---
# System prepended metadata

title: '2025-09-03'
tags: [meeting-notes]

---

---
tags: [meeting-notes]
title: '2025-09-03'
---
# conda-forge core meeting 2025-09-03

Add new agenda items under the `Your __new__() agenda items` heading

- [Zoom link](https://zoom.us/j/9138593505?pwd=SWh3dE1IK05LV01Qa0FJZ1ZpMzJLZz09)
- [What time is the meeting in my time zone](https://dateful.com/convert/utc?t=5pm)
- [Previous meetings](https://conda-forge.org/community/minutes/)

## Attendees

| Name                    | Initials | GitHub ID        | Affiliation                 |
| ----------------------- | -------- | ---------------  | --------------------------- |
| Jaime Rodríguez-Guerra  | JRG      | jaimergp         | Quansight/cf                |
| Marius van Niekerk      | MvN      | mariusvniekerk   | Inmarket/cf                 |
| Uwe Korn                | UK       | xhochy           | QuantCo/cf                  |
| Isuru Fernando          | IF       | isuruf           | Quansight/cf                |
| Chris Burr              | CB       | chrisburr        | cf                          |

5 people total

### Your __new__() agenda items

- [X] (UK) Merges on Python 3.14 PRs
    - Policy for merge: immediately or deferred? Full week might be too slow for the migration to continue at scale
    - JRG: Compromise with 48h?
    - IF: Become a maintainer of the blocking feedstock if there's a rush. Otherwise might introduce extra efforts for the actual maintainers if something goes wrong.
    - UK/MvN: Policy only for Python migrations.
    - IF: Previous conversations proposed that the bot pings maintainers with certain notice (48h), but no one ended up writing the bot implementation. Maybe time to revisit.
    - UK: Problems with failed rerenders often get in the way. Once fixed, what to do? Manual review to make sure CI matrix was actually updated?
    - CB: Concerns about delays in delivering the Python update.
    - IF: Within a month would be acceptable. Most feedstocks with thousands of children are maintainers by core people anyway.
    - MvN: General approach in the past was to monitor the status progress updates and unblock major bottlenecks. That's where most of the "eagerness to merge" happens. Leaf nodes can progress in a slower way.
    - UK: From a marketing perspective, leaf nodes are also important.
    - IF: Leaf nodes are usually ok with a week of wait. The "rush issue" is mostly about packages with many descendents. Suggests to have a core person join the feedstock.
    - UK: "Why pinging instead of just merge?" triggered this discussion.
    - IF: Personal policy is to not merge without pinging, some others don't care that much.
    - Conclusions:
        - MvN: Find threshold for "graph criticality" of how many children is too many to "rush" a merge
        - JRG: Encode guidelines in informative CFEP
        - CB: having some metadata in the recipe for this at some point to communicate maintainer intent (e.g. core can merge any time, core can merge after a couple of days, core can merge after a week). 
            - Add `conda-forge.yml` file to staged-recipes example?
        - JRG: Add message informing policy in PR migration description
- [X] (JRG) Relevant CEPs for conda-forge:
  - CEP XXXX: Customizable system DLL linkage checks for windows #128: https://github.com/conda/ceps/pull/128
  - CEP XXXX: Improving dependency export infrastructure #129: https://github.com/conda/ceps/pull/129
- [X] (JRG): Governance & emeritus members permissions: 
  - https://github.com/conda-forge/governance/pull/10
  - https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-smithy/issues/2362
  - MvN: Sounds sensible to generalize this to all subteams.
 
### Pushed to next meeting

- [ ] (WV): sigstore available in beta on prefix.dev
    - [ ] (WV): would like to invoice NumFOCUS for the SDG, money went towards CEP-27
    - [ ] (WV): unfortunately not much progress on signing for conda-forge just yet
- [ ] (WV): pixi build / build profiles discussion
- [ ] (WV): pixi-"conda" ideas (pixi without lockfile)

### CFEPs

- [ ]
