# OCI TOB: 27/28 April Call
URL: https://zoom.us/my/opencontainers
Passcode: 77777
**Recording:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKoImiM9zrA

### Attendees:
- Phil Estes
- Vincent Batts
- Fu Wei
- Samuel Karp
- Steve Lasker
- ASP
- CRA
- Aleksa Sarai
- Sargun
- Tianon Gravi
- Derek McGowan
- Josh Dolitsky

### Agenda Items:
- [OCI Working Group Proposal](https://hackmd.io/WkNDyrYbRceswOICGxrHfA)
- Steve Lasker - [Reference types WG proposal](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/issues/96)
- Charter cleanup (Aleksa still working on PRs?)
- Inactive maintainer actions (image-spec) - [message from Chris A.](https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/g/tob/c/lrAb4yn_UGU/m/WOYEJIECAQAJ)

### Notes:
- General agreement on framing of Working Group proposal; Chris A. will take it to LF legal (along with the "reference type" proposal as a rough example). Expected follow-up in 2 weeks.
- Chris A. will be proposing removal of 2 inactive image-spec maintainers; will go for vote and if they do show up they can object to removal. So far no response/communication with either of them.
- Charter cleanup will follow after getting the Working Group change finalized (so as not to slow progress); TOB members will review Aleksa's main comments to make sure we are in general agreement and then Chris A. will take these suggestions to LF Legal for getting changes drafted.

# OCI TOB: 4/5 June Call
URL: https://zoom.us/my/opencontainers
4/5 June Recording: https://youtu.be/UUbt25K95SA

### Attendees:
- Phil Estes
- Aleksa Sarai
- Derek McGowan
- Samuel Karp
- Jon Johnson
- Amye Scavarda Perrin (OCI)
- Vincent Batts
- caniszczyk
- Steve Lasker
- Wei Fu

### Agenda Items:
- [ORAS](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/68) and [umoci](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/67) OCI proposals

### Notes:
- Got 2/3rds(+) TOB LGTM on [#77](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/77) to simplify the mission statement
- Briefly discussed the latest updates/comments on the getting started draft [#76](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/76)
- Discussed need for simple project archive process; will add to Aleksa's `CHARTER.md` update flow. Both [runtime-tools](https://github.com/opencontainers/runtime-tools) and [image-tools](https://github.com/opencontainers/image-tools) are potential candidates as they seem to not have any activity for some time.
- Discussion on the [**umoci** proposal](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/67); Aleksa gave overview of the project followed by TOB discussion.
- Discussion on [**ORAS** proposal](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/68); Steve Lasker led
- TOB agreed on one week voting period for both proposals, ending on Friday June 12 at 1200 US Pacific Time.

# OCI TOB: 12/13 May Call
URL: https://zoom.us/my/opencontainers
May 12/13 recording: https://youtu.be/TUwZtTyNhDM

### Attendees:
- Phil Estes
- Wei Fu
- Josh Dolitsky
- Samuel Karp
- Aleksa Sarai
- Steve Lasker
- Chris Aniszczyk
- Derek McGowan
- Steven Zou
- Ssiddh
- Amye SP

### Agenda Items:
- Updates since April - Charter/Scope/GitHub/etc.
- Discuss ["Getting Started" draft](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/76)
- 2/3rds LGTM on [#74](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/74)
- General discussion on [governance docs review/update](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/issues/72) - *Sam made a comment on "runtime", as one example*

### Notes:
- Where does artifacts fit? Needs to have a spot in the "Getting Started" categories; Steve: "is it a spec? what is it?"
- Matt Farina's comments re: artifacts; see [artifacts#23](https://github.com/opencontainers/artifacts/issues/23) and [distribution-spec#148](https://github.com/opencontainers/distribution-spec/issues/148)
- Aleksa: `runtime-tools` and `image-tools` most likely fit as "conformance" vs. tools/utilities
- Discussion around "buckets" and projects re: the draft "getting started" PR; mostly agreement on the set of categories; people will review offline given the PR was only opened a few hours ago. Target for merge in ~ 1 week; [**please review**](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/76)
- More discussion on progress of [CHARTER.md](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/blob/master/CHARTER.md) in GitHub now that scope table is removed; Chris A. will take a stab at a PR with updated language. Tasked Steve L. with review of TDC section as it needs some potentially significant updates given current operating model of the OCI and growth in projects.

# OCI TOB: 6/7 April Call
URL: https://zoom.us/my/opencontainers
April 6/7 recording: https://youtu.be/Yu3q9r2LZAA

### Attendees:
- Phil Estes
- Steve Lasker
- Aleksa Sarai
- Vincent Batts
- Wei Fu
- Samuel Karp
- Derek McGowan
- Amye Scavarda Perrin

### Agenda Items:
- Discuss OCI scope

### Notes:
- Determining how to categorize what fits in the OCI; discussion around:
- no branding, promotion (e.g. CNCF role)
- specs and reference implementations
- small libraries with limited function; can be used to build higher layer function
- concern around whether we can actually attract contributors/maintainers to projects added to the OCI
- concerns around long-term viability of projects that get added; several discrete concerns include lack of maintainability (Vincent gave a few examples) as well as the need for being able to gracefully sunset/retire projects and a process to go along with it

- TODO clarify: who are included in the "TDC"
- is it all the MAINTAINERS?
- `tdc.sh`

#!/bin/sh

FILES="\
        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opencontainers/image-spec/master/MAINTAINERS \
        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opencontainers/image-tools/master/MAINTAINERS \
        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/master/MAINTAINERS \
        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opencontainers/runtime-tools/master/MAINTAINERS \
        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opencontainers/runc/master/MAINTAINERS \
        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opencontainers/distribution-spec/master/MAINTAINERS \
        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opencontainers/go-digest/master/MAINTAINERS \
        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opencontainers/selinux/master/MAINTAINERS \
        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/opencontainers/artifacts/master/MAINTAINERS"

tmp="$(mktemp)"
for file in ${FILES} ; do
        curl -sSL "${file}"  > "${tmp}.xx"
        if [ $? != 0 ] ; then
                echo "error: ${file}"
        else
                cat "${tmp}.xx" >> "${tmp}"
                echo "" >> "${tmp}"
        fi
done

sort -u "${tmp}"

# OCI TOB: 2/3 March Call
**Call-in details:**
Time: 0100+1 GMT (1700 PST; 2000 EST; 0900+1 China; 1000+1 Japan)
URL: https://zoom.us/my/opencontainers

One tap mobile
+16465588656,6449415895# US (New York)
+16699006833,6449415895# US (San Jose)

Dial by your location
[phone] US (New York)
[phone] US (San Jose)
877 369 0926 US Toll-free
855 880 1246 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 644 941 5895
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aLDk4OXTu

### Attendees:
- Phil Estes
- Steve Lasker
- Jon Johnson
- Vincent Batts
- Wei Fu
- Samuel Karp
- Derek McGowan
- Amye Scavarda Perrin

### Agenda Items:
- TOB-specific discussion: what's our voting process?
- https://github.com/opencontainers/tob#voting
- TOB decision criteria: a view on charter/OCI scope
* see [OCI Governance](https://www.opencontainers.org/about/governance)
* see [OCI Scope Table](https://www.opencontainers.org/about/oci-scope-table) *Note: potentially outdated?*
- TOB proposals that require a vote
* 1) ORAS: [proposal: PR#68](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/68)
* 2) umoci: [proposal: PR#67](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/67)

### Notes:
- Assume continue with simple voting process; no exact timelines, but effectively proposals:
* should get 2-4 weeks of community feedback period as a GH PR to tob repo
* TOB should have discussion (online or via scheduled call), followed by one week voting period for TOB
* Governance specifies requirement for 2/3rds majority for TOB votes
* Important thing is to not let proposals die on the vine--get proposers an answer in a reasonable timeframe.
- Discussion on history of OCI projects; talked about runc, the initial specs, image-tools and runtime-tools, distribution spec, selinux and go-digest projects.
* SteveL: why was runc OCI vs. CNCF? OCI creation happened prior to CNCF existence by a few months. CNCF took a bit to clarify what their purpose was; initially focused on Kubernetes itself, of course.
- Discussed differences between OCI and CNCF around governance, expectations of projects, etc.
- Derek: We have to decide what OCI offers projects that would join the OCI org, and if we believe what that is is actually valuable, then we have to figure out how to update the scope table to make them fit in the scheme/governance of the organization.
- Unique spot between specs/ref. implementations at the "low end"; mostly in OCI versus "project/product" oriented open source in CNCF--Harbor, Helm, Kubernetes, etc.; do they **need** to fit somewhere or simply sit where they are and continue being useful to a specific group of people.
- We need to build a framework to help us make this decision at the OCI TOB level and then test it against libraries/projects/etc. and decide if that's the outcome that makes sense.
- Should writeup what we believe the revised scope of the OCI is
- Litmus test that scope against the existing projects
- Are we happy if a project wouldn't be part of OCI if submitted today?
- We don't have to evict any projects, rather we may grandfather a project if it doesn't meet our new guidelines. Just intersting to test, what would we do today with this project?
- Once we have this framing, we can consider ORAS and umoci

## Categorizing Project Types
By identifying different types of projects, we can discuss which are appropriate for the OCI. We've said cross company/org SPECs are the start. Full on projects/products are not part of our governance. But, where do we draw the line in the middle?
- Spec Conformance Tests appear to meet the bar
- A supportive library, for meeting the goals of the spec starts the grey line
- Reference implementation - is this beyond? Would we bring in docker/distribution, quay or harbor?

Below are set of types, where we should elaborate a bit on their definition.
Teams that wish to submit their projects to OCI would understand the scope of what we intend to support, so they can either reshape their project to fit within the guidelines, or look to other governing bodies that might be more appropriate.

### Spec

### Spec Conformance Test

A set of runnable tests that demonstrate of a project or product meets the defintion of the spec

### Library
*Need to define the scope of a library*
### Reference Implementation
- Should define the difference between Reference Implementation and a Project/Product
- Something that can be run, outside a specific cloud which adhears to the spec it references.
- For the refernece implementation to be adopted by OCI, it would need to be kept in sync with the spec. For a change to be accepted to the spec, the equivalent implementation would need to be authored and accepted as well. (Ordering and dependency is another intersting question)

### Project or Product
Something that a user would run directly, for a set of functionality

## Value to the Project and Scope of OCI Governance
- What should a project expect, or not expect by adoption to the OCI?

## Next Steps

- Iterate over the above notes
- Meet in ~2 weeks to finalize a recomendation for how we'd like to move forward with the type of projects OCI would support. We'd use the updated notes above to litmus test this against the existing projects.
- Vote on these recomendations over the next weeks, post the meeting
- Then, with a clarified charter in place, we can discuss ORAS and umoci and how they fit these goals