SSWG Meeting notes: April 8, 2026

Server Workgroup Updates
1

Swift Server Workgroup Sync - April 8, 2026

Action items

  • :a: Tibor Bödecs: Provide additional adoption blog posts following TelemetryDeck success
  • :a: Simon Pilkington: Draft updated charter reflecting current workgroup scope

Adoption blog posts

  • Joannis confirmed that the TelemetryDeck adoption blog post is now live. Joannis also noted a user who would be interested in putting up a server adoption blog post, and has referred them to Dave.

Compression API update

  • Franz gave an update on the compression work. The topic has grown beyond the original Zlib request into a broader question of compression in the Swift ecosystem can have a compression API similar to its logging APIs — an abstract API with backend implementations.

  • Tim Condon noted that a prototype is already available with a compression core and Zlib backend, where the compression core defines a generic API that any compression backend can use, with the Zlib implementation in a separate target. Franz outlined the intended incremental approach: start with an abstract API using C implementations initially, potentially re-implement those in Swift in the future, and eventually re-expose the C implementations via Swift. The group agreed to proceed with this incremental approach to avoid getting bogged down trying to do everything at once.

Proposed focus areas and new directions

Participants discussed several potential focus areas for the workgroup:

  • Documentation and guidance approach: The group considered focusing on library development best practices, deployment guides, and starter projects/templates, though they acknowledged ongoing challenges with framework neutrality when creating starter projects that don't favour specific frameworks like Vapor or Hummingbird.

  • Identity reframing options: Two potential new directions emerged from the discussion:

    • Cloud-Native Workgroup: Focus on CNCF projects, OpenTelemetry integration, and cloud-specific technologies. The group noted concrete opportunities such as getting Swift officially listed in CNCF projects, engaging with OpenTelemetry upstream (not just SwiftOtel), and bringing in cloud providers beyond AWS (e.g. GCP, Azure) and observability companies already using Swift for iOS/macOS.
    • Linux Platform Workgroup: Focus on eBPF, D-Bus, and system-level APIs for Linux platforms, similar to the Android and Windows workgroups.

  • The group leaned toward the cloud-native direction, with Franz noting "I think we are definitely closer to cloud-native than a Linux platform workgroup" and Joannis agreeing. Franz also clarified that a formal rename isn't necessary — the cloud-native focus can be expressed in the updated charter while the workgroup retains the "Swift Server Workgroup" name.

  • Konrad highlighted that this framing gives the workgroup a concrete working model: members can own a specific CNCF project integration, report back to the group on progress, and make the meetings more meaningful and focused.

Key tensions and challenges

  • Framework neutrality: Difficulty creating starter projects or guidance without appearing to endorse specific frameworks, which creates challenges for producing concrete deliverables.

  • Deliverables vs. guidance: Ongoing debate about whether the workgroup should focus on shipping actual code and libraries or concentrate on documentation, best practices, and guidance materials. Konrad raised the concern that a workgroup focused purely on samples and guides — without concrete project deliverables — risks losing focus and impact.

  • Scope definition: Recognition that "server" as a domain is too broad and leads to scope creep, with participants agreeing that a narrower, more actionable focus is needed.

Charter update requirements

  • The group agreed that the current charter is outdated and needs significant updates. Specific items identified for charter revision include:

    • Removing the outdated "2-year membership term" requirement (still present in official docs but no longer practised by any workgroup)
    • Establishing clearer boundaries and deliverable expectations
    • Reflecting the cloud-native focus and concrete engagement model with CNCF projects
    • Clarifying membership expectations: as a working group, members are expected to actively work on something (writing guides, engaging with CNCF communities, etc.), not just attend meetings

  • Simon Pilkington agreed to take a first draft of the updated charter, with Franz offering to share the new charter template that the core team has sent to steering groups as a preview. Simon also confirmed he is happy to continue in the chair role, which can be made official in the updated charter.

1 Like