Resolving image-spec #999

[Josh Dolitsky]

As you are probably aware, there has been intense debate over the removal of Artifact Manifest prior to v1.1 release. There have already been 115 comments on the issue since it was opened just a month ago: https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/pull/999

In the TOB charter, we are responsible for “issues that impact multiple OCI Projects or specifications” and “conflicts that cannot be resolved within the TDC”. I believe issue #999 to be a great example of both.

As this is not a healthy use of time, and has held up the long-awaited release of v1.1 of image-spec and distribution-spec, I would like to kindly request that all members of the TOB respond to this email with one of the following lines verbatim:

- Yes, remove artifact manifest

- No, keep artifact manifest

Please do not include any further context or discussion in this chain. If you feel it necessary to explain your position, please do so on issue #999 . Please only respond if you are a member of the TOB.

Thank you,

Josh

[Josh Dolitsky]

Yes, remove artifact manifest

[Samuel Karp]

Hi Josh,

As Chair, I'd like to make sure we're following an appropriate process here.  Until this point, the TOB has been uninvolved as the issue has not been escalated.  For the first step: can you clarify whether you are formally escalating this issue to the TOB?  If so, the next steps would be for the TOB to start a discussion and/or meeting, not to vote directly.  Note that section 6j, 6l, and 6m of the charter defines how the TOB should convene.

Thanks,

Sam

TOB Chair

--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tob+uns...@opencontainers.org.

--

Samuel Karp

[Josh Dolitsky]

I am formally escalating this issue to the TOB

[Samuel Karp]

Thanks!  Let's use this thread for discussion rather than voting.  I'd like to hear input on the following topics:

• Have the image-spec maintainers reached an impasse where the TOB should be involved?
• If so, what steps should the TOB take to help resolve the impasse?
• Is it appropriate for the TOB to make technical decisions and override the governance process of an OCI Project?

At this point, the TOB has refrained from interfering in technical decisions and I'd like to reach agreement on whether that is appropriate before we discuss any of the technical aspects of this conflict.

Sam

--

Samuel Karp

[Josh Dolitsky]

The following answers are my personal opinions on the matter:

—

Have the image-spec maintainers reached an impasse where the TOB should be involved?

Yes.

If so, what steps should the TOB take to help resolve the impasse?

Vote on this issue.

Is it appropriate for the TOB to make technical decisions and override the governance process of an OCI Project?

Yes.

—

I don’t mean to sound terse, but after one year of working group efforts, and the last month of meetings and debate over the format of a simple JSON payload, I think it is our responsibility to put an end to this out of respect for all persons involved and proceed with a 1.1 release. I do not wish to attend another meeting to discuss this.

Josh

[Brandon Mitchell]

Speaking from my image-spec maintainer role:

I agree this has generated a lot of discussion, in both our meetings and in the issue. But I don't feel that we are blocked just yet. The current direction is to better document how the image manifest is used to package artifacts. Some of that discussion is revealing the values of the artifact manifest, so my hope is that we remove it temporarily from the spec to get a release out, and then assess if and how we can reintroduce it to a future release.

While it's been almost a month since PR 999 was opened, there's also been a lot of activity in the project since then, including https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/1025, which is very useful for planning our next steps.

My own opinion is to defer the escalation of this issue to the TOB until and if we reach a point that progress on the project is stalled.

Thanks,

Brandon