Attending: Sanket Verma (SV), Josh Moore (JM), Jonathan Striebel (JS), Ryan Abernathey (RA), Ward Fisher (WF), Daniel Jahn (DJ), Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (JMS), Norman Rzepka (NR)


The meeting focused on ZEPs 3 and 5, emphasizing the importance of ongoing implementation to avoid stalling and addressing technical debt in Zarr-Python. Discussions revolved around best practices, supporting old conventions, and the use of conformance tests. The possibility of multiscales as an extension was explored, and plans were made to kick off the ZEP0002 review process, with considerations for neat benchmarks and gathering feedback from the Zarr Implementers Community (ZIC).

Meeting minutes:

  • SV: ZEPs 3 and 5 …
  • RA: feedback on the ZEP
    • Need to be implementing as we go, otherwise leads to stalling
    • JS: Zarr-Python has tech debt which makes it difficult to implement new stuff
    • Impromptu round of introduction
    • JMS: Reference implementation in any language is helpful for any new ZEPs
    • RA: Having explicit tweet/statement about implementation would help
    • JS: benchmark repo? also sample data?
    • NR: Sample datasets
  • RA: https://github.com/zarr-developers/zeps/pull/28
    • best practices going forward
    • but a way to support old conventions
    • from OGC, “conformance class” determined with “conformance test”
    • namespacing up to the convention
    • would like to get it into draft form and then we can move forward with the process
    • SV: few open comments?
      • RA: just merge it and move the process forward.
      • still need to open a template
      • NR: add existing conventions at this point (OME-NGFF)
    • JM: Thoughts on multiscales?
      • RA: It should be an extension
      • JMS: Multiscales doesn’t lead to a lot of objects
  • SV: ZEP0002 review process to kick-off by next week
    • NR: Zarrita has sharding implementation
    • JM: Kicking-off review process and having neat benchmarks, any idea how we could do both?
    • NR: Make a new issue for ZIC feedback