Web conference notes, 2020.02.27 (Provider Services wg)

Web conference notes, 2020.02.13 (Provider Services wg)

biweekly call at 11am PST / 2pm EST
Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/627957166

Meeting ID: 627 957 166

One tap mobile:

+16699006833,,627957166# US (San Jose)
+19294362866,,627957166# US (New York)

Dial by your location:

+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 929 436 2866 US (New York)

Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aeJWJsuC2b

Attendees

Kegan Maher, City of Santa Monica
Mark Maxham, Ellis & Associates
Jascha Franklin-Hodge, Open Mobility Foundation
Akshay Malik, City of Philadelphia
Matt Davis, Populus
Michael Schnuerle, City of Louisville
Tom Santinelli, Bird
Becky Beauchamp, Bird
Brady Law, Lyft
Sean Roberts, Open Mobility Foundation
Matthew Baker, City of Miami

add your name at beginning or end of call

Agenda

Provider/Agency reconciliation WG progress
- Spreadsheet
- State-machine
0.4.1 Milestone check
- https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/milestone/10
MDS Release Process / OMF Review
- https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/pull/453
/vehicles endpoint
- https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/issues/310
- https://github.com/openmobilityfoundation/mobility-data-specification/pull/376

Minutes

Provider/Agency reconciliation WG progress

Meetings are Wed 9a PT. Currently working through the spreadsheet referenced above. All are welcome and encouraged to participate. Ideally each session contains more than one mobility provider, city representative, and tooling company representative.

0.4.1 Milestone check

0.4.1 80% complete as far as open v closed issues.

Clarification of required/optional #456.

Optional events may become non-optional after getting some road-testing.

Policy schema (#310) might not get done. Punt to City Services group?

No major issues blocking release.

MDS Release Process / OMF Review

Release guideline updates are in PR #453

Clarified 12w cycle (6w too short)

Discussion of OMF board approval after review by tech council. Until fully approved it’s a “release candidate”.

Next board meeting is Apr 1.

Tech council are expected to participate in the 12w cycle to minimize surprise.

Exceptions should be rare but WG will be asked to address any concerns.

Question: How will the community at large be informed of formal adoption of release candidate vs release?

Answer (Jascha): RC should be a “preview” but they should hold off until board approves. Will add some verbiage in the release guidelines to this effect. Longer-term we may make a diagram. Changing verbiage in wiki also to change “target release” to “target release candidate” and adding additional steps with dates. Current plan is to tag dev branch as RC and wait for board approval to merge.

Related, going to switch default branch “master” per WG-ops mailing list