Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
106 lines (63 loc) · 6.04 KB

2021-02-24.md

File metadata and controls

106 lines (63 loc) · 6.04 KB
Raw

TSC Meeting: February 27, 2021

Meeting information

February 27, 2021 11a EST

  • Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/96738269957 (password: chipstsc)
  • Recording:
  • How to join: Please join the Zoom call and edit your username to include your affiliation (e.g., the project you represent or the company you work for).

Please note that our Zoom calls are recorded/livestreamed so that we can post them to our YouTube channel.

Attendees

  • Henry Cook, TSC chair
  • Michael Gielda
  • Rob Mains
  • Brian Warner

Agenda

Please add agenda items by opening a PR prior to the meeting.

  1. Welcome
  2. Review Applications for sandbox

Minutes

Minutes captured by: Brian Warner

Welcome

Henry Cook opened the meeting at 11:04 am ET.

Review Applications for Sandbox

Rocket Chip

Henry began with his experience filling out the Sandbox application for Rocket Chip. He noted that the Sandbox part is easy for a single individual, but that the graduation stage will require input from other project contributors. He noted that a few things are still unclear, such as the scale and scope of reporting usage. Is it the number of users? How we use it?

Henry noted that we need to add labels, and that practically speaking the person applying can't actually apply them, so a TSC member should add the label when it's ready. Should update the instructions to reflect this.

Action: Brian to update project application instructions.

Henry asked who should have write access to the tsc repo. Brian noted it's best practice to include all regular contributors to the TSC.

Action: Brian to add instructions to front page on how to request write access to the tsc repo.

Chisel

Henry reviewed the Chisel application. He noted that Chisel has multiple repos, but at the present time the governance is handled by same set of people. They don't feel they need to have distinct reps at the TSC level for each project and are fine to represent themselves as a single group with a single vote. Discussion ensued over consistency in naming, with a final proposal to call it "Chisel Project."

Action: Henry to talk with Jack about pushing a new patch changing the name.

Henry noted that Chisel needs to have a more comprehensive meeting to discuss the other items in the graduation application. Brian offered to help with any open questions, particularly around trademark. Henry will make introductions.

Per the charter, the TSC held a vote to accept the proposed sandbox projects. Quorum was met (>50% of two voting members), and a simple majority is needed to accept (>1 yes vote).

  • Rocket chip
    • Votes:
      • Yes: 2
      • No: 0
      • Abstain: 0
    • Result: Accepted
  • Chisel
    • Votes:
      • Yes: 2
      • No: 0
      • Abstain: 0
    • Result: Accepted

Michael asked if the Chisel file could be renamed to reflect the new proposed name to Chisel. Brian confirmed.

Michael asked which repos are included in the Chisel application. Henry noted that it's the three most active ones. He noted there are others that may come in as well, and some may be immediately archived. Michael noted that having the naming right is important to avoid confusion. Brian noted that this is included under the scope of the TSC.

CLA

Brian gave a brief update on the CLA, and noted that the system is up and running. He recommended that key contributors from sandbox projects pre-sign the CLA so that they aren't blocked when the project repos migrate into the CHIPS Alliance organization.

Action: Henry to communicate CLA instructions back to the projects.

CHIPS Alliance Commons

Michael next discussed the CHIPS Alliance Commons, and noted that they can be used for projects that haven't yet joined but plan to.

Michael also asked whether working groups can be set up that anticipate future CHIPS Alliance communities. He noted discussions with Silicon Austria and Infineon, and that it would be helpful to have an understanding that we can set up a working group around analog design, for example. He noted there is definite interest in creating a space where people can collaborate around BAG, and that it would be helpful for the CHIPS Alliance to express interest and willingness to host the conversations.

Rob noted that analog is the long pole, and that there are multiple universities interested in a place to have the discussions. He noted it makes sense to formulate a working group. Henry agreed.

Action: Brian to add instructions on what tools are available to working groups (Zoom, calendar, mailing list, etc.) and how to ask for them.

Michael noted that this will help provide a connection between communities, and this will also help clarify the value of joining CHIPS Alliance as a member. Michael asked how to set up a working group. Brian noted that currently, working groups are defined as containing at least one Graduated project. He noted that this definition can be changed, and to do what makes the most sense. Michael expressed support for being able to set up a working group in advance.

Henry asked if the definition should be "Actively meeting," instead of containing a Graduated project.

Action: Michael to suggest alternate language.

Michael noted that analog will probably be the first working group to be created this way.

Brian asked if we should have a project go through the CHIPS Alliance Commons onboarding process, noting that it just takes a vote. Michael agreed it would make sense to do this before the next meeting with BAG. Brian noted that it would be helpful to go through this process so that we understand that it works. The main thing here would be to make sure that we have the messaging right.

Adjournment

Henry closed the meeting at 11:54 am ET.