2026-Mar-17 TSC Meeting notes

2026-Mar-17 TSC Meeting notes

 Date

Mar 17, 2026

 Attendees

TSC Members

  • Annie Chang

  • Bill Baggelaar

  • Chris Clark

  • J. Schulte

  • Nick Shaw

  • Scott Dyer (TSC Chair)

  • Sean Cooper

Other Attendees

  • Carol Payne

  • Doug Walker

  • Francesco Giardiello

  • Jim Geduldick

  • Peter Postma

  • Steve Tobenkin

ASWF/LF Staff

  • John Mertic

📋 Agenda

 Discussion topics

Meeting Recording & Transcript

Topic

Notes

Topic

Notes

General Updates

(5:25-9:50)

Repository Transfers and Maintenance

  • aces_container - now archived under the ACES ASWF organization

  • idt-calculator - Scott wanted discussion prior to finalizing transfer

    • Hesitancy stems from concerns of bringing on yet another repository that has no active maintainer and has known issues with uploads and server requirements

    • Nick emphasized the importance of the tool for prosumer camera workflows

    • Discussion resurfaced previous suggestions to take down the hosted web version (for now) and focus on providing improved instructions for using a local instance

    • Carol supported transferring the repository to update its licensing and give visibility alongside other ACES projects

    • Decision was made to transfer to aces-aswf (with modifications below):

      • Add README warnings that still in beta

      • Remove hosted web version.

      • Provide updated local build / PyPI instructions.

  • CTL - transfer still on the list; hope to have updated before next meeting

(9:50-14:48)

Project Management and Infrastructure

  • Roadmap - started adding umbrella issues on Github for major initiatives

    • Transfers the project plan from document form into project tracking to communicate visual progress and priorities tied to commits

    • Further sub-issues can always be added by project leads for specific working groups or users

    • Still need to obtain Github permissions to be able to make roadmap public and to modify issue types for the organization (request in to LF support)

  • Documentation Site - updated Action that builds site to inject meta tags to prevent indexing by search engines for the staging site

  • Community Health files - centralized org-level files GOVERNANCE, CONTRIBUTING, SECURITY

    • Enables single-point updates instead of per-repo duplication

  • Implementer Program - continues to receive inbound interest

    • Needs a sound interim communication plan and/or work on a potential replacement structure.

  • Code Assistant Policies - will be discussed at Wed. TAC meeting; all encouraged to share opinions or feedback if they have any

(14:50-25:50)

ACES Repositories Automation Updates

  • There can be inconsistencies in navigation for users because links to submodules in aces/README point to default branch (main) which is currently not always the same thing as the submodule hashes that are tracked in the directory structure of the aces repo

  • Updated Github Actions to automatically update submodule pointers in aces when a commit is made to main on any of the submodules.

    • Reduces manual maintenance steps.

    • Minimizes human error.

    • Improves consistency in how repos are managed and presented.

  • Future enhancements can further simplifiy release packaging:

    • Autostage a human-readable CHANGELOG when commits are made.

    • Integrate with upcoming TransformID Python libraries to smartly detect updates vs new/removed transforms and stage updates to transforms.json

  • Also updated README in aces repo to clarify the difference between main branches and tagged release bundles.

  • Discussion

    • John suggested if development is done in any submodules, consider using release as the trigger instead of the main branch

    • Consensus was reached that since our submodules are mostly transform trackers with fairly infrequent updates, sync tied to main branch of submodules is probably fine. We could adapt any individual repos that are more development-heavy to use more structured triggers if needed at a later date.

(26:00-27:00)

Release Policy Open Questions

  • Will the project define a “minimum set” of transforms?

    • i.e. What constitutes the “official release set” vs “everything”?

  • How should this subset be communicated?

  • What should the release cadence be?

AMF/Transform Python Libraries

(28:44-47:45)

Chris presented progress on the Python libraries being worked on by Netflix.

  • aces-common - new zero-dependency lightweight package to define core data classes for ACES transforms; standalone to avoid circular dependencies with amf-lib

  • Have identified some minor schema changes that could help simplify the data model and aces-amf-lib implementation

  • These tools can help define a registry and/or querying with union/intersection logic to get specific subsets of transforms fitting different criteria

  • Discussion

    • Naming conventions were discussed

      • “registry” favored over the more generic “transforms”

    • Location in repository structure was discussed

      • exact placement remains undecided

  • ACES / OCIO Alignment

    • There are often mismatches between reference OCIO configs and ACES transform subsets, but usually only minor differences

    • Would be worthwhile to try to collaborate on a way to better synchronize for better user experience

    • Carol/Francesco proposed opening a comparison spreadsheet to identify differences and work toward a common list

LMT Updates (Doug)

(48:00-1:03:06)

Doug presented updates on the LMT project.

  • Demonstrated different approaches to modifying tone scale and colorfulness in JMH space 

  • Will share an OCIO config with different LMT options for review

    • (Requires OCIO 2.5)

  • Francesco mentioned similar work on parametric LMTs for use with the ACES 2 rendering, suggesting potential participation in LMT efforts

Next Meeting

Next meeting is be March 31 - 10 am Pacific.

Decisions:

  1. Proceed with transfer of idt-calculator to aces-aswf (with noted modifications)

Antitrust Policy Notice

Linux Foundation meetings involve participation by industry competitors, and it is the intention of the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas, and be aware of, and not participate in, any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws.

Examples of types of actions that are prohibited at Linux Foundation meetings and in connection with Linux Foundation activities are described in the Linux Foundation Antitrust Policy available at linuxfoundation.org/antitrust-policy. If you have questions about these matters, please contact your company counsel, or if you are a member of the Linux Foundation, feel free to contact Andrew Updegrove of the firm of Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the Linux Foundation.