Open Community (TDC) Meeting, Thursday 11 January 2024

[github-actions]

NOTE: This meeting is on Thursday at 9am - 10am PT

Zoom Meeting link: https://zoom.us/j/975841675. Dial-in passcode: 763054 - Code-of-Conduct

In order to give some more visibility into the topics we cover in the TDC meetings here is the planned agenda for the next meeting. Hopefully this will allow people to plan to attend meetings for topics that they have an interest in. And for folks who cannot attend they can comment on this issue prior to the meeting. Feel free to suggest other potential agenda topics.

Please submit comments below for topics or proposals that you wish to present in the TDC meeting

The agenda backlog is currently maintained in issue #2482

Topic	Owner	Decision/NextStep
Reports from Special Interest Groups	TDC
AOB (see below)	TDC
Approved spec PRs	TDC
New issues / PRs labelled review	@OAI/triage
New issues without response yet	@OAI/triage

/cc @OAI/tsc Please suggest items for inclusion

[lornajane]

Is there a good place to put things that need 10 minutes from someone with commit access? I don't think these even need meeting time, but they are small items that I think are ready to move forward:

• Create issue template config.yml #3211
• Add requestBody to createPets operation #3321
• build: update mdv dev. dep. #3431

[baywet]

adding #3493

[handrews]

As discussed, let's kick off the year by getting broken links fixed and deployed ASAP?

Open PRs (3408 consolidates most but not the ones beyond the TOC links):

• fix: GitHub changed markdown rendering for headings/anchors #3408
• Fixed link to SPDX identifiers #3440 (SPDX link also broken)
• docs(3.1.0): 📝 Fix relative broken links and address some of the markdownlint complaints #3207
• Update Relative Links to Sections #3160
• Fix anchors/links in markdown [3.1.0.md] #3136
• Internal link refactor to be more resilient across different markdown renderers #3128
• Update 3.0.4.md to fix broken links #3029

Merged but not deployed PR:

• Updating Link RFC-3339 for date-time and date format #3348 (RFC 3339 link broken)
• Fix broken RFC links #3188 (various IETF link breakages, probably needs double-checking as they've broken more than once)

Rejected PRs:

• Draft: refactor: edit links for markdown document navigation #3367
• Correct Data Type: date-time RFC-3339 reference link #3347 (RFC 3339)

Open issues

• Anchor links broken in 3.0.x Markdown specification documents #3494
• Documentation links not working #3197
• The links to RFC3339 stopped working #3146 (fixed by Updating Link RFC-3339 for date-time and date format #3348)
• Specification extensions link is broken in Markdown file #3132
• Broken navigation on https://spec.openapis.org/oas/{version}.html #3054

Closed issues (despite nothing being fixed)

[lornajane]

Thank you @handrews, would love to tackle some of this! I note that since the merging of #3489 , both you and I have merge access on files outside of the core project file and the `/versions' folder ...

[spacether]

Can we also please discuss this: #3486 Proposal: Create new repo for openapi tests, similar to json schema test suite

[lornajane]

Summary from my notes today:

Everyone is excited about many things! Moonwalk has its own repo and a dedicated channel in the OpenAPI slack. Work on a 4.0 OpenAPI will be done in that separate group prior to its main release.

With the increase in momentum, it's clear that we need to grow the core team as well. We recentlly added a Codeowners file #3489 to enable more committers to the non-spec parts of the repository. This means that we now have three teams defined in GitHub: TSC (committers to all repo areas), Maintainers (Committers to non-core parts of the repo), and Triage (ability to tag and close issues). All three groups need to grow and we agreed to discuss this again at a later meeting with more TSC members present. Other repositories outside of the main spec repo may need other owners.

We will need to write down the teams we have, what they can/should do, and who is currently in them.

Stu Waldron needs a summary of the plans on the growth for the BGB meeting next week - we will discuss this in slack.

Many of our open issues (as shown in Henry's post above) are related to deploying the web versions of the specification and other materials. @MikeRalphson is our expert on this, but @handrews and @lornajane are going to try to pick up some of the first-line issues and update dependencies and so on. We may need to update some of the existing pipeline to get it working again.

@spacether raised #3486 and we agreed that in principle having a set of tests that cover what's in our registry would be valuable, but it would need maintainers. If you're interested in helping, please comment on that issue. @handrews also explained that understanding how to use these tests is not trivial, so this project will also need some good and clear documentation to go with it.

@baywet opened a pull request to add Dependabot to the repository, we think this will help us keep our dependencies updated although there will be a lot of outdated packages initially.

After processing all comments on this issue, and open questions from the group, we proceeded to the next step of the agenda and discovered that this relies on the issues being tagged "review", which hasn't happened in years. We should update either our process or our agenda links!

For people triaging issues, it would be helpful to create guidelines for when issues can be closed because the chances of us adopting an idea into the 3.x branch is too remote.