Video summary
The Technical Oversight Committee meeting held on September 8, 2026, began with a review of action items from the previous two weeks, specifically focusing on the generation of an RFC number for an accepted issue regarding High Availability extended by another cryptographic library. The committee also addressed a pull request concerning the Cloud Foundry management of the Stratus array within their working group, which received unanimous approval after resolving minor labeling errors. Following this approval, the team discussed the process for archiving the repository and handling external contributions, noting that while some individuals expressed interest in maintaining forks outside the foundation, the committee preferred to encourage participation through official channels like the TLC meetings.
A significant portion of the discussion centered on a new RFC proposal within the foundational infrastructure working group to introduce stencil and CPI releases. The primary concern raised by the members involved the use of Google internal systems for execution environments and continuous integration, which sparked worries about potential disruptions similar to past incidents where internal dependencies blocked community builds. Although one member suggested that air-gapping might be a viable solution, others remained skeptical given technical limitations, leading the group to decide on a cautious approach. They agreed to wait an additional week to allow for further observation and comments before initiating the final comment period, ensuring that any potential risks are fully understood before proceeding.
The meeting also touched upon updates regarding the official Windows build packs working group, where a pull request was open but required follow-up actions to update the maintainers list. Additionally, the committee noted that issues related to inactive user automation would be addressed through an existing open RFC rather than requiring new immediate action. With no further business items or urgent concerns raised during the session, the committee concluded their agenda for the day. The members thanked each other for their time and contributions, expressing a commitment to addressing the outstanding technical points in the coming weeks before reconvening for their next meeting.
Read the full video transcript
Hello. Hello.
>> Hi Chris.
>> I'm going to reset my network. I'll be
back in just a moment.
>> Hello.
>> Hello. Hello.
>> Hi Owen.
Matthew mentioned that he's
won't be able to join last time, but I
think this week
I didn't see anything.
>> I think Matthew in the in Slack.
We can start.
I will suggest to start and then
maybe Matthew joins a little bit late.
>> [clears throat]
>> Hello to the TOC meeting, September
8th of September.
Um yeah, today we have the usual agenda.
Um no working group update.
I will suggest to start with the updates
after the CF summit actually.
It's a
good milestone.
>> [laughter]
>> What do you have any other suggestions?
>> [clears throat]
>> Okay, then uh yeah, let's start after
the CF summit. So, last two week action
items.
>> [sighs]
>> Uh
generate RFC number. Uh yeah, I generate
the RFC number and the issue for the RFC
we accepted. It was about
HA
extended by um
uh
another crypto library I don't remember
seeing.
Oh, I forgot the name.
Uh
>> [gasps]
>> Anyway, uh so then
we can jump to the uh
dashboard.
Um
we have
one PR about the CF management of
Stratus array in our working group.
So, we discussed this.
Um
Yeah. Um
>> [clears throat]
>> And we have the approval. So, we've been
waiting for the approval
of the approvers
uh in that area.
We said that
uh this is also a working group
um
concern. So, but somehow I forgot to
remove the label here.
Anyway, we walked into it. Everyone
approved. I think it's fine to merge. If
anyone has anything against, please
speak now.
Okay, I'm merging.
Um
Yeah.
Uh that means that a post will be
created and someone needs to
fork and copy.
Um
I think Ruben can do this.
If I'm
Or he will reach out to us if it's not
possible.
Um
So, this is the archiving repository.
Uh Stephanie, you asked about
changes here. So, I will then just put
this in
>> Yeah, so my last thing in the branch
protection file is that we remove it.
So, it was completely
I would say.
>> So, there was a
message in LinkedIn personal message to
me. Someone wanting wanted to keep it
and contribute, but I mentioned to
comment some
on the PRs or uh
the suggestion was to join the TLC
meeting.
I don't know whether it's a real person
or something. I don't [laughter] know.
judge from the prof
LinkedIn prof. There are some activity
on the profile and followers of that.
>> [gasps]
>> Also, if they're outside of our working
groups, they can always fork it and
maintain their own
fork external of the foundation.
>> Yes.
Um I asked the person to join the TLC
meeting so we discussed option and
reason to keep, but
I don't see anyone in the call yet.
Um
yeah.
So, we need there are some change
requests still. We need to
apply those.
Um
RFCs [clears throat]
on the arm 64
Chris So, we discussed this one last
time. And
so, the
so the
question was towards AWS and whether
they can support us. I think automation
costs.
Uh
Chris sent an email, but there is no
reply yet. So, response.
Then I will keep that one still open.
And here is
a new RFC. I think we walked into this
shortly
last time. I don't know whether you had
time to read that one.
Uh in the foundational infrastructure
working group,
I put this on the agenda for last
Thursday. So, um
people were fine with the RFC. I don't
see also any any
comments or something from someone.
So, basically they were fine with the
proposal to have the area and they their
own area and um
Yep.
Introducing stencil and CPI
releases.
>> Yes, the only thing one could discuss
about is
execution environment and continuous
integration because it's mentioned that
Google internal systems are used here.
That makes it maybe difficult for
handling.
>> I think we have a similar setup with Ali
Cloud. So, um
>> But here it would at least be possible
to get an account where the at least the
admin credentials are in our hands, so
to say.
But yeah,
I don't know. It's just a concern from
the history that we had where suddenly
nothing could be built and released
anymore.
Because of one or the other
internal part that would be useful was
used and it was a thought to bring that
into the community. But here with the
setup might even technically
not be possible.
>> Yes, so this is what I was thinking. I
don't know whether it's possible to
with this Google distributed code air
gapped.
>> [laughter]
>> If it's really air gapped
>> [laughter]
>> well still some air can go inside.
>> [laughter]
[gasps]
>> Yeah.
Yeah, we can maybe wait another week and
then start final comment period or
I don't have doubts.
>> [clears throat]
>> Yeah.
Let's wait another week if there are no
comments. I don't know whether we need
to somehow advertise this more. It's an
RFC in the repository. People Some
people are monitoring it.
Or not.
Let's wait another week and then
then if there are no comments I will
suggest to start the final comment
period.
Okay.
Here on the issues
Um
>> [gasps]
>> I don't have time to check. I was
looking for something cuz
So, I have the new one. It's the
official Windows build packs working
group better.
So, um
>> Yes, I have a PR open on that one.
Uh but I have some follow-up to do to
see if the maintainers list need to swap
around some.
>> Yeah.
Okay, I I will try next time to go over
the stuff and try to find out whether
something can be completed.
Okay, on the issues,
uh
I think here nothing happened regarding
uh applying
inactive user automation.
>> Yeah.
>> This two uh will be addressed with the
RFC which we have open.
Uh then there's no nothing new.
Hey, then uh
any other any other business?
Do we Do we have anything?
No, then you have Sorry, someone wanted
to
And then uh
>> [sighs]
>> Yeah, we are done for today. Thanks for
your time. Take care and see you next
time.
>> Thank you for your issues and thank you,
folks.
>> See you next week.
>> Okay.