dabcc607a5Adds a directory for storing meeting notes and includes the notes file for the 2026-01-07 meeting. Updates the main README to reflect this change.
3.5 KiB
2026-01-07 Transports WG (Weekly)
TL;DR
The Transport Working Group held a structured retrospective using a card-based voting system to prioritize discussion topics. Key outcomes included a decision to secure high-level directional agreement with core maintainers before detailed implementation, a consensus to converge on single proposals within the working group to minimize noise, and a move toward using a dedicated GitHub repository combined with Google Docs for technical discussions.
Detailed Summary
Retrospective Process
Larry Maccherone facilitated a "Start/Stop/Continue" style retrospective, where participants wrote cards, grouped them, and voted to prioritize the discussion agenda. This process surfaced four primary topics for the group to address.
Core Maintainer Engagement & Feedback
The group discussed the need for earlier, lighter-weight feedback loops with core maintainers rather than waiting to present fully fleshed-out proposals.
- High-Level Alignment First: Participants noted that the recent San Francisco meeting successfully broke a "logjam" by allowing for alignment on high-level direction before implementation details were solidified.
- Avoid "Phone Books": The group agreed that presenting massive "phone book sized" proposals without prior alignment leads to excessive questioning and wheel-spinning; "slicing" topics into high-level goals first is more effective.
Minimizing Competing Proposals
- Convergence: There was a strong consensus that the working group should strive to converge on a single, unified proposal before seeking endorsement from core maintainers.
- Unified Front: While individual maintainers can technically sponsor independent SCPs, the group agreed that achieving internal consensus first ("blessing" a proposal) would increase the likelihood of acceptance and reduce confusion.
Location for Technical Discussions
The group debated the best venue for technical discussions, noting that fragmentation across Discord, Google Docs, and GitHub is currently inefficient.
- Discord: There was general consensus that Discord is not the preferred place for deep technical discussions due to low adoption in corporate contexts.
- Hybrid Workflow: A hybrid approach is preferred—using Google Docs for rapid, early-stage iteration and GitHub (PRs/Issues) for the official record, history, and discoverability.
- Dedicated Repo: There was strong interest in establishing a dedicated repository for the Working Group to centralize these discussions.
Roadmap Structure & Visibility
- Sequencing: Participants discussed the need for better sequencing and visibility of the overall MCP roadmap, specifically to understand how transport changes interact with other simultaneous initiatives (like Tasks).
- Transparency: There was a request for more transparency regarding core maintainer strategy and active work streams to prevent negative overlaps between working groups.
Action Items
- Kurtis Van Gent: Consult with Basil Hosmer and Peter Alexander regarding the creation of a dedicated GitHub repository for the Working Group.
- Kurtis Van Gent: Draft a proposal for the "rules of engagement" regarding technical discussions (defining the workflow between Google Docs and GitHub) based on the poll results for the next meeting.
- Peter Alexander & Basil Hosmer: Bring the request for greater visibility into core maintainer strategy and outputs back to the core team.