Location

BrowserRoom SystemPhone Dial-in
https://bluejeans.com/761546516/
  1. Dial: 199.48.152.152 or bjn.vc
  2. 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

  • TBD

DMCCB Meeting Goals

  • See DMCCB responsibilities listed in LDM-294 section 7.4

DMCCB Additional Resources

Discussion Items

ItemDescriptionCCB 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.

  1. DM-9418 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  2. DM-2351 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  3. DM-9442 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  4. DM-9444 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  5. DM-9445 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  6. DM-9399 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  7. DM-9436 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  8. DM-9454 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  9. DM-9469 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  10. 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

Key Summary
Refresh

Pending Proposed RFCs

Key Summary
Refresh

Oldest issues

Key Summary
Refresh

Meeting outcome


Pending DMCCB Actions

Task report

Looking good, no incomplete tasks.