| croelandt | #startmeeting glance | 14:00 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu Mar 5 14:00:10 2026 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is croelandt. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'glance' | 14:00 |
| croelandt | #topic roll call | 14:00 |
| croelandt | #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda | 14:00 |
| croelandt | o/ | 14:00 |
| fungi | ahoy! | 14:00 |
| pdeore_ | o/ | 14:00 |
| abhishekk | o/ | 14:01 |
| croelandt | short agenda for today | 14:01 |
| croelandt | #topic Release/periodic job updates | 14:01 |
| croelandt | #link https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/builds?project=openstack%2Fglance&project=openstack%2Fglance_store&project=openstack%2Fpython-glanceclient&pipeline=periodic | 14:02 |
| croelandt | some issues with glanceclient tests | 14:02 |
| croelandt | apparently related to certificate issues | 14:02 |
| croelandt | I'm not sure what's happening, gonna have to dig into that | 14:02 |
| croelandt | #topic eventlet | 14:02 |
| croelandt | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/glance_store/+/978367 | 14:02 |
| croelandt | Apparently this is safe to merge if I understood hberaud correctly | 14:02 |
| croelandt | this eventlet code path is no longer used and we can remove the import | 14:03 |
| croelandt | there is a similar patch up for glanceclient, but the client is used by other consumers, so we cannot merge the patch yet | 14:03 |
| abhishekk | will have a look | 14:03 |
| croelandt | #topic Bridging the Gap: Flamingo Cycle Retrospective Followup | 14:03 |
| croelandt | fungi: you have the mic! | 14:03 |
| croelandt | More cool stats for us this week? | 14:04 |
| fungi | this effort started with representatives from member organizations sharing frustrations with, primarily, their employees' experiences trying to contribute patches in various openstack projects | 14:04 |
| fungi | investigating these reports on a case-by-case basis, foundation staff concluded most misunderstandings were due to mismatched expectations arising from incomplete communication or silence (and not necessarily on the part of the maintainers) | 14:04 |
| fungi | what we've observed from successful exchanges in some projects is that increasing communication effectiveness ultimately leads to improved efficiency and time savings for all parties involved; some examples include: | 14:04 |
| fungi | documenting review priorities and the prioritization process, as well as publicizing it more (e.g. with pointers in review comments), so that change owners know the priority for their own work and how to get involved in that decision | 14:04 |
| fungi | proactively communicating reviewer availability, changes in availability, and explicit handoff to other reviewers, so that change owners know how long they might be waiting (and encouraging them to communicate their own availability) | 14:04 |
| fungi | overall clearer communications with change owners, for example avoiding heavy reliance on acronyms and team-specific jargon, since english is not the primary language for a majority of our community and their familiarity with it varies | 14:04 |
| fungi | to this end, i and other community managers on the foundation staff are working on putting together some materials that we hope teams will find useful, and will collaborate with us to help improve and expand further | 14:04 |
| fungi | one thing we want to try is cut-and-paste review response templates for common situations; the vulnerability management team has used similar techniques for bug triage and assembling advisories, and they've found it saves a lot of time | 14:04 |
| fungi | another is assembling contributor and reviewer checklists to help avoid common pitfalls and anti-patterns, based on all of the earlier focus group feedback and brainstorming sessions we held with the community in 2024 | 14:05 |
| fungi | something else we want to try is collaborating to produce case studies with companies who have been investing in project maintenance work and whose employees have a track record of successful contribution patterns | 14:05 |
| fungi | we also plan to continue identifying additional tactics and strategies that teams have positive experiences with, to see if there's a way they can be generalized for adoption by other teams facing similar challenges | 14:05 |
| fungi | if anybody has follow-up thoughts or questions on any of the above, as well as for the survey and metrics analysis from last week now that you've had time to mull it over, i'm happy to answer questions and entertain feedback here | 14:05 |
| fungi | (or here in irc after the meeting, or on the openstack-discuss mailing list, or even directly/in private for that matter) | 14:05 |
| croelandt | I'd be interested in going through the materials you're putting together | 14:06 |
| fungi | yeah, we're about ready to circulate the first draft, hopefully in the coming week | 14:06 |
| croelandt | there are indeed cases of me reading a patch... months after it was sent | 14:06 |
| croelandt | it does not feel good for authors | 14:06 |
| fungi | it's understandable since teams have limited review bandwidth, but when the change authors aren't aware that's why their changes aren't getting reviewed it leads them to asssume other reasons | 14:07 |
| croelandt | yes | 14:07 |
| croelandt | I've been on both sides :D | 14:07 |
| croelandt | I try to be more proactive but there is always more work to do and some reviews slip through the cracks | 14:08 |
| fungi | well, one of the insights that came out of the initial focus group discussions around this is that project maintainers experience all the same challenges as non-maintainer code contributors, they've just (in some cases) figured out how to navigate them more successfully | 14:09 |
| croelandt | hahah true | 14:09 |
| croelandt | I don't think we discriminate against non-maintainer patches | 14:09 |
| fungi | i know even when i was a ptl or a tc member it could be like pulling teeth to get some of my fixes reviewed/merged | 14:09 |
| fungi | but the difference was, i actually *knew* (most of the time) why they weren't geting reviewed, and who to push on if it was something really urgent/critical | 14:10 |
| croelandt | sometimes we get patches by people who don't contribute much, but they end up having a bug in production that they need fixed. The fact that they do not a quick review might not encourage them to contribute again in the future, and might lead to them maintaining downstream-only patches, which is not great | 14:10 |
| fungi | from what we've observed looking at various projects, people contributing to projects that are very clear with communicating their development and review priorities have a more positive experience even if their changes aren't getting merged quickly, because at least they have some understanding of why that is | 14:12 |
| fungi | and yes, i agree that there are two sides to every communication, and we're going to work on ways to educate contributors on clearer and more consistent communication as well | 14:13 |
| fungi | set better expectations that your changes come with some degree of continued responsibility if you want to be a courteous member of the community | 14:14 |
| croelandt | That's interesting, I'm looking forward to improving our relationship with contributors | 14:14 |
| croelandt | it's tough because glance is jsut a few people, and some occasional contributors that don't necessarily stay for long | 14:14 |
| fungi | for most of the specific cases we looked into, there was some degree of responsibility on both sides of the communication breakdown, and helping contributors understand how to make reviewers' jobs easier is an important part of fixing those problems | 14:15 |
| fungi | but for me what has been most surprising through all of this is basically every problem case we investigated was not related to tooling, or workflows, or the code itself... it was human communication | 14:16 |
| croelandt | as one of my colleagues at the university likes to say "coding easy, talking to people, on the other hand..." | 14:17 |
| fungi | exactly | 14:17 |
| fungi | well, anyway, if you have specific questions i can answer them now or later (you know where to find me) | 14:18 |
| fungi | and be on the lookout for some upcoming publications we have in the works, as well as the gazpacho cycle retrospective maintainer and contributor surveys opening around release day | 14:18 |
| croelandt | please keep up updated when you get a first version of the documents you were mentioning | 14:19 |
| croelandt | well I guess you'dll send an email to the list | 14:19 |
| fungi | absolutely! | 14:19 |
| croelandt | well thanks fungi | 14:19 |
| croelandt | Anything else before we wrap up? | 14:19 |
| fungi | my pleasure | 14:19 |
| abhishekk | nothing from me | 14:20 |
| pdeore_ | nothing, just review reminder for location api sdk change and tempest patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstacksdk/+/883271 | 14:20 |
| pdeore_ | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/891026 | 14:20 |
| croelandt | so, you mean you're having trouble getting reviews on your patch? | 14:21 |
| croelandt | :p | 14:21 |
| fungi | hah | 14:21 |
| croelandt | fungi: see! | 14:22 |
| pdeore_ | :D | 14:22 |
| croelandt | I see abhishekk is looking at the SDK patch | 14:22 |
| croelandt | I'll take a look at Tempest | 14:22 |
| pdeore_ | yeah and he +1ed the tempest one as well | 14:22 |
| croelandt | Thanks everyone for joining! | 14:22 |
| pdeore_ | Thanks ! | 14:22 |
| croelandt | See you next week | 14:22 |
| croelandt | #endmeeting | 14:22 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu Mar 5 14:22:58 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 14:22 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/glance/2026/glance.2026-03-05-14.00.html | 14:22 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/glance/2026/glance.2026-03-05-14.00.txt | 14:22 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/glance/2026/glance.2026-03-05-14.00.log.html | 14:22 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!