| slaweq | ianychoi kickoff mail sent, nomination period is officially opened | 06:15 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Michal Nasiadka proposed openstack/election master: Add Michal Nasiadka candidacy for Kolla PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/956748 | 07:04 |
| frickler | is there a reason that the output of election-tox-ci-checks-review and election-tox-ci-checks-election looks the same? or am I missing some subtle difference? | 08:15 |
| opendevreview | Dr. Jens Harbott proposed openstack/election master: Add Jens Harbott candidacy for TC 2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/956754 | 08:24 |
| slaweq | frickler IIUC this output is the same only now as there are no merged candidates yet, once we will have more output of the `ci-check-election` will be longer as this one will check all candidates and `ci-check-review` checks only the one proposed in current patch | 12:29 |
| slaweq | and I don't know if we really need to run both in CI | 12:29 |
| slaweq | IMHO running `ci-check-election` in CI would be enough but I may be wrong there, maybe tonyb will know more as he did that jobs | 12:30 |
| slaweq | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/599900 | 12:30 |
| ianychoi | Similar opinion as slaweq - one is for the proposed patch (eligible for election), and the other one is for all submissions (overall integrity check on the repo) | 12:35 |
| ianychoi | Both output look quite similar but previously I could see several differences in detail. Will start to review the proposed reviews for this cycle | 12:36 |
| tonyb | yes running check-election is enough BUT the check-review job is helpful for a candidate to check only their own change. | 13:10 |
| tonyb | so while check-review is a little redundant it isn't harmful and provides a somewhat nicer UX for a candidate | 13:11 |
| fungi | and for the officials if they want to look at the results from that one candidate | 13:25 |
| frickler | ah, n=1 fallacy, ok then, thx | 14:43 |
| slaweq | thx for confirmation | 14:44 |
| ianychoi | Hi fungi, Regarding https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/956698 - https://www.openstack.org/community/members/profile/162837 shows LOST error. Would you help double-check if this query is correct to check as Foundation member: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/7fec15ceeabb48aeac917bf0c06fc01a/log/job-output.txt#8530 ? | 15:21 |
| fungi | basically we want to test that the site build will work, and independent of that we want to test that the proposed change is good. we *could* rework the jobs to generate a candidate validation report as a zuul job artifact to make finding it easier, so you don't have to dig it out of the job log, and in that case we could probably combine the jobs | 15:21 |
| fungi | ianychoi: looking... | 15:22 |
| ianychoi | For other 3 candidates as of now, the link looks fine | 15:22 |
| ianychoi | s/the/their | 15:22 |
| fungi | https://openstackid-resources.openstack.org/api/public/v1/members?expand=groups,all_affiliations,all_affiliations.organization&relations=affiliations,groups&filter[]=email==fungi@yuggoth.org is the query the script should be using (substitute the candidate's address) | 15:22 |
| ianychoi | Yep, and your link is valid - https://www.openstack.org/community/members/profile/5479/ | 15:23 |
| ianychoi | https://openstackid-resources.openstack.org/api/public/v1/members?expand=groups%2Call_affiliations%2Call_affiliations.organization&filter%5B%5D=email%3D%3Dlazekteam%40gmail.com&filter%5B%5D=membership_type%3D%3DIndividual&relations=affiliations%2Cgroups shows an item, while the link https://www.openstack.org/community/members/profile/162837 shows LOST error | 15:25 |
| ianychoi | Hmm, JSON item shows as "Community Members" | 15:26 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Sylvain Bauza candidacy for 2026.1 TC membership https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/956136 | 15:27 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Michal Nasiadka candidacy for Kolla PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/956748 | 15:27 |
| fungi | "membership_type":"Individual" is what indicates an openinfra individual member since the switch to linux foundation | 15:27 |
| ianychoi | So, would ["membership_type":"Individual" and "code":"community-members"] be a valid candidate? | 15:28 |
| fungi | yes, should be | 15:28 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add Jens Harbott candidacy for TC 2026.1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/956754 | 15:28 |
| fungi | the old member groups aren't used any longer, those are historical indicators of the state before the switch to lf from what i understand | 15:29 |
| ianychoi | Thank you for your confirmation and I see your double-checking fully aligns with your recent patch which is merged https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/954787 | 15:30 |
| ianychoi | And then, leveraging "OpenInfra Individual membership" term rather than OSF would be a good idea | 15:32 |
| fungi | yeah, and remind people that if they want to be a candidate or vote in the election then they need to reestablish their individual membership (following the instructions that were sent last month) unless they've already done so | 15:42 |
| fungi | ianychoi: looks like we should be using profile links like https://openinfra.org/a/community/members/162837 now, i'll push up a change for that output | 15:49 |
| ianychoi | Cool | 15:49 |
| opendevreview | Jeremy Stanley proposed openstack/election master: Use newer OpenInfra member profile URLs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/956805 | 16:03 |
| fungi | ianychoi: ^ that will hopefully help when you're checking things manually | 16:04 |
| opendevreview | Ian Y. Choi proposed openstack/election master: Reflect template and scripts with OIF https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/956807 | 16:12 |
| ianychoi | slaweq: Actually, only election season e-mail was sent and no kick-off mail was sent to openstack-discuss. Let's discuss templates through ^ (I reflected your edit on election season) | 16:14 |
| fungi | yeah, i wasn't sure about the template texts as far as edit urls, i think they end up going to the same place via redirects but using newer openinfra.org urls for things like that is still preferable | 16:20 |
| fungi | the profile viewing urls clearly don't redirect (but maybe they should) | 16:21 |
| ianychoi | As of now, there are two places both on profile: https://www.openstack.org/profile/ and https://id.openinfra.dev/accounts/user/profile . I am not 100% sure which profile link fits with the purpose of OIF membership | 16:23 |
| fungi | https://www.openstack.org/profile/ doesn't seem to let you edit much, https://openinfra.org/a/profile and https://id.openinfra.dev/accounts/user/profile let you edit a lot of the same things, i'm not sure how much of those is kept in sync but i'll ask | 16:27 |
| fungi | comparing all three side-by-side, i think https://openinfra.org/a/profile is the one people need to be editing | 16:32 |
| fungi | since that's also where your oif individual membership is indicated | 16:32 |
| fungi | and employer affiliations are set | 16:33 |
| ianychoi | Thank you for your investigation. Then, moving forward with the profile link will be fine, or would some double-confirmation be needed? Let’s reflect to the above patch. | 16:36 |
| ianychoi | (Will sleep a little bit and get back) | 16:36 |
| fungi | yeah, this isn't urgent enough to keep you up late, we can revisit async in change comments | 16:38 |
| opendevreview | Jon Bernard proposed openstack/election master: Add Jon Bernard candidacy for Cinder PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/956826 | 19:03 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!