number of responses. So me plus five responses there. So theoretically we could form a team. So five participants could dedicate some time, let's say a few hours, maybe a few months. Let's see. But yeah, again, at least we can start documenting that and facilitating distribution by others. And lately if needed, we can also do a lot of automation using IRC board and whatever. We can have Kent responses and whatever other to help maintainers. I just wanted to make sure there was enough people to help out with the effort. So it looks like that's pretty good amount and a lot of them have good experience in debugging issues. So it should work. Yeah, right. Yeah, and actually, yeah, just dumped metrics. So even now, even if you take crude metrics for responses for Jenkins core, I created some dashboards, etc. And then you can see that over the last year, which is a requirement. We have received 491 bug reports in Jenkins core. And for them, we have only 214 unresolved issues. And what I was able to see the majority of these unresolved issues actually got the first response. Because our current G-reset up I cannot automate it and create a dashboard for that. But yeah, even with these crude numbers, we are kind of compliant with the majority requirement in CI, because majority is more than 50% right. For a fees, it's a bit worse. But yeah, I think we can get here easily. So I'm a bit optimistic there. But yeah, again, it's still requires a lot of effort to get it actually working. We got the core maintainers team operational this year. So now we have a lot of people who contribute to reviews and integration of full requests. So maybe you could also do some bits for triage. Does it answer your question Alex? Yeah, thank you. Thank you too. Okay, another process issue. I made an update for the download speech. Basically it's a follow up on all discussion I guess in the platform C meeting, or maybe the governance meeting. So on our current download speech actually includes just seconds here. So our current page includes a long header there. And after that, you have listing of distributions. So there are a few issues on this page. One issue that this header game moves all content to the bottom, as well as these paragraphs, etc. But also there are some more concerning issues. For example, here you have a mix of third party and the official packages. For example, our main official packages work. So what is just in the bottom of the list doctors on the top windows is on the bottom again. So I would like to actually get to these packages sorted. And also I would like to move for deployment to Asia to the bottom because deployment to Asia again is not official package. It's a custom distribution being built by Microsoft Asia team. So I submitted a pull request which refactors this page so that it becomes firstly shorter. And secondly, it aligns the pages and it also actually provides some guidelines which we are outdated before. And the deployment Jenkins in the public cloud is just a section in the bottom and right now it includes only deployed to Asia. And lately we could get, for example, Google instances, OpenShift instances, or whatever. If you decide to do so, I didn't touch it in this pull request. I just took into the existing content. But I think that principle we could extend it. Is the deploy to Azure, does that allow you to specify which Jenkins version when you're doing it? Or is it just the like the LTS version or? I guess it's on the LTS version. Okay. So I'm locked in my Asia account, so I cannot show. But yeah, I guess it's on the LTS. And since, and usually this releases some of cardinated. So what it means that this releases might be delayed, for example, in the case of security releases. I was just wondering because previously the deployed to Azure was directly under the LTS stuff. So it's kind of, so you could tell that was the LTS. But I don't, I don't think that matters. I think it's fine the way it is. Because as long as, or if there was a way that you could see which version on that marketplace page, which we don't probably have control over at all. Yeah, this was basically optimistic because we don't know. Yeah, okay. So for example, we just released this version a few hours ago. And yeah, on the, on our plugins, on our site, we already said that it's 235.2. But I bet it's not really a case. Okay. So I think it's good that it doesn't have a specific version then. So yeah, I like that. Okay. So yeah, basically, I just wanted to get approval because it's a sensitive page, which is basically one of the most visited for Jenkins. So if you're fine with that, I would like to just ask for approval to merge it. Yeah, it looks good to me. I think I, I think I gave approval, maybe not. No, you didn't. So I will do, I will ask for your reviews. And if you approve that, I will merge it. Okay. But yeah, I think that it's ready to go and it's not interesting, but it is some improvement. Also, it was mentioning that this page doesn't really work on mobile. I'm not really sure why would you use it on mobile, but if you do like that, so what you can see the basically all the content shifts a bit. So for example, I deployed. So you have long term weekly and then there is a mix of different types in there. So it's not critical, but not ideal as well. Okay. All right, you have my approval on the PR. Okay. So should we move on? Okay. So yeah, Jenkins roadmap. So for roadmap last Friday, we had a contributor meetup. The video and slides are already available. Basically this meetup I presented the public roadmap and public roadmap process. I got some additional feedback, but generally the roadmap remained the same. So over the last few days, I submitted a few patches. So, for example, a patch to the Jenkins enhancement proposal. Thanks to live for reviewing that. So now Jenkins enhancement proposal is totally aligned with the current roadmap state. Just a second, it's here. But yeah, it's more, it was mostly about updating status definitions and list of statuses and updating how roadmap works because it's has greatly changed since the last session. So this job, I think it's formally ready to publishing. Well, basically, it's Alex, who made who makes the final decision. But the person I think that it's ready for the final review, the approval. Yeah, I agree. So do I just merge it or what is the approval process. I'm clear with that. So the approval process is that somebody submits a pull request. So what you need to do, you need for this repository, create a branch. And then there is a script in JEP, which sets the JEP status. So set the JEP status. And since it's a process JEP, you will need to send the status to active. So some JEPs actually use accepted. I'm not 100% sure what's the difference. I need to read the JEP on my own. I mean, just one. But yeah, basically draft needs to be converted to one of these stages. Okay, then you just submit a pull request that is changes and that's it. Okay, I will do that. Thank you. Can we start with publishing that? Yes, it's good. Okay. And yeah, another question is actually about common pull request. So I have a few submitted. So support for carving road map and also some content edits, which are waiting for reviews. So would you like to get an integrated, to get them integrated before you form a concept of JEP, or is it going to do testing? I think it's fine either way. So support for carving basically gives us an opportunity to move old completed road map items. And it's drawn once to a new file, which is archive YAML. Basically, it's not displayed in the web interface just linked from the bottom so that if you're interested, you can go there. And yeah, I don't think it was spending time on creating visualization for that. We could do that. Actually, that's all it does. Okay, we have plugin management, your improvements is actually one of feedback from the recent online meetup because I was doing the presentation and somebody said that, hey, one of your items doesn't have a proper link. Because plugin management, your improvements had no documentation. So we've had no link to there. And it was just redirected to the road map itself. So what I did, I just added the definition on the UX sit page and edit the link so it's compliant with JEP 14. Another thing, we also follow up to the same feedback is pipeline altering road map, a few items listed on the future also have no link. So they just extended the code a bit so that if there is no link provided, we just reference initiative link. So a particular link usually references to a special interest group or something else, at least it helps to narrow down the contacts. So these are three pending pull requests. And the last one is basically just saying that it's accepted, removing the disclaimers, etc. So this will be mentioned on there after the JEP is accepted and integrated. So yeah, sorry for the pull request spam. But yeah, I hope these are the last ones which are required to have the road map. In the ready to go state and then again it's not the final state because we will be doing updates incrementally. And I think we could schedule an official road marking in to August. So maybe, or maybe even September, what do you think? I would say September might be good just because August is going to be busy with people going back to school in certain places and stuff and trying to figure that out in terms of kids, at least here in the US. So, if we can wait till September that might be nice, although it may impact people in September as well so I guess it's whoever has the least amount of impact. It's after August fifties, because I guess in the United States and Europe, it's mostly August fifties. Yeah, that's pretty close to ours. Our official date is August 5th, but so maybe late August or middle of August would be best. Okay. So yeah, then we can just discuss the data, maybe the next governance meeting. No hurry with it. Yeah, I would also wait a bit before that. And again, we still can facilitate feedback from six, etc. More items. Oh, it's actually, it's also already quite full. But yeah, we can write more initiatives. For example, we will have her presentation. I would like to speak to you about the ticked on trigger plugin. So for example, for platforms, I would like, I would like to split this item to two. Because there is ticked on trigger plugin and also a ticked on pipeline engine as a pipeline extension, which we discussed, which is a completely different item is completely different school, which will definitely remain in the future. So, any comments, questions on the roadmap. So it looks really nice. I've heard a lot of really good comments about it from people. So, nice, nice work and thank you. Thank you. Let's keep pushing that. So, I think that's it for today. So, if it's possible, would you be able to stay for a few minutes after the recording? Yeah. Okay, so, yeah. Thanks all for participating in the meeting and see you at the next one, because it will be in two weeks, July 29. So, yeah. Okay. Thanks.