Location
Browser | Room System | Phone Dial-in |
---|
https://bluejeans.com/761546516/ | - Dial: 199.48.152.152 or bjn.vc
- Enter Meeting ID: 761546516 -or- use the pairing code
| Dial-in numbers: - +1 408 740 7256
- +1 888 240 2560 (US Toll-Free)
- +1 408 317 9253 (Alternate Number)
Meeting ID: 761546516 |
(Back to the DMCCB page)
Time
From 9.00 to 09.30 PT, Wednesday, August the 5th.
Attendees
Regrets
DMCCB Meeting Goals
- See DMCCB responsibilities listed in LDM-294 section 7.4
DMCCB Additional Resources
Discussion Items
Item | Description | CCB Notes |
---|
Flagged RFCs (To be approved by the DMCCB) | -
RFC-713
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: Jul/31/2020
-
RFC-711
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end Jul/31/2020
-
RFC-710
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end Jul/28/2020
-
RFC-709
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end Jul/24/2020
-
RFC-708
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end Jul/24/2020
-
RFC-699
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: Jun/03/2020
-
RFC-695
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: Aug/31/2020
| - RFC-713: it should just be a procedural thing to approve the test cases already executed
- RFC-711: no comments, the outcome seems to keep the document, but add an obsolete flag on top of it
- CCB agreed to board recommend it. Tim Jenness commented.
- RFC-710/RFC-709: Leanne is preparing the LCR. CCB should approve the RFCs before the LCR is submitted.
- DMS-REQ-0066 needs to be resurrected. GPFD to review the original text. Leanne Guy to ping GPDF
- 710 board recommend
- 709 waiting for GPDF
- RFC-708:
- to keep it open for a couple of weeks more, until the final update from P6
- RFC-699
- RFC-695
|
Board Recommended RFCs |
|
|
Adopted but not implemented LDM RFCs (only document RFCs) |
|
|
Proposed RFCs (to review, do not require DMCCB approval) | -
RFC-720
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: Aug/5/2020
-
RFC-719
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: Aug/6/2020
-
RFC-718
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: Aug/7/2020
-
RFC-712
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: Jul/31/2020
-
RFC-703
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: Jun/30/2020
-
RFC-697
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: June/11/2020
-
RFC-638
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
Planned end: Jun/7/2021
| - RFC-720: see AOB point.
- Tim Jenness baseline environment needs to be approved by the DMCCB
- see discussion RFC-537
- Kian-Tat Lim this is still valid, even if the stab packages are conda packages now
- The problem is when a pkg is added to the env, existing pkgs will change their version, in order to keep consistency in the environment.
- this pull out a set of differences that need to be approved by the DMCCB
- Kian-Tat Lim suggests that a new RFC for this is not required, since this is the result of an impact analysis
- Tim Jenness Arch team, before moving the RFC to board recommend, need to provide the changes that a new package is generating in the environment. This will permit the CCB to decide if an RFC introducing a new package can be approved or not
- DMCCB agreed to board recommend RFC-720
- John Swinbank asked if we should check if the env change breaks the external user code
- Tim Jenness no, people usually pick a weekly and stick to it for months
- Colin Slater this is acceptable if it happens not so often
- Tim Jenness due to the use of conda-forge, we can't do puctual updates
- Kian-Tat Lim the idea is to move the environment in a conda metapackage, and this probably makes possible to pin back some package in the the environemtn
- Wil O'Mullane CCB needs to be aware that somebody may be affected when other packages changes
- RFC-719, is not under the radar of the DMCCB
- RFC-718
- this requires a new Jenkins job
- RFC-712, KT to look at it
- RFC-703 to move end date to Aug30
|
Adopted RFCs without Triggering issues (to create implementing DM issues) | -
RFC-714
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
|
|
Adopted RFCs with all triggered work COMPLETED (to set status as 'IMPLEMENTED') |
|
|
RFCs adopted since last CCB (to review, no action required) | -
RFC-715
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
RFC-714
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
RFC-717
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
RFC-716
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
|
|
RFCs implemented (or withdraw) since last CCB (to review, no action required) | -
RFC-717
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
|
|
Releases - Planned
- Changes to the release schedule
| - Next planned Release 21.0.0
- Tentative schedule: November 2020
|
|
Monitor Jira issues status: - the most forgotten 10 DM issues
- (resolution = Unresolved ORDER by updated asc)
| Support to J. Swinbank monitoring activity. -
DM-9418
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
DM-2351
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
DM-9442
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
DM-9444
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
DM-9445
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
DM-9399
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
DM-9436
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
DM-9454
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
DM-9469
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
-
DM-9393
-
Getting issue details...
STATUS
3905 unresolved issues (3887 on July the29th) | Preassess before the CCB starts - DM-9418 — reassigned to Architecture team.
- DM-2351 — needs a comment from Architecture.
- DM-9469 — needs a comment from the SUIT team.
- DM-9393 — added comment.
During CCB: |
Open Actions |
|
|
AOB | John Swinbank : Should changes to the scipipe_conda_env require an RFC? My reading of RFC-537 is that they should (although that RFC has only been adopted, not implemented). Does that still hold in the new Conda regime? | discussed above with RFC-720 |
Next DM-CCB | August the 19th (next ween PCW) |
|
Pending Flagged RFCs
Pending Proposed RFCs
Oldest issues
Meeting outcome
Pending DMCCB Actions
Task report
Looking good, no incomplete tasks.