Hi everyone, I've checked in with Sander, and he’s happy for us to move forward whenever we feel ready! We still have some exciting things to wrap up, like our logo and website discussions, as well as cleaning up the Steward naming and turning it into Magpie.
To keep our momentum going, I’d love to aim for Monday, June 1st, as a goal to wrap up these discussions. I also shared a quick update with the board to keep them in the loop: > Just a small nudge: we have already established a temporary ` [email protected]` mailing list where we review the resolution draft: > > Coty, Rémy and Richard are also joining the founding team. We discussed Tomcat security scans on Slack, and they shared both complementary and similar approaches to using Agents (for example using Local LLMs and Open Code). > > We also have criteria for people to still join us as founding members [2]. Now that the word is spread we are applying to become a TLP and we are discussing governance [3] - following the Apache Way 100%, but discussion on some of the choices we have (CTR/RTC. PMC=Committer) and other variations different projects have. > > Our goal is to finalize these discussions by Monday 1st of June and submit the resolution to Sander for "Action without a meeting". We welcome any suggestions, discussions and ideas - ideally on our temporary devlist. > > [1] Resolution Draft: https://lists.apache.org/thread/29jjhymtn91goto34ddgsj6vzx2gymqs > [2] Founding Member Criteria: https://lists.apache.org/thread/qcncl01p1wf1zjo16xp2dqk5khg6j8r0 > [3] Governance Discussion: https://lists.apache.org/thread/zo9j89b86qokofjmgbbscg8tbz1xowhf Best, Jarek On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 3:28 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > I will ask Sander about the best time for him to start "action without the > meeting" and point him to the discussion here. That might give us some > "time-boxing" for any comments we might have. Will report back, > > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 3:22 PM Craig Russell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Short summary: I'm ok with minor tweaks and assurance that everyone here >> is on board with the description. >> >> Warm regards, >> Craig >> >> >> > On May 26, 2026, at 06:15, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > That's a good point thanks Craig. I agree it's super important :). >> Great to >> > have someone who saw it all and knows what is important to settle >> upfront - >> > to avoid some problems later. >> > >> > * >> > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow-steward/blob/main/docs/board-resolution-draft.md >> > Has the draft of the resolution + submitter comments. >> > >> > And we can even start having PRs on it and discuss any necessary fixes. >> I >> > already added the 3 new ASF members we discussed., >> > >> > My points here: >> > >> > * Maintainership and development -> I think this is the right scope. We >> are >> > there to "give maintainers time", It's absolutely targeted for >> individuals >> > and groups of those individuals in OSS projects, to make their work more >> > efficient. but that also means making it "better for the developers" to >> > contribute. Maybe I would change it to "contributors" instead of >> developers >> > though? >> > * I think the "Including" part is something we currently identify as >> > necessary for both "maintainers" and "contributors". But tomorrow we >> might >> > find that the same set of solutions is needed in other areas and we can >> > naturally extend that (which "including" nicely allows). >> > * I think we should use "skills" in a general sense. Today those are >> SKILLS >> > and Agents, tomorrow it might turn (and we have it in mode D) - turn >> part >> > of those in fully CI-like run workflows - that might not be necessary >> > "SKILLS" in the sens agents define them today. Using "skills" is more >> like >> > how we can leverage agents to empower skills we already need to do the >> job. >> > >> > So .. short summary - I would mayb change "developers" into >> "contrubutors" >> > but leave everything else as-is. >> > >> > J. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 4:46 AM Craig Russell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> The most important thing for us to do now is to have a detailed review >> of >> >> the proposed board resolution. >> >> >> >> The key item I'd like everyone to sign off on is the project >> description >> >> which once approved, is permanent. >> >> >> >>> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests >> of >> >> the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to >> establish a >> >> Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance >> of >> >> open-source software, for distribution at no charge to the public, >> related >> >> to creation and maintenance of software related to agent-assisted >> >> repository maintainership and development, including issue and pull- >> >> request triage, contributor mentoring, agent-drafted remediation, >> >> developer-side development-cycle skills, and narrowly-scoped fix-and- >> merge >> >> automation. >> >> >> >> Detailed review please: >> >> >> >>> creation and maintenance of software related to agent-assisted >> >> repository maintainership and development, including issue and pull- >> >> request triage, contributor mentoring, agent-drafted remediation, >> >> developer-side development-cycle skills, and narrowly-scoped fix-and- >> merge >> >> automation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Maintainership? usually refers to projects not repositories >> >> and development? >> >> agent-drafted remediation? >> >> fix-and- merge automation? >> >> developer-side development-cycle skills? is this referring >> specifically to >> >> Claude SKILLs? >> >> >> >> I guess my biggest concern is whether these are too specific for what >> we >> >> are going to be working on... >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> Craig L Russell >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> Craig L Russell >> [email protected] >> >>
