 Welcome to the Jenkins Governance Meeting. Today is July 29th. We have a few topics for today. So we will discuss what are the recent news in the project, and we will discuss terminal updates, core release infrastructure, and talk about the CDF graduation process, and prepare videos, and also discuss our communication channels going forward. Are there any other topics which we are missing here? So let's begin. So the first topic is about core release automation. So Mark, would you like to summarize the status there? Sure. So we've delivered weekly releases for several months. Long-term support release was just delivered this week. Security releases were delivered last week. Good progress on all of them. Thanks very much to Olivier Bernin for his work. Timing is very good. We're delighted with the progress. We expect that the next release of the LTS in mid-August will also use the core release automation. We think we're ready to go. And yes, Olivier has agreed to host an online or to do an online meetup in August discussing what we've learned from core release automation, etc. Yeah. So sorry, I haven't announced the meetup here. I will do it tomorrow. Okay. So thanks to all contributors, because it's a major update. And during that, we also experienced a lot of issues. For example, these windows packaging. Thanks a lot to Alex for that. Well, for fixing all the stuff. And yes, now we are ready to ship the new windows installed at LTS. So we will be officially able to close the site in which has been in preview for more than one year. Great achievement as well. Okay. Any details on core release automation? Okay. I'm going with LTS baseline selection. So it's just for information for all contributors. We changed the process. This spring. So now we start LTS baseline selection two weeks earlier. And there is a developer management threat about choosing the new version. So the version which is expected to land in mid-September. And currently we are working, we are looking at 2.249 or 2.250, which are basically the same. So you can see that there is a lot of warnings, because you had issues with the delivery infrastructure. But basically it includes all changes in 2.248 and all the stabilization fixes after that. So if anyone has concerns or feedback, please vote in the mailing list thread, because you can see that this change look is quite long. Actually I found two missing changes there. So it will be even longer soon. But yeah, any feedback will be appreciated. Okay. And yeah, on the separate note, there should be also a release candidate today, but we don't have Oliver on the call. So my understanding that the release candidate is not ready. Is it right? Yeah, since the release, the baseline has been selected, I think it can't be ready. I think that's very reasonable. We should have the RC 4.4 today and we don't even have a poll request yet with the back ports they're due today. So that's likely getting delayed. Yeah, so maybe it will take a few more days. I pinged Oliver. So generally there are not so many changes to back port, but still it would be nice to review them. Because there is a few non-trivial back ports and I'm not sure how much changes we will need to pick up from previous releases. One topic related to that is terminology back ports, because we agreed at the last meeting that we would like to back port terminology. So yeah, for me it was a particular interest to see whether it would happen in this release, but if not, it will land in September. So it's not a huge deal. When you say back port exactly, what do you mean by that? Well, we agreed to treat terminology fixes as backportable bugs in localizations. So for example, there was a fix for French localization some way in the recent versions. Oh, okay, right. So you're not talking about the upcoming coordinator rename? No, we're talking only about agents. A coordinator, it's a bigger story. Or whatever it's called, we will talk about it just in a few minutes. Okay, yeah, let me just clarify agent terminology back ports to begin. Okay, so next important note that yeah, as we discussed at the last governance meeting, we published the roadmap. So all the changes are integrated. Thanks a lot to Alex for being a bit of a delegate in this story. So as we agreed, everything is published, the JEP is effective, roadmap is effective. We'll be doing some promotion and announcement say in August for that. But yeah, now we can consider it as a kind of actual roadmap for the project. And it includes quite a number of stories. And what we agreed at the last meeting, that we will likely do the next roadmap meeting in late August or early September. So that we will have an opportunity to keep running these processes. But yeah, roadmap meeting is not something which blocks changes. It's just a kind of scrap for the roadmap way we review the stories and clean them up. But any public request can be submitted at any moment. So moving on. So for terminology, I guess, Alex, so would you like to make an update there? Sure. So you guys hear me okay? Yes. So the poll is closing today. Mark, I'm not sure what time that actually happens. But the poll is closed. And then we can take the recommendations from that poll and bring them into a governance meeting to discuss the replacement term before terms however we want to define it. So we should be able to do that in the next governance meeting. Actually, I think we can do it here, Alex. The poll has closed. And so I assume you could bring it up for us to see the results. And yeah, that was my impression as well as we discussed. So we deliberately set the line for poll just before the meeting. So we can probably postpone it until the next governance meeting. But yeah, the poll is over. So here are our results. So controller is the winner, basically beats all other options. Then next is manager, which 95 to 35. So taking the total number of votes, it's a significant lead. And then coordinator, which is quite close to manager, then primary, which is quite close to coordinator. And then main director lead and executive quite behind. So basically, we have one front runner, three terms, which got pretty much similar results. I'll probably just take a screenshot. So Alex, what would be your preference? Should we discuss it today? Or should we postpone the final selection until the next governance meeting? What I would like to do is take these terms and run them through Google Translate, at least. Run them through Google Translate and see if there's any and reach out some of the members of the community who speak those languages and have them give a little bit of feedback just so we don't pick a term that has negative connotations in another language. Or some bias as well. So we just want to make sure that from that, from this, we don't introduce additional issues. So that's why I'd like to wait until next governance meeting to discuss it. Okay. Well, I was really looking forward to call Janky's father and microcontroller. But yeah, looks like I will have her to wait with it. And yeah, so we run terms through Google Translate to validate liquidization options. Next governance meeting final decision, right? Yes. I have a quick question about, do we only want one replacement term or multiple? I brought it up in the discussion and several others as well, that it would be quite weird to call the node that's running inside the main Jenkins process to also call that controller or manager when it doesn't control or manage anything. But I'm not sure whether that was taken into account with the terminology selection. I agree. That was, and I apologize for not responding to that on the mailing list. I think this one is specifically about the server is kind of what we're talking about. The node term is something that we can also think about. But I agree that controller does not make sense for the main node. Or what used to be called the master node. So that is definitely something we need to think about as well. To clarify the plan is to replace that, but so we get rid of the term master completely, but not necessarily with the same term as we chose here. That is correct. That is my understanding of what we're, what our plan is. Yeah. So yeah, I'm just picking what phrase we took in the announcements. So basically Jenkins application is the way it's called. But yeah, so sub components may have three different names. And I think that's very valuable to increase clarity by being more precise, right? That's, that's, I think that's a great idea. So agent card need to have a discussion about Jenkins web interface and so on. Does it address your question Daniel? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Okay. So do we have any other steps? Maybe not specific to this terminology change, but we need to start looking at how we can change the source code at some point. That's going to take a lot of research and so forth because it's all over the place. And I, I know it's, it's not as visible as within the UI and documentation and things like that, but it, I know lots of people go look at the source code when they're doing things. And so it is still a very visible portion that would be nice to, to fix up things like dumb slave. You know, that, that would be one of my very first things that I would want to, to address and things like that. I totally agree with that. We should take a look on that and for dumb slave, we had an action item one year ago to the make it discover how we could clean it up. But yeah, there was no conclusive result. And yeah, other actions we only need to take is actually communicating the changes because that guess we still need to actually announce that. Alex could clarify whether you would say the source code changes or internal changes are within the scope of the master renaming or is that a separate project altogether? Because so far I had the impression that similar to what we did with agent, we would look at labels, documentation and such first. Yeah, that you're absolutely correct. It is not part of this current master. It's it is a next step in the process of cleaning up terminology in Jenkins. It's not part of this master rename. So it's not something that I'm looking at doing as a short term or, or, you know, within this rename, it is something for the future. Okay, thank you. Yeah, that sounds like a huge project. But yeah, we, we certainly have some class names that, yeah. But even without classes, master's terminology name implies a lot of changes in our documentation, a lot of changes on Jenkins, in general, built-in, the commentator, Kwebiois. So on my help, all sorts of places, you know. Yeah, so I'm not saying that we're ready to start on that class renaming. I just don't want to lose sight of that goal. So as long as it's in the roadmap, I think that's fine. Yeah. So on the roadmap, we actually have two initiators now. One is agent terminology now, which is basically a bulk effort, which includes everything. Probably, we want to break it down and move for API and classes to future because basically it makes sense to update agent terminology API and master terminology API at the same time, theoretically. But yeah, it's a implementation detail. I just agree with Daniel that we won't be able to do it soon. I agree. So yeah, we can see the roadmap items to be more focused on use keys. Yeah. So assuming that we do a final decision on the next governance meeting, how do we plan communications on that? Do we do any communications before the next meeting or do we do everything after? I think we communicate once we've decided. We already said that the poll is closed on July 29th, so I don't think we need to resend out information about that. However, I think definitely once we make the decision, we can send something out to the dev list as a follow-up to the terminology updates thread that we had before. Yeah. So the list is OK. What about Jenkins block social media? That gets at this point, it rather makes sense. At least to talk a bit about what would be our roadmap there. Yeah, definitely. I'm writing a post for CDF as kind of part of this. I don't know. I can write something else for Jenkins blog specifically. I'm fine, either way. Well, we can cross post it. So it really depends on the content. We can have the same blog. We can adjust it to the Jenkins needs. So yeah, but we can figure it out later. You just need to ensure that the timeline for CDF blog post would be aligned. Right. Yeah, I'm supposed to get them the first draft by this Friday or sooner. So I'm not sure when they're planning on publishing it though. Oh, you can talk to them to ensure that it gets published after the decision. Yeah, I think that CDF would be quite flexible with that. Okay. Does anyone plan any other communications? Am I still online? Yes, you are. Yes. And I don't think there's anything else on the communications plan there. I think that's good. Yeah, let's see. Well, we also need to somehow highlight Alex blog post. So, but now we can do that because we did voting. So public communications, so wouldn't impact the voting result. At least, it's my understanding. Yeah, but yeah, I think we can take it offline. Okay, I understand. Okay, next step. Reconsider roadmap items to be more of its roadmap. So other updates. Yeah, one thing was mentioning I started cleaning up a blacklist or at least in the change log mostly related to JEP 200. So now it's integrated. But again, if you want to do major updates, we need to see what we do because there are quite a number of references. Well, it's worth a few weeks ago when we decided this was happening. I also updated all past security advisories and I think update documentation related to security as that is now talking a lot about allow lists and deny lists when it previously did not. So, yeah, basically, we agreed to use allow list deny list in the course rate. Or I mean, whatever other terms make sense. The whitelist blacklist as it turned out was also a very unspecific term. So bringing to the attention that it's often better to just explain exactly what is being listed and what the result is even improved the readability. Yeah, and that's something that we brought up on the mailing list too. I think we're in the governance meeting a few weeks ago or something that definitely it doesn't have to just be a search room place, whitelist to allow list and so forth to actually look at what's written there. And if there's a better way to explain the context, then that's absolutely great. Okay, as a specific example, or example, I distinguish insecurity advisories between signatures of methods in script security sandbox that are user approved and those that are pre-approved through some static list as part of the plugin, which is quite the difference. And before that, just use the same term. Okay, yeah, this is a great thing actually. So we should also keep cleaning it up. Fortunately, the exposure in the code base is much lower, well, except the whitelist the notation in pipeline API. But yeah, I think that we can do something about it because notations can be inherited. So it's basically a small matter of programming to get it updated a few hundreds plugin. Okay, anything else on terminal updates? Okay, let's move on then. So two quick updates. One is code infrastructure initiative. So I posted the update to the developer mailing list. So great news, we actually officially passing the CI criteria. So what it means that we have, we are confined to these all basic criteria defined by code infrastructure initiative. So you can find there are some descriptions and answers, which provide more details about what we do, what we don't do, etc. And in addition to that, we started the review and quick criteria for silver and gold level. So in CI in total, you can get to 300%. So right now we had 133%, but it's not to get a passing page. So right now it's applied and it's also available on our code repository. So now if you go here, you can see CI page. Just to have it. So this story is far from being completed because if we go after silver and gold criteria, there is a lot of requirements. Some of these requirements, well, they are quite arguable, whether you want to comply with them. Some of them are quite reasonable and it's a matter of improvements. So yeah, we cannot do a lot, but it's not on the table right now. So if someone wants to keep working on that, please feel free to continue to suggest changes. I will be happy to incorporate them, but yeah, at least in the coming months, I don't want to push it further towards silver level. Okay, any questions on that? Okay, the next one is CDF graduation. So yeah, like we discussed at the last meeting, I submitted a request to CDF to start the graduation process. On July 21st, there was a CDF talk meeting where we briefly presented what we changed in the process and we presented our compliance checklist, which is full green. And I'll show it to you. But yeah, after that, CDF talk started offline voting in the mailing list. So you can see the results of a vote here. Actually, the vote is still ongoing, but we've got a bunch of plus ones, including a number of plus ones from talk members. So binding ones. And it looks like really positive. So we are waiting for official announcement, but it looks like everything is on track there. There was no concerns. And I believe that you will do it as planned. So thanks to all who contributed. Thanks to the security team for reviewing the checklist, etc., which was required for CI and for CDF graduation. Yeah, thanks to all who contributed to code of conduct and other areas, because it really helped us to get this story over the line. And now we are just waiting. Any questions? I just wanted to say thanks, Oleg, for all the work you've done on the CDF graduation. I know you've put a lot of work into that and it's much appreciated. So thank you. Agreed wholeheartedly. That absolutely wonderful. Great result. Yeah, let's see how we utilize it in the future. I think that it was a net positive experience for us, because we updated our documentation, our guidelines anyway. So regardless of CDF graduation, it was net positive for the Jenkins project. So I'm quite positive about that. Okay. So the last item we have is from Alice here about Jenkins epiphany video. So would you like to describe it, Lisa? Yeah, so thanks to CloudBees. They gave me a chunk of money to create a video that talks about Jenkins. And the goal of the video is to help basically promote Jenkins and see, to let people know why Jenkins is so great. And we want to attract more Jenkins users, of course, more people to the community. And my goal is to have this played on Jenkins.io and in social media as well. But yeah, it's to promote Jenkins and to put it into a good light for Jenkins. Yeah, I'm just playing it through Zoom screencast. I'm not sure how it works. But yeah, this is the drops of the video, right? So there was a reservation with a few updates. Yeah, so this video is not final. We're working on the final version right now. I'm hoping to get it either in the next week or two. But yeah, so this is just the draft, the latest draft. So I'd like to get approval to use it on Jenkins.io. You mean on Jenkins to take you on the front page, right? Yes. Yeah, so in terms of placement there, would it replace the top level icon for some period? Do you have a visual design that you envision, Alyssa? Would it replace or be above what I've heard called the Jumbotron? Yeah, no, I don't think so, Mark. I think it would be lower towards the page. Yeah, it's either before those logos or before the blog. But I don't want it to replace the Jumbotron for sure. Okay, yeah, who would be doing the technical implementation for that? I don't know. Yeah, because yeah, one thing that technically we can embed videos from YouTube on the Jenkins website. But yeah, it works through macros and I'm not sure that this macros would work on the main page because it's generated from Hamel. So it will require somebody to embed the video. So then would you suggest it? So you said that it's easier if we put it on YouTube, right? And then? We need to host the video somewhere. We can host the video from Jenkins.io, I believe. Okay. Could be. Yeah, I think we should host the video on YouTube, but we'll present it through the page on Jenkins.io from the YouTube hosting, although I think what your observation was is we need somebody assigned that takes that and says, okay, let's make sure it works within the context of that page, and that'd be part of the poll request to make it work. Yeah, so we can't easily put it on Jambotron because most likely everything will go crazy if you try to embed video here. Right. Yeah, embed it here in a static context. Yes, it's doable. At the same time, yeah, we have never tried it. So right. Well, somebody would need to implement it. And yeah, if it's hosted on YouTube, we put embed player. We actually did it for a few blog posts before. So we used the embed video there. Just a second. I'm looking for a blog post which would be doing that. Maybe this one. Well, but yeah, there are definitely blog posts which embed the video, and it's not a problem if we do it in the content which is created from a ski dog. Because we created a mattress for that. So like this is when I'd propose, let me take the assignment to work with Alissa on, given that it's, I've got the documentation officer title, and this is really something that goes into the docs. Let me take that. And if I'm not able to fit it capacity-wise, I'll go looking for somebody else to help me. Okay. Yeah, so there are two parts. So one is technical implementation. Another one is about approval. So yeah, the one question about approval, that basically there was no approval request in the developer mailing list. And yeah, I'm not sure what the advocacy outreach would work for us. Well, it's something to decide here, I guess, right now. And of that, if everybody agrees, okay. So do you want me to initiate an email to the devilist? Well, I would try to get feedback from other participants whether you feel it's required or not. And for me, I don't think it's required. So my sense is this is a place where it's, it's a reasonable thing for the governance board to decide, yeah, this is a fine thing to include at the top level page. Alex, Daniel. Yeah, I'm fine with it. Promoting Jenkins is great. No opinion on that question. Quick question though. Is the general content of the video final? It's pretty much, it's almost final, Daniel. We, there were, there were two edits that we sent to them, one which Oleg caught, which says cloud Jenkins.com, to be Jenkins.io, that was in the audio. And then we asked them to tweak, brought to you by, I think we changed it to, thank you to our sponsor, Cloudbees and CDF. So those were the two things that we're going to change. The audio, the person that is speaking is also going to change as well. So we just used the person that was working on this video as kind of like a placeholder. Did you have something that you saw that, that we need to change, Daniel? So I just looked at the video real quick at the start of this meeting. And what I noticed is the device shown in the video is a rail gun. And I'm not entirely sure we want Jenkins to be associated with that. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into that. So is that the part that Oleg is playing that you're a concern about? The earlier version, this looks nice and futuristic, but the other looked a lot like a rail gun. So hence the question. You mean this one? Yeah. That one. I mean, I look at this and it looks like that US Navy weapon system on these giant ships that has technical issues. So it might be that I'm reading too much into it and I don't need this to change, but perhaps that's something to be considered how that looks if we expect others to have the same association. No, I think it's a valid point. But I like to hear what others think. I abstain. Did you say there are two versions of the video? Is that? No, this is almost the final version, the one that Oleg was playing. It would be useful for me to be able to watch the whole thing, including the audio before I can get some feedback. So maybe I can do that via email or something. I would just like to just watch the whole video and see with the audio what I think. Okay, that'd be great. Thank you. So I just noted the current votes. So what is your timeline for publishing, Kalisa? Probably two weeks. I'm hoping by next week, but I think that's going to be wishful thinking on my part. Oh, so you're taking the plans for announcements, etc. I am here next week or maybe. But yeah, my understanding that August will be quite packed with announcements because we need to announce roadmap, we need to announce graduation, bearing in mind that it's finally signed off, we also have a few online methods planned. So, well, it's okay, but yeah. Well, I think my main goal was trying to get this into the announcement for the graduation. But I'm not sure that's going to, they're going to be able to make it. So yeah, assuming that Daniel and Alex take a look review and everybody's okay or not, do we need any other steps? Nope, that's all that I need. Thank you. Okay, then yeah, let's see what would be the feedback. Okay, anything else on this topic? Not for me. Okay, thank you, Alisa. So the next question is rather formal, is whether we want to switch the meetings to Zoom going forward or whether we want to do them in IRC? Because last time we were discussing, everybody said that the preference is IRC. Oh, sorry, the preference is Zoom, actually. Yeah, my preference continues to be Zoom. Same. Zoom works. Not just in Zoom, we see people because in IRC it's also difficult to get participants, so it's not something like in IRC, we had more participants, especially during July, August timeframe. So I'm not too concerned about switching to Zoom. My main concern is actually about correctly doing meeting notes because if you are doing it in IRC, basically everything is recorded, everything can be tracked by participants. But if we do it in Zoom, then just we have video publishing delay. Secondly, we may have no good meeting notes. So if we resolve for this part, I think that switching to Zoom would be totally fine. And would you like to assign a scribe? I realized you've backed it as a scribe for the meeting notes for many of these meetings, but I could do that or others could do that so that you can focus on running the meeting if that would help. It would always, it would definitely help. And yeah, the government's meeting is still, as well as others, I deliberately made public for comments so anyone can make suggestions during the meeting and they can be integrated afterwards. Yeah, so maybe particularly with Oleg Yu and Alex as board members and official board members, maybe it's best if somebody who's not a board member like me or Alyssa or Daniel, that we take the note so that you can focus on the meeting. Let's try that the next time and I'll see if I can contribute by doing that. To be honest, I'm finding it is not hosting this meetings as well. You're doing a great job, Oleg. Yeah, but yeah, actually, meeting notes in Google Docs are important, but I think the more important thing is to actually propagate these notes to developer-medical stress because historically we used the government's meeting as just a final approval, rubber-stumping meeting, but the most of the discussions and communications happen in the mailing list. So for example, when we discuss a topic, when major decisions are done, et cetera, we, in my opinion, we should just ensure that we communicate these decisions and notes back to the mailing lists so that everyone who participate there can ease the access of the information notes and it remains the source of truth. Agreed, and that feels like a good role that whoever the scribe is could take to do that. That way the board members don't have to carry that burden. But you're right, absolutely. If we've got a thread in the dev list, that is the place to confirm that the governance board chose this rather than making those people go find the governance board notes. Is there no automatic transcription service for Zoom that we could use, even if it's not quite perfect? Well, we publish video on YouTube, so in YouTube we can just enable transcription just in one click if you want. But yeah, it's far from being perfect. And let's say if you're a native speaker, it's probably okay. If you're not a native speaker, yeah, it leads to various funny things. So I would prefer to not use automation there. Well, for me, the skipping the automation is healthy because it lets us keep just the relevant points, just the specific details that are relevant to retain. So I don't object to taking the notes and making sure that the notes accurately describe what we're doing. I agree. Let's try to do that. And at the end, let's assume that we're going forward to Zoom as a default communication channel. And it pretty much lands at results, special interest groups, et cetera. I'm mostly in my video calls with these. Okay, any other topics for the discussion today? None for me. All good. Okay, then thanks everyone. And I'll see you in two weeks. So the next meeting will happen as usual. It's 4 p.m. UTC, Wednesday, July 20th, sorry, August. So it will be August 12th. Gosh. Oh, yeah, there's someone who's almost over. It's crazy. Not here in Arizona. We're still in the, let me, over 40C, so. Yeah, it's okay. Wait a second. It's almost, it's over 30C in December in Arizona, if I remember right, isn't it? So sometimes, not all the time. It gets down into, you know, below 30C. Okay. Hot. Okay. All right, thanks. Thank you. Thanks so much. So see you at the next meetings. Bye. Thanks a lot. Bye, everybody.