Making TAC members aware of decisions to be taken as initiated via GH interactions
A few weeks back, PR feedback was given as to "something for the TACs to consider" (see https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/28076#discussion_r2269378253).
My question now is: How? Tagging those individual TAC member GH IDs I was aware of didn't work -- but then again, I didn't know GH IDs of the "Individual" reps. So..., is there maybe a handle one could use in such GH discussion to make TAC members aware of the issue? Or would a GH tag (say "TAC attention") be worth while introducing to facilitate that? Or would the content issue have to be manually copied out to this messaging tool to have the TACs consider it? Seems a bit wasteful/cumbersome duplicating information that's already in GH.
The related question: Am I right posting this issue here as the "Individual" member that I am? Or isn't this rather something for all communities to consider? Thanks in advance for any feedback and sorry for the noise: All I want is move forward (or close) a PR...
Michael Baentsch Wed 3 Sep 2025 6:27AM
The system is new, and nobody actually knows how it should work
That surprises me a bit: Previously, the OTC handled such issues and if I'm not mistaken, the TACs have been created to take (some of) the OTC responsibilities. Also, a committer explicitly pointed to the TAC (I presume exactly because the OTC has been dismantled), so wouldn't it be logical to just make it work (again) as before:
Among others, a special tag to escalate an issue to the TAC level is discussed.
That (need for discussion) surprises me even more: There had been a label "hold: needs OTC decision". It would have been trivial to a) retain it (s/OTC/TAC/g) and b) for TAC members to filter GH issues for it (as I assume the old OTC members did) -- unfortunately, it has been deleted (btw, unlike its twin tag "triaged: OTC evaluated" that still exists...) -- but from first-hand experience, creating labels is pretty simple...).
if a question becomes too narrow within the framework of a specific PR, it should be moved from GitHub to OpenSSL Communities
Sounds good. May I suggest this becomes explicitly a stated responsibility of the TAC members: They ought to be able to decide whether they can handle among themselves or whether they need a community-wide discussion on it (and in which community).
Aditya Koranga Tue 2 Sep 2025 8:32AM
Hi Michael, first of all, thank you for bringing this into our consideration.
Yes, we were actually discussing an escalation policy for issues that might need input from the TACs. [See Meeting minutes for reference]. My points are also similar to what @Igor Ustinov mentioned above.
I believe this particular issue/discussion would be a good topic for the newly established General Discussion group. However, since the number of members in that group is currently small, please also invite the individual members mentioned in that thread.
If the issue still isn’t resolved there, I’d be happy to bring it up in the next Foundation TAC meeting as well.
Michael Baentsch Wed 3 Sep 2025 6:33AM
we were actually discussing an escalation policy for issues
I'm not sure an escalation policy is required. Just a simple mechanism that allows committers to make the TACs aware of an issue they need to resolve (as above, the old "hold: needs OTC decision").
this particular issue/discussion would be a good topic for the newly established General Discussion group
I agree but didn't want to spam too many people with this. So, by all means, please move it there. I don't think I've got the rights to do so.
However, since the number of members in that group is currently small, please also invite the individual members mentioned in that thread.
I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking me to do: Shouldn't "General discussion" items go to all members in all communities automatically?
Dmitry Belyavsky Thu 4 Sep 2025 7:14AM
Does "Hold: committers discussion" fit the purposes?
Tomas Mraz Thu 4 Sep 2025 8:29AM
@Dmitry Belyavsky We can even rename that label. `Hold: discussion` would be more appropriate name.
Dmitry Belyavsky Thu 4 Sep 2025 8:46AM
Well. It doesn't matter until we have a group of stakeholders who looks through these issues and make a decision
Aditya Koranga Thu 4 Sep 2025 10:34AM
@Michael Baentsch We faced a similar situation before. In one case, a Github discussion was getting too long and not reaching a conclusion, so the TAC decided to establish an escalation strategy. This way, if something similar happens in the future, we can follow a systematic process rather than handling it in an ad-hoc manner.
Regarding the General Discussion group (ref), my understanding is that threads there do not automatically notify all community groups. They currently notify only members of the "General Discussion" group. However, this group is open to everyone—including newcomers—so anyone can join and participate in the discussion, which is not true for some of the other groups. For now, we may still need to manually invite additional people as needed.
Maxim Masiutin Wed 3 Sep 2025 4:13PM
For me, any option works; you can also tag me as an individual member.
Michael Baentsch Thu 4 Sep 2025 1:44PM
It doesn't matter until we have a group of stakeholders who looks through these issues and make a decision
This gives me the creeps. Are you saying there is no group of stakeholders triggered/responsible if and when a committer says "this is for the TACs to decide"? I thought the only question is which mechanism to use for this (i.e., notifying the TAC members who'll then take action, i.e., decide among themselves or set up a discussion and vote)? At least I thought that's a key raison d'etre of the TACs, no?
Igor Ustinov · Mon 1 Sep 2025 9:02PM
The system is new, and nobody actually knows how it should work; we are just now working out the necessary procedures. Among others, a special tag to escalate an issue to the TAC level is discussed. Until such a tag is created, you as an individual can contact individuals' representatives, i.e. me for the Foundation TAC and @Aditya Koranga for the Corporation TAC.
It is also discussed the idea of the General Discussion Group, which should be the best place for such questions. While this group doesn't exist, this community seems to be a quite suitable place for your question.
I would also like to note that from my point of view, if a question becomes too narrow within the framework of a specific PR, it should be moved from GitHub to OpenSSL Communities. In this case, of course, there is no need to copy information from GitHub, it is enough to briefly outline the topic and provide a link to the PR.