2025.11.17

[seanmcilroy29]

2025.10.20 Agenda/Minutes

---

Time 1700 (BST) - See the time in your timezone

• Co-Chair - Pindy Bhullar (UBS)
• Co-Chair - Sean O'Keefe (Microsoft)
• Convener – Sean Mcilroy (Linux Foundation)

---

Antitrust Policy

Joint Development Foundation meetings may involve participation by industry competitors, and the Joint Development Foundation intends 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.

If you have questions about these matters, please contact your company counsel or counsel to the Joint Development Foundation, DLA Piper.

---

Recordings

WG agreed to record all Meetings. This meeting recording will be available until the next scheduled meeting.
Meeting recording

---

Roll Call

Please add 'Attended' to this issue during the meeting to denote attendance.

Any untracked attendees will be added by the GSF team below:

• Full Name, Affiliation, (optional) GitHub username

---

Agenda

• Approve agenda
• Approve - n/a

---

SOFT Rollout

• Template
• Case Study submissions review
• Website page review
• SOFT ratification announcement

---

SOFT Training Courses

• GSF Staff will develop two courses: a brief one to be launched immediately and a more comprehensive version following the pilot phase.

Case Study/Pilot Updates

• Four Active Pilots: Detailed progress reports on each implementation
• Implementation Challenges: Identified data gaps and tool integration needs
• Timeline Considerations: Discussed timing for framework updates based on pilot feedback
• University Sector Focus: Explored potential for university-specific framework templates

SOFT Webpage Launch

• Case Study/Pilot Updates
• Four Active Pilots: Detailed progress reports on each implementation
• Implementation Challenges: Identified data gaps and tool integration needs
• Timeline Considerations: Discussed timing for framework updates based on pilot feedback
• University Sector Focus: Explored potential for university-specific framework templates

SOFT Webpage Launch

• New Landing Page: Introduced draft/published webpage for SOFT project
• Content Review: Requested feedback on structure and completeness
• Case Study Integration: Plans to showcase pilot results upon completion

---

Next Meeting

• 2025.12.01

---

Adjourn

• Motion to adjourn

---

Issue dependency with other WGs

No response

[seanmcilroy29]

SOFT Working Group Meeting Minutes

Date: November 17, 2025
Time: 1700 BST
Meeting Type: Virtual Working Group Meeting
Co-Chair: Pindy Bhullar (UBS)
Co-Chair: Sean O'Keefe (Microsoft)
Convener: Sean Mcilroy (Linux Foundation)

---

Meeting Summary

The SOFT Working Group met to review progress on four active pilots, assess framework testing results, and review the SOFT website launch and the development of training courses. Discussions focused on implementation challenges, identifying data gaps, comparing university-sector frameworks, and integrating training resources into the SOFT ecosystem. The group agreed to launch introductory training courses by year-end, with comprehensive training materials scheduled for development in 2026.

---

List of Key Discussions Based on the Agenda

SOFT Rollout Progress

• Case Study Template: Under review for submission process
• Case Study Submissions: Four active pilots at various implementation stages
• Website Development: Draft website reviewed and feedback requested
• Ratification Announcement: SOFT specification ratified and ready for public dissemination

Pilot Implementation Updates

• Organization 1: Multi-pillar implementation across all four SOFT framework pillars with extensive team involvement
• Organization 2 (University): Department-level tool adoption with focus on implementation pillar and organizational scaling considerations
• Organization 3 (Tech Company): SCI-compliant tool development with challenges in training and operational application
• Organization 4: Initial problem statement development phase to clarify implementation objectives

University Framework Comparison Study

• SAF and SSAF Integration: Comparative analysis underway examining Software Architecture Framework and Sustainable Software Architecture Framework
• Student Research Project: Two groups analyzing each framework for case study comparison
• SOFT Integration Analysis: Examination of how SOFT framework complements existing architectural frameworks

SOFT Website and Training Development

• Website Launch: Draft website developed by Ross and Gosha for community feedback
• Training Course Strategy: Brief introductory sessions to be launched immediately with comprehensive training planned for 2026
• Content Integration: Training materials to be uploaded to SOFT platform

---

Full Meeting Minutes

Meeting Opening and Administrative Procedures

Pindy Bhullar opened the meeting at 1700 BST, welcoming attendees and confirming antitrust policy compliance. The working group acknowledged the recording policy and approved the agenda without modification.

Roll Call and Attendance:

• Pindy Bhullar (UBS) - Co-Chair
• Sean Mcilroy (Linux Foundation) - Convener
• Colin C. Venter (University/CERN)
• Kiran (Schneider Electric India)
• Sean O'Keefe (Microsoft) - Co-Chair (Absent)

Previous Meeting Minutes: Not applicable for this session.

---

SOFT Framework Pilot Implementation Progress

Led by: Pindy Bhullar
Duration: Primary focus of meeting discussion

Overview of Four Active Pilots:

Pindy Bhullar provided comprehensive updates on the four organizations currently testing the SOFT framework, noting significant variation in implementation approaches and organizational readiness.

Pilot Organization 1 - Large Enterprise:

Implementation Scope:

• Comprehensive engagement across all four SOFT framework pillars
• Multiple team members actively working on implementation
• Characterized as "chaotic but productive" due to extensive concurrent activities
• Strong organizational commitment with significant resource allocation

Current Status: Advanced implementation phase with substantial progress across multiple dimensions simultaneously.

Pilot Organization 2 - University Setting:

Implementation Focus:

• Two internally developed tools for sustainability measurement
• Primary challenge: Scaling from department-level to organizational-level adoption
• Working through implementation pillar requirements systematically
• Very receptive to framework guidance and organizational scaling recommendations

Meeting Outcome: Afternoon session conducted on November 17, 2025, confirming strong engagement and implementation momentum.

Strategic Considerations:
Colin C. Venter identified as valuable resource for university-specific implementation guidance due to his academic institutional experience.

Pilot Organization 3 - Small Technology Company:

Implementation Characteristics:

• Developed proprietary sustainability measurement tool
• Following Green Software Foundation SCI guidelines and ISO standards for carbon calculations
• Methodology aligned with established international standards

Implementation Challenges Identified:

Training Gap:
Organization struggling with staff training on sustainability measurement methodologies and tool utilization.

Operational Application:
Critical challenge articulated as "we have our carbon footprint, now what?" indicating need for guidance on translating measurements into actionable organizational improvements.

Framework Position: Implementation spans both implementation and operational pillars, requiring integrated guidance across multiple framework dimensions.

Working Group Response:
Pindy Bhullar providing targeted support on operational application and actionable insights development.

Pilot Organization 4 - Recent Initiation:

Current Phase: Problem statement development and implementation objective clarification.

Strategic Approach Refinement:

Pindy Bhullar identified critical learning from previous three pilots: organizations frequently lack clearly defined problem statements and implementation objectives. This insight led to revised engagement methodology prioritizing problem definition before framework application.

New Engagement Process:

1. Define clear problem statement
2. Identify specific exam question: What precisely needs to be solved?
3. Establish realistic scope for engagement timeframe
4. Proceed with targeted framework application

Rationale: Previous pilots revealed tendency to "charge ahead" with comprehensive implementation without sufficient strategic focus, necessitating subsequent slowdown and problem statement clarification.

Current Status: Organization working through initial problem definition exercises before proceeding to framework implementation.

---

Training and Support Infrastructure Development

Training Material Gap Analysis:

Challenge Identified:
Sean Mcilroy raised concern about potential gaps in training materials based on Pilot Organization 3's struggles with staff training.

Proposed Solution:
Collaborative approach to identify specific training deficiencies and develop targeted materials addressing identified gaps.

Feedback Collection Strategy:

• Document misunderstandings and areas requiring additional clarification
• Identify barriers to utilizing existing training materials
• Develop supplementary resources addressing specific implementation challenges

Working Group Commitment:
Sean Mcilroy offered Linux Foundation resources to support training material enhancement based on pilot organization feedback.

Tool Integration and Development:

Multiple pilot organizations developing or utilizing internally created sustainability measurement tools, indicating need for framework guidance on tool selection, development, and integration within organizational contexts.

---

University Framework Comparison Study

Led by: Colin C. Venter
Duration: Extended discussion segment

Study Overview and Methodology:

Colin C. Venter presented ongoing research examining integration and comparative analysis of sustainability-focused software frameworks, specifically:

• Software Architecture Framework (SAF)
• Sustainable Software Architecture Framework (SSAF)
• SOFT Framework

Research Context:
Student-led research project utilizing case study methodology with multiple student groups analyzing identical scenarios using different frameworks.

Framework Focus and Purpose:

SAF and SSAF Application:

• Examining software system requirements elicitation
• Analyzing quality requirements and architectural impacts
• Focusing on technical architecture decisions and sustainability implications

Comparative Analysis Structure:

• Two student groups assigned to each case study
• Identical scenarios analyzed through different framework lenses
• Structured comparison enabling identification of framework-specific insights and complementary strengths

Timeline: Research project concluding within two weeks (early December 2025).

SOFT Framework Integration Analysis:

Preliminary Assessment:
SOFT framework potentially operates at a higher organizational abstraction level compared to SAF/SSAF's focus on software system architecture and quality requirements.

Relationship Hypothesis:
Colin C. Venter suggested SOFT framework may "wrap around" SAF/SSAF rather than replacing or competing with existing frameworks, indicating complementary rather than competitive relationship.

Future Collaboration Discussion:

Timing Consideration:
Comprehensive integration analysis deferred until Pindy Bhullar completes current pilot testing phase and can provide validated implementation results.

Research Question:
How does SOFT framework integrate with existing architectural and sustainability frameworks within software engineering contexts?

Anticipated Outcomes:

• Identification of symbiotic relationships between frameworks
• Clarification of framework-specific use cases and optimal application contexts
• Development of integrated framework application guidance

Framework Philosophy - Colin C. Venter's Perspective:

"These are not better tools, they're just different tools, and they do different things, and you give... they give you different insights, and we're looking at where... what's the symbiotic relationship between them, because I think they all complement each other in slightly different ways, depending on what your focus is."

Framework Application Context:

• SAF focus: Software quality requirements and architectural impact analysis
• Broader consideration: Multi-dimensional sustainability impacts
• SOFT framework: Organizational-level sustainability management layer

Working Group Response:

Pindy Bhullar expressed enthusiasm for comparative analysis and offered working group support for Colin C. Venter's research efforts.

Sean Mcilroy indicated interest in publishing comparative analysis results to inform broader community understanding of framework relationships and optimal application contexts.

Student Introduction and Training:

Rapid Framework Familiarization:
Students received single-day introduction to frameworks followed by immediate afternoon application to case studies, demonstrating frameworks' accessibility and practical applicability.

Framework Coverage:

• Morning: Framework overview and theoretical foundation
• Afternoon: Practical application and initial case study analysis

Marcus (collaborator) provided SAF framework overview, enabling parallel comparative analysis.

---

SOFT Website Development and Public Accessibility

Led by: Sean Mcilroy and Pindy Bhullar
Duration: Brief discussion segment

Website Development Status:

Development Team: Ross and Gosha leading website creation for SOFT framework.

Current Status: Draft website completed and available for working group and community review.

Design Assessment: Pindy Bhullar characterized website as "awesome," indicating strong visual and functional design.

Feedback Request:

Sean Mcilroy solicited comprehensive feedback from working group members on website content, structure, and completeness.

Website Link Distribution: Sean Mcilroy shared website link via meeting chat for immediate review access.

Evolutionary Development Approach:

Sean Mcilroy emphasized website will continue evolving based on:

• Community feedback and suggestions
• Integration of emerging specification developments
• Incorporation of case study results and pilot outcomes
• Training material additions and updates

Call for Contributions:
Working group members encouraged to submit suggestions for website improvements, additional content, and structural enhancements.

---

Training Course Development and Delivery Strategy

Led by: Pindy Bhullar
Duration: Brief discussion segment

Training Course Development Plan:

Immediate Release - Brief Introductory Training:

• Very concise, pointer-style training sessions
• Focus on framework orientation and basic navigation
• Target completion: Before next working group meeting (December 2025)
• Platform: SOFT website integration

Comprehensive Training Development - 2026:

• Detailed training course development during pilot completion phase
• In-depth framework application guidance
• Integration of pilot implementation learnings and best practices
• Case study examples and implementation methodologies

Training Session Characteristics:

Format: Recorded video sessions for asynchronous access
Length: Brief, focused modules rather than comprehensive long-form courses
Accessibility: Integrated into SOFT website for easy community access

Development Timeline:

Phase 1 (2025): Introductory orientation materials providing framework overview
Phase 2 (2026): Comprehensive training courses incorporating pilot feedback and implementation best practices

Rationale for Phased Approach:

• Provide immediate basic resources to support early adopters
• Allow pilot implementations to inform comprehensive training development
• Incorporate real-world implementation challenges and solutions
• Develop evidence-based training materials validated through practical application

---

Specification Integration and Evolution

Led by: Sean Mcilroy
Duration: Brief discussion

Framework Evolution and Extension:

Sean Mcilroy noted SOFT framework will continue evolving as related specifications develop and mature within Green Software Foundation ecosystem.

Integration Opportunities:

As discussed in Colin C. Venter's comparative analysis, multiple frameworks and specifications can be integrated into comprehensive organizational sustainability approaches.

Future Development Direction:

• Integration with emerging GSF specifications
• Cross-framework compatibility and complementary application guidance
• Continuous refinement based on implementation feedback and community needs

---

Administrative and Communication Items

Email Communication - Bertha's Feedback:

Context: Bertha submitted feedback via email regarding specific language requiring modification in SOFT documentation.

Pindy Bhullar's Assessment: Identified feedback as accurate and valuable, characterizing Bertha as "very detailed" and "precise" in her observations.

Action Required: Sean Mcilroy to respond to Bertha's email implementing requested language changes and copying Ross and Gosha (website development team) to ensure consistency across materials.

Working Group Recognition: Pindy Bhullar praised Bertha's thoroughness and attention to detail, highlighting value of precise technical review.

---

Future Meeting Planning

Next Meeting Schedule:

Date: Four weeks from November 17, 2025 (approximately December 15, 2025)
Significance: Final working group meeting before year-end holiday period

Anticipated Topics:

• Pilot implementation progress updates
• Training course launch review
• Website feedback compilation and response
• Framework comparison study preliminary results
• Year-end summary and 2026 planning

Holiday Planning Discussion:

Working group noted upcoming Thanksgiving period for American colleagues and subsequent holiday season compression, acknowledging reduced availability through year-end.

Final meeting scheduled as "seasonal way of fancy jumpers" (holiday-themed meeting) including festive elements.

---

Topics to be Added to the Next Meeting

1. Pilot Implementation Progress Updates

   • Comprehensive status reports from all four pilot organizations
   • Implementation challenges encountered and solutions developed
   • Timeline updates and milestone achievement

2. Training Course Launch Review

   • Introductory training session completion and deployment
   • Initial community feedback and utilization metrics
   • Identified gaps requiring additional training content

3. SOFT Website Feedback Compilation

   • Summary of community feedback and suggestions
   • Proposed website enhancements and additions
   • Implementation timeline for approved modifications

4. University Framework Comparison Study

   • Preliminary results from Colin C. Venter's comparative analysis
   • SAF/SSAF/SOFT integration insights
   • Recommendations for framework application guidance

5. Problem Statement Development Methodology

   • Lessons learned from revised engagement approach
   • Best practices for initial organizational assessment
   • Framework for defining implementation objectives

6. 2026 Planning and Roadmap Development

   • Comprehensive training course development timeline
   • Additional pilot organization recruitment
   • Publication and dissemination strategy for case studies

7. Year-End Summary and Achievements

   • 2025 accomplishments review
   • Community growth and engagement metrics
   • Strategic priorities for 2026

---

Action Items

Action Item	Owner	Due Date	Status
Respond to Bertha's email regarding language modifications, copying Ross and Gosha for website consistency	Sean Mcilroy	November 24, 2025	Pending
Complete brief introductory training sessions and upload to SOFT website	Pindy Bhullar	December 15, 2025	In Progress
Continue pilot implementation support for all four organizations	Pindy Bhullar	Ongoing through December 2025	In Progress
Review SOFT website and submit feedback on content, structure, and completeness	All Working Group Members	December 15, 2025	Pending
Complete university framework comparison study data collection	Colin C. Venter	Early December 2025	In Progress
Compile pilot organization feedback on training material gaps and barriers	Pindy Bhullar	December 15, 2025	Pending
Coordinate with Colin C. Venter on university-specific implementation guidance	Pindy Bhullar	December 15, 2025	Pending
Analyze framework comparison results and prepare summary for working group	Colin C. Venter	End of Academic Semester 2025	Pending
Develop targeted training materials addressing identified implementation challenges	Sean Mcilroy / GSF Team	January 2026	Pending
Plan comprehensive training course development for 2026	Pindy Bhullar / GSF Team	December 2025	Pending

---

Meeting Adjournment

Next Meeting: December 15, 2025 (approximately) at 1700 BST
Meeting Adjourned: 1722 GMT (approximately 22 minutes duration)
No Objections to Adjournment

Seasonal Note: Next meeting will be the final gathering before the festive holiday period