2024-04-11 API backlog minutes

Attendees

Agenda Proposal

• Antitrust Policy
• Approval of minutes of last conf. call
• Recent Updates & Recap
• Review of Action Points
• Discussion
• OGW Drop #3 APIs:  #375 (Device Quality Indicator)
• Other APIs:  #351 (Proposal for Authorization for Advertisements, Advertisements Consent, and Measurement), #372 (Receive SMS),  #395 (Carrier Wholesale Pricing),  #395 (Steering of Roaming Information)
• API Scope evolution: #402 #404 (QoD subgroup scope Change)
• Governance: #367 (Structures and roles, RACI, Maintainers initiative)
• Closing Issues
•  #336 (OGW Home Location Verification), #330  (Device Visit Location), #376 (Best Interconnection), #378 (Customer Premise Equipment Management), #383 (Capability and Runtime Restrictions)
• Action Points
• AOB
• Q&A

Antitrust Policy

The project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LinusFoundation. Antitrust Policy

New Procedures in API Backlog WG meetings

A number of improvements are under discussion with leadership team of OGW project (Henry), CAMARA Project (Markus), Product Definition WS (Helene) and TSC (Herbert). As of today, the WG adopted agreements are three:

1. To close the agenda SEVEN DAYS BEFORE the conf. call.
   • In case a WG participant wants to include a point in the agenda (e.g., present a new API proposal), this participant shall ensure the corresponding issue is opened in Github by then.
   • Exceptional situations will be treated separately.
2. New schedule of conf. calls **The meetings are to be held by Linux Foundation (Links available at GitHub and Confluence Backlog front pages)
   • 2nd Thursday of the month (10-11 CET)
   • 4th Thursday of the month (15-16 CET)
3.  Send agenda to TSC mail list, to encourage more TSC member companies to join the call and provide comments when they identify APIs which are of interest for them. 

Meeting Minutes within Wiki instead of Github

• CAMARA community agreed that meeting minutes would only be recorded in the wiki

Approval of minutes of last conf. call

• Minutes of last API backlog WG call available here

  • DECISION:  Approved

Recent Updates & Recap

TSC meeting 5th April:

• The API Backlog subgroup will have its own github repo. Initial Maintainers have been requested. Those of you that have been active within the last meetings have received an email requesting for comitment/refusal:

• Name	Company	Commits?
  Ricardo Serrano	Telefonica	YES
  Eric Murray	Vodafone	YES
  Pierre Close	ATT
  Randy Levensalor	CableLabs
  Chris Aubut	Charter Communication	YES
  Noel Wirzius	Deutsche Telekom	YES
  Jan Friman	Ericsson
  Mark Cornall	GSMA	YES
  Zhang Kai	Huawei
  Tanja De Groot	Nokia
  Ludovic Robert	Orange	YES
  Nitin Sood	Schabodi
  Jorge Garcia Hospital	Telefonica	YES
  Javier Villa Labarra	Telefonica	NO
  Kevin Smith	Vodafone

• There was no time to treat the API proposals. 
• Only CPE management: Need to decide the name and transmit this to the TSC for the subproject to be created (offline) → The TSC is aware of the proposal: Home Devices - Network Access Management

Other topics

In the sake of the health of the CAMARA group, so that the projects do not lose their activity as soon as they are born, it will be proposed that in order to approve new API proposals, these must be supported by at least 3 companies (MNO or suppliers indistinctly). An issue will be opened within governance encompassing this.

Backlog table

• Table updated in PR#406

Review of Action Points

Discussion

Current Issues 

Closing Issues

New Issues

Action Points

Decision Points

AoB

Next Backlog conf. call: 25th April, 15-16 CET.

Next TSC conf. call: 18th April, 17-18 CET

Q&A

How does CAMARA API pipeline work?

The pipeline consists of FOUR stages:
A. Submission of the API proposal.
B. Evaluation of the API proposal.
C. API proposal voting & decision.
D. Sub-Project setup.

The following clauses provides details on individual stages.

Stage A: Submission of the API proposal

Participants: API owner.
Description: The proccess is detailed here. To proceed with the submission, the API owner shall follow these steps:

1. Fill in the template available here and save it with the following name: "APIproposal_<APIname>_<owner>. md" locally.
2. Create a new issue in the API Backlog Working Group repository, labeled with "API Backlog".
3. Upload the filled-in template to GitHub repository folder for API proposals via Pull Request. This Pull Request shall be associated to the issue created in the previous step.

Stage B: Evaluation of the API proposal

Participants: API owner, API backlog WG.
Description: The proccess is detailed here. Upon submission, the API owner will present the proposal in the next API backlog WG meeting, to socialize it with the rest of partners. In paralell..

1. The WG chair checks that the template is duly filled in. Otherwise, the API owner is requested to provide missing information.
2. After this sanity check, each WG participant declares their support. If a company wants to become supporter of an API, then a delegate of this company needs to add the company's name in the 'supporters' column in the API backlog table. The more support an API proposal gets, the better (it may get more traction).
3. When the API owner considers the API proposal is in good shape to go for approval, it informs the WG chair accordingly.
4. Upon receiving this information, the WG chair merges the Pull Request into the main branch, and sends the API proposal to the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) of CAMARA. This action shall be completed at least one week prior to the TSC meeting where the API proposal will be voted upon.

The whole procedure (steps 1-4) should be done within 2 regular meetings of the API Backlog WG. Nonetheless, it is up to the API owner to decide if it wants to shorten or extend this time period.

Stage C: API proposal & voting decision

Participants: TSC.
Description: The proccess is detailed here. Upon receiving the API proposal and notification from the API backlog WG chair, the TSC studies the proosal and votes it at the next TSC meeting.

NOTE 1: Possible decisions outcomes:

• Not Accepted: The API proposal is rejected, and thus will not be included in any API Sub-Project. The TSC will need to inform the API backlog WG of this decision, and clarify next steps: either (1) remove this API proposal from backlog, with objecting companies providing justifications why; or (2) ask for changes (e.g., clarifications, corrections, gaps to be addressed) required in order for the API to be re-submitted by the API supporters.
• Accepted: In this case, the TSC shall specify whether the API proposal is to be hosted by a new or existing Sub Project.

NOTE 2: The TSC may also propose changes to an API proposal and take the decision considering these changes. The TSC documents the decision in the CAMARA API overview list (fills in columns TSC date and TSC decision / Sub Project; in case of a No-Go "Rejected" is documented there).

Stage D: Sub-Project setup

Participants: API backlog WG, TSC, CAMARA admin team
Description: If an API proposal is accepted and there is a neeed to open a new Sub-Project, the following steps are needed:

1. Supporting companies propose their initial maintainers to be added for the Sub-Project. The API backlog WG chair centralizes this information, and sends it to the TSC.
2. The TSC will use this input to oficially nominate the initial maintainers by next TSC meeting.
3. The CAMARA admin team creates the Sub-Project repository.

NOTE: After the initial maintainers are nominated, the criteria for further maintainers would be three months of active contribution to the sub project. Code owners are to be decided by the maintainers within the subproject.