Thursday, 2017-11-23

*** kumarmn has quit IRC00:02
*** hongbin has quit IRC00:17
*** flwang has quit IRC00:45
*** flwang has joined #openstack-tc00:45
*** zhouyaguo has joined #openstack-tc01:22
*** liujiong has joined #openstack-tc01:35
*** liujiong has quit IRC02:16
*** mriedem has quit IRC02:23
*** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc03:46
*** lbragstad has quit IRC03:52
*** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc04:04
*** lbragstad has quit IRC04:34
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc05:31
*** kumarmn has quit IRC05:35
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc06:32
*** kumarmn has quit IRC06:36
*** mtreinish has quit IRC08:29
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc08:33
*** kumarmn has quit IRC08:38
*** mtreinish has joined #openstack-tc08:46
*** jpich has joined #openstack-tc09:07
*** cdent has joined #openstack-tc09:12
*** zhouyaguo has quit IRC09:32
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc09:34
*** kumarmn has quit IRC09:39
*** cdent has quit IRC10:16
*** cdent has joined #openstack-tc10:44
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc11:36
*** kumarmn has quit IRC11:41
openstackgerritDai Dang Van proposed openstack/governance master: Mark Searchlight policy in code as done
cdentflaper87, EmilienM I have a local surf lesson tomorrow. By the time Dublin rolls around I will be ready to host you here.11:59
*** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur12:19
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc12:27
*** cdent has quit IRC12:28
openstackgerritThierry Carrez proposed openstack/governance master: Update team corporate diversity tags
*** kumarmn has quit IRC12:31
*** dmsimard|afk is now known as dmsimard12:55
flaper87cmurphy: w000h00000!12:59
flaper87ops, cdent ^12:59
* cmurphy will learn to surf some day13:00
openstackgerritThierry Carrez proposed openstack/governance master: Add openstack/governance-sigs repo under Meta SIG
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc13:28
*** kumarmn has quit IRC13:32
*** cdent has joined #openstack-tc13:54
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc14:28
*** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc14:29
*** kumarmn has quit IRC14:33
EmilienMcdent: oh wow14:38
EmilienMcdent: how big are waves?14:39
cdentdepends on the weather, right now they are big and messy:
EmilienMwow you have webcam so I can watch you surfing14:41
ttxtc-members assemble15:00
ttx(whoever is around)15:01
ttxI had two quick topics for y'all15:01
ttxFirst is the idea of a tech blog that was raised in a couple of forum sessions15:01
ttxwe could set up something like a static blog from a git repo, with minimal vetting of articles15:02
ttxIs anyone interested in pushing that?15:02
flaper87ttx: I think we said we would talk with harlowa and see if he was interested15:03
pabelangerhave we figured out version of software?15:03
ttxpelican works well15:03
flaper87pabelanger: jeez, you just started the bikeshed15:03
ttx(in pythonland)15:03
flaper87pelican works well15:03
* flaper87 uses it15:03
flaper87I can help, fwiw15:03
* ttx uses it15:03
flaper87it's simple to set up15:03
pabelangerYah, I think I have tried pelican before15:04
ttxpersonally I'd let whoever sets it up to pick the tool15:04
ttxIf I end up doing it, I'll likely use pelican15:04
* flaper87 will use pelican15:04
ttxOne question is the publication domain15:04
ttxI'd say something under would be good15:05
ttxwith the idea that it's where progress report / status repots shall be posted15:05
flaper87or dev-blog.o.o15:05
ttxflaper87: what would be ontopic and offtopic ? Do we want random tech exploration there ? Or just development-related stuff15:06
pabelangerI can help on the infra side with getting it working on a server, that isn't an issue. I am terrible at making HTML things look good, so likely be default theme to start15:06
pabelangerpossible we can drive a lot of this from a zuulv3 post job now too15:06
flaper87default theme for sure15:06
ttxLike a dive into the code of a specific project would be on-topic while description of a userfacing feature would not?15:06
flaper87ttx: mmh, I'd say just dev/community-related15:07
ttxHow would that be different from Planet?15:07
ttx(devil's advocate question)15:07
mugsieIt would be more curated, right?15:07
pabelangerI was just going to ask that15:07
mugsiePlanet is anyone who wants to add a feed15:08
ttxmugsie: sure, my original question is what would be on topic and off topic15:08
mugsieWhile this might be more selective per article15:08
ttxWe need clear rules for reviewers to follow15:08
ttxPersonally I'd like to see content targeted to developers, helping them keep up15:08
mugsieYeah, that ties into a discussion on twitter today / yesterday15:09
cdentWhen harlowja mentioned the idea one of the things he wanted to achieve was a way of showing that “cool stuff _does_ happen in openstack"15:09
cdenta sort of technical/dev-oriented marketing15:09
ttxsolving the "it's hard to keep up" issue, as well as "weekly meetings suck" issue15:09
flaper87off topic would be company promotions15:09
flaper87for example15:09
flaper87like, I don't think we would see mirantis, rh, or any other company product related posts there15:10
flaper87but rather: "HEre's how you deploy openstack with kolla/tripleo"15:10
flaper87and it's not an aggregator15:10
flaper87but actually written things15:10
flaper87for that blog15:10
flaper87or: "Here's how you do reviews"15:10
pabelangermore tech guides then?15:10
flaper87"Things to look/help with"15:10
flaper87pabelanger: not necessarily15:10
pabelangeror here is shiny new feature?15:11
flaper87just ideas popping up my head15:11
flaper87pabelanger: yeah15:11
cdentI think we should avoid trying to make it a substitute for things that would otherwise go on the mailing list (activity reports and the like)15:11
ttxThe key question is whether tech articles about shiny user-facing feature is on-topic. Is it a tech blog or a dev blog15:11
flaper87cdent: ++15:11
cdentIt should try to reach a little further than the mailing list15:11
ttxPersonally I'd keep it dev-oriented, facilitating upstream development15:11
ttxso new functions in a oslo lib would be on-topic15:12
ttxA new feature in Nova ? Not sure15:12
ttxunless developers are suppsoed to integrate with it15:12
ttx"My awesome dev setup" vs. "How we scaled past 2000 nodes"15:12
pabelangerimportant updates to doc job building for exmaple? eg: removal of tox15:12
EmilienM /joke we should set a words limit for flaper87 though - he writes too much :P15:13
ttxpabelanger: ontopic15:13
cmurphybut as developers our goal is to make things for users, i don't see how user facing things are off topic15:13
flaper87EmilienM: ROFL15:13
pabelangerttx: ++15:13
EmilienM+1 for pelican and the ideas presented here15:13
ttxcmurphy: it's a question of noise and overlap with superuser15:13
ttxIf we encourage ops to follow that blog, that means progress reports are a bit noisy15:13
flaper87ttx: butm if a kolla developer writes a blog post on how to use kolla-build ?15:14
ttxI'd rather keep those articles on superuser15:14
mugsieYeah, the example that was used was before was the k8s blog, which is more of a "cool end user feature" than upstream Dev blog15:14
EmilienMttx: re: "How would that be different from Planet?" - not everyone can afford to host a blog when a third party tool isn't an option15:14
ttxflaper87: kolla-build could be on-topic15:14
EmilienMttx: so I think it's a great idea15:14
ttxdepends who the audience is15:14
flaper87ttx: ok, I guess we'll need a commeettee to review these things15:15
pabelangerwouldn't we point people to planet.o.o if they want everything? And superuser, <new blog>, etc for specific content15:15
ttxmugsie: if what we want to do is a "cool new features in openstack" blog, I think we already have an outlet for that15:15
ttxand it has a lot of subscribers15:15
ttxIf what we want is " facilitate dev lives by having a place to post progress reports and other dev-related important info" that's a different idea15:16
ttxmore of a dev journal15:17
cdentttx there’s also the third idea (harlowja’s idea I reiterated above)15:17
ttxsomething to replace the news you get out of the weekly meetings, more async15:17
cdentI think those news things should go on the mailing list still15:17
cdentotheriwse we are allowing/encouraging people to not use the list, and that will move even more chat to irc and irc is … horrible15:18
mugsiettx: looking at the posts on the first page of each of those blogs, they are very different15:18
ttxcdent: the feedback I got from that session was that a dev blog would help with status reports, and make another step in more async / less weekly meetings15:18
ttxyou think we could just use the ML for that ?15:19
ttxJust with a specific prefix or something like that ?15:19
cdentI’m not certain. I do, however, think that the originating idea for the tech blog was for it to be a _tech_ blog, not a dev news thing. Perhaps there’s room for both?15:20
* ttx doesn't really have a horse in that race, just wondering what to do if anything :)15:20
cdentthe thing I like about the dev-news being on the list is that it is more natural for replies, conversation and we lack that in some areas15:20
cdentin a blog situation it’s much more one-sided15:20
ttxcdent: it came from two different directions. One is harlowja's "let's brag about tech achievenments"15:20
flaper87cdent: ttx what about we just start a mailing list thread and ask what kind of contents ppl would like to see there? or a poll?15:20
flaper87I mean, between tech and/or dev-news15:21
flaper87and some other topics15:21
ttxthe other came from "how to make openstack more palatable to part-time contributors"15:21
* cdent nods15:21
flaper87ok, what topics have we mentioned so far15:21
ttxand I think that's two different ideas15:21
flaper87dev news, tech, tools15:21
ttxboth could be solved with the same technical solution, just not necessarily the same instance of it15:22
ttxit feels like the dev journal could be the next evolution of the dev digest15:22
cdentttx, yes, and they’re both good ideas, but it is easy for the latter to make the former fade into the background and I think that would be unfortunate, as “lack of cool” is one of the reasons that casual contributors are not inclined to stick around. If a “cool stuff” blog made the cool things more evident...15:22
ttxit is however quite different from a achievements showcase15:23
ttxit would present as much problems than solutions15:23
* cdent assumes harlowja is preparing a turkery or other suitable thanksgiving vittles. His input woul be welcome now.15:23
ttxyeah, as flaper87 said, the best is probably a thread at this point15:24
ttxI was under the impression that there was a lot more alignment on what we want, but that was probably a down-under illusion15:24
flaper87I'm happy to start it15:24
ttxflaper87: ++15:24
ttxmy concern is to avoid too much overlap between our various publishing venues15:25
ttxI guess the tech blog would just be aggregated to the planet15:25
ttx(or the dev blog)15:25
cdentOn another topic, in the last 24 hours or so on twitter there’s been some interesting back forth with regard to several summit feedback postings. One of them led to an idea that might be worth thinking about as it addresses several of the topics that have come up :
* smcginnis stops by for a quick look around15:26
flaper87mmh, I missed this back and forth15:26
cdentand with regard to alignment on what we want and down under illusion, I think some of the things I’ve said in may be relevant15:26
ttxPTL meeting strikes me as an exclusion mechanism as the Earth is round15:28
ttxa step back from our need to reinvent collaboration in a global community15:28
cdentalso this:
cdentttx I think in that case it’s a matter of recognizing the problem that’s trying to solve and looking at that, not looking at the solution15:29
mugsiettx: yeah, that is a problem, but there does seem to be a need for people to try and keep up15:29
ttxcdent: as an "insider" i don't feel like we weren't discussing those openly before, but maybe that's just me15:29
cdentrob makes it clear that he wishes there was a way to have coherent regular cross-project technicak directiona15:29
cdentI think you’re too inside to know.15:30
ttxI'm the inside of the inside. Doesn't it mean I'm on the outside ?15:30
cdentCould be15:30
smcginnisWe used to have a cross-project meeting. But it suffered from lack of interest by some, and the issue of having a set time that doesn't work for everyone.15:30
cdentI suffered from the project not participating15:31
cdentthe real issues that rob is talking about is that project leaders don’t behave in a sufficiently cross project fashion, often enough, even if they have good intent15:31
ttxalso some want more coordination and some want less15:32
mugsieAnd the cross project meeting didn't do what Rob outlined - it focused on cross project issues, not what projects are doing15:32
ttxrobcresswell and notmyname have different views on how much central direction is needed15:32
mugsieEven knowing what others are working on would help. It is very difficult to distil that from the list15:33
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc15:33
smcginnisIt seems to me better communication is needed, but having a common time for everyone would be an issue.15:33
smcginnisWhat about another bot like the success bot?15:33
smcginnisSomething like #crossprojectinfo Cinder has feature X in mv 3.14, should get prioritized for horizon.15:33
cdentsmcginnis: I don’t think that the status report idea that rob presents in that etherpad is sufficient15:33
ttxor (gasp) an IRC channel15:33
mugsiesmcginnis: just decide that all OpenStack work is done in UTC working hours :)15:33
cdentthe requirement is _dialog_15:33
smcginnismugsie: :)15:34
ttxFrankly, pensatck-dev has always been around and PTLs can use it to coordinate and discuss15:34
ttxand yet they don't15:34
cdentthat’s the problem15:34
cdentthat’s what rob is really complaining about15:34
mugsiettx: there had not been a culture of doing that15:34
ttxmugsie: there was15:34
smcginnisThe thing I would like about a status report is it gives awareness of what may need to be discussed.15:35
ttxit doed when people started setting up project-specific channels15:35
mugsieOh, ok.15:35
ttx(which happened unofficially)15:35
mugsieLong before I became a ptl, and when PTLs were the TC?15:35
ttxheh, even when there was no TC15:36
cdentwhat was the pre-tc thing called? I can’t remember15:36
cdentppb was the acronym i was trying for but I kept getting prb in my head, and that wa a bad thing to search on15:37
ttxMaybe PTL office hours in penstack-dev would go a long way15:37
smcginnisThat could work.15:38
cdentthat’s a good idea15:38
mugsieYeah, that might be a good step forward15:38
ttxI just don't want to add too much on teh PTL's plate, so something best effort would be better15:38
ttxoffice hours are just a way to designate peak hours for discussions15:38
ttxand we found here that they trigger some life between office hours too15:38
smcginnisWorth floating the idea with PTLs and see if it would work for them.15:39
ttxback when the project was all US-based (except me) there was a "project meeting" where everyone joined :)15:39
cdentI think if/when we bring up the idea, it needs to be couched pretty heavily in the reasons why, because just saying “let’s do it” without being really clear about the gap it is trying to fill...15:39
mugsieYeah, I think updating the etherpad above and posting it to the list would be good15:40
ttxcdent: also I'd be careful about framing it as a "PTL" thing15:40
* cdent nods15:40
cmurphythat does sound very exclusionary, plus puts more responsibility on PTLs when we should be encouraging them to delegate more15:41
ttxif anythign we need to reduce the weight on PTL's plates, and encourage others to participate and step up15:41
mugsieI think there is value in it being put forward as a meeting of cat herders15:41
cdentI do, however, think that there is a void of authority that some people wish would be filled. Rob’s initial comment was in response to mugsie being worried about the at&t wanting the board to own the roadmap. Rob thought that might be a good thing.15:41
ttxcdent: I'm pretty sure people seeing it as a good thing are a minority though15:42
cdentsome way to narrow the focus15:42
cdentyes, that particular iteration of filling the void is a bad thing, but maybe there are other forms?15:42
ttxMost think owning the roadmap doesn't get anything on that roadmap done, it's a recipe for frustration15:43
cdentwe talked in denver about the “technical themes that matter” announcements, that probably fits in here somewhere15:44
ttxanyway, my second topic was about brainstorming ways to make the PTG scheduling even more dynamic15:44
cdentI think underlying all of this is that there are people in the commuity who are concerned that sometimes we have bad or at least not on the same page actors, and we have no mechanism for dealing with that.15:44
ttxin particular solve the room-day assignment part15:44
ttxCurrently we allocate either 2 days on Monday-Tuesday to a "theme" or 3 days at the end for a "team"15:45
ttxbut that still creates its share of conflicts and empty rooms15:45
ttxlike the TC had a room for two days but basically decided to skip monday morning15:45
smcginnisReminds me - please comment on the ops midcycle idea of colocatoin if you have input.15:45
ttxsmcginnis: i did comment?15:46
smcginnisttx: Yes, just stating for general awareness while I thought of it.15:46
cdentttx: in conversation with someone recently they asked that the TC have a stronger and more structured presence at the TC for active feedback15:46
ttxat the PTG?15:46
ttxYes, for the TC specifically I think meeting on first two days is a mistake15:47
cdentbasically if they knew that a lengthy bitch fest was being encouraged, they would show up for it15:47
ttxbut more generally15:47
ttxhow do we make more efficient use of space15:47
cdent“bitch fest” in the positive sense of shining lights on problems15:47
smcginnisI think it's a hard problem, because we want both some structure and the flexibility to have some things free form.15:48
cdentmaybe we should orchestrate a bit more by topic rather than team?15:48
cdentand require a bit more prepration15:48
ttxSo in the venue we should be able to announce Monday, there are plenty of rooms, so there is little pressure to solve the optimization problem15:48
ttxcdent: On eidea I've been toying with is the idea of not only schedule topcis dynamically but also where the topic is being discussed15:49
cdentby dynamically do you mean on the fly during the weak?15:49
ttxlike give labels to all the spots available, and then say #nova now discussing Blah in $fooobar15:49
cdentI think that’s good for some topics15:49
ttxand drop the assigned rooms altogether15:50
ttxI guess we'd still allocate fixed space for lareg teams that have content for all days15:50
cdentbut I think isn’t great for some project, e.g. nova (who would easily use up all five days if given the chance)15:50
cdentI also think if we are doing dynamic, there need to be dynamic signs available, as not everyone will be looking at their phone, computer, etc15:51
ttxbasically, if a team says "we only have one day worth of discussion", should we really schedule them on a particular day?15:51
pabelangercdent: +115:51
ttxor let them pick a time and a room where they happen not to be stuck somewhere else15:51
cdentmaybe we should just get rid of the emphasis on teams?15:51
cdentfocus on topics15:51
cdentIt’s not #nova now discussion blah15:51
cdentit’s “now dicussing blah”15:52
cdentwow, my typing is _so_ good15:52
mugsiepeople do identify with teams, and will look for what the team are doing15:52
ttxalso do we need to split themes/teams again15:53
ttx2+3 days15:53
*** lbragstad has quit IRC15:53
ttxthe initial goal there was to encourage people to get out of their silos15:53
ttxand join SIGs/horizontal teams / interesting topics15:54
ttxsome of that happened15:54
cmurphyif we deemphesize teams then this stops sounding like a replacement for midcycles15:54
ttxbut it did create a bit of conflicts for people doing lots of cross-project work15:54
ttxyeah, not a big fan of deemphasizing teams15:54
smcginnisI do like the split. I've seen some getting more involved with cross-cpncerns because of it. But we would still need dedicated team time.15:55
ttxI think having a few days around themes is enough, and keep the team meetings15:55
ttxMaybe we could try something more dynamic for the first two days15:55
cdentwas there ever any consideration for doing the cross project non-team stuff in the middle two days, rather than the front?15:56
ttxi.e. not assign rooms to themes15:56
cdentI’m thinking in terms of trying to b reak up the silos15:56
smcginnisOr AM for cross, PM for teams?  Just brainstorming.15:56
ttxcdent: the idea with up-front was:15:56
cmurphyttx: that sounds chaotic to me, i wouldn't be able to plan where i need to be15:56
ttxboard members / ops would likely stay after the board meeting for a couple of days rather than the whole week15:57
ttxso "global" discussions should happen first15:57
ttxand 2/ people that are purely silo members could just come for the last 3 days15:57
ttxBUT people actually all come for 5 days15:57
pabelangerYah, I've see a few people only come for last 3 days in denver15:58
ttxam/pm would further prevent that15:58
cdentthe person I mentioned above wanting more structured/agendized TC time at the PTG used the first two days for bike riding15:59
ttxAlso another benefit of the 2+3 is that you roll signage only once :)15:59
ttxI know erin is quite happy with only one room turn15:59
ttxanyway, we'll need to solidify the overall schedule really quick, so if you have ideas please let me know16:00
ttxI'll start a thread early next week to extend the discussion to a wider audience16:00
ttxthere isn't so much time to change the format or the tools  drastically anyway16:01
smcginnisttx: Probably worth thinking about some more, but overall I am happy with the current structure.16:01
cdentI don’t think there’s anything particulary wrong with 2 + 3 as its been done. What needs to be better is awareness of what’s happening, and some more planning by room owners of what’s happening so other people can plan16:01
smcginnisPTGbot helped a lot last time.16:01
smcginnisAnd it's just always going to be a challenge for those of us on TC, cross-project, and project specific things.16:02
cdentyes, and I think it would be even more awesome with indepdent ptgbot displays scattered around16:02
smcginniscdent: ++16:02
* cdent swoons16:02
ttxyeah and again, Dublin won't have too much room constraints... For the next one we might want to be creative to better make use of the space and reduce our needs16:02
cdentttx has the venue been chosen?16:02
smcginnisYou can tell us, we'll keep it secret. :D16:03
ttxcdent: contract passed legal review and was expected to be signed before end of week16:03
ttxerin hopes to announce Monday16:03
ttxI'll leak that it's a venue with lots of space16:03
cdentyou don’t say :)16:03
pabelangerspeaking of PTG, did we actually decide not to have TC / board meeting this time round? I know it was discussed a few times before summit16:04
ttxwe decided not to have a Board+TC+UC meeting16:04
ttxThe Board will still meet. Likely on the Monday16:04
cdentThat reminds me: several board members asked me after the last one “What’s wrong with the TC people, why don’t they speak?”16:05
ttxi speak a lot. Monty speaks a lot.16:05
ttxI think others are just conscious that everyone can't speak in a 30-people meeting?16:05
mugsieIf it is the venue I think it is, there is *a lot* of space16:05
cdentwhich is a) concering and interesting, b) further reminds me that I think not having the joint meeting is a shame16:05
cmurphysome of us are shy :P16:06
smcginnisHard to chime in with a room full of 50 people and 25 mics.16:06
cdentwas monty at the most recent one?16:06
mugsieI didn't see him, I don't think16:06
mugsieI was very jet lagged though16:06
ttxcdent: no, he was no longer on the tC nor the board16:06
cdentI’m now saying would should all talk, but it is interesting that more than one board member expected us to say “more” in resonse to the foundation expansion and were disappointed by the lack of input16:06
ttxah, you mean, TC people with objections did not speak their minds?16:07
cdentpresumably providing input and feedback is why we’re there16:07
ttxI guess when your boss is in the room that reduces your options too16:07
cdentthey don’t know, because not many people spoke on the topic. I did, jeremy did.16:07
smcginniscdent: As far as that topic goes, that's an interesting comment since the change would specifically not impact the TC.16:08
ttxI think it's good that we have topics to present. I think it's not practical to expect everyone to speak on everything. The board meetings used to be that way, was pretty painful16:08
cdentWas it painful or merely active?16:10
ttxpainful, the meetings would cover two topics and rants would go on for 30 minutes as people were trying to show how smart they were and how much you should but their startups16:11
ttx(no names)16:12
mugsieVs nearly an hour over a single sentence for a board motion?16:12
ttxmugsie: imagnie that, but all the time16:12
cdentthat does sound fairly painful, but it would be a shame if we didn’t come back to some middle ground where there is some active debate16:13
ttxanyway, that joint meeting was artificially created as there was a perceived gap in communication between the board the TC and the UC. I think that's mostly solved and now it turned into a "leadership" meeting with no clear goals16:14
cdenthow has it been solved? the only time I communicate with the board and the uc is at those meetings?16:14
ttxI mean, there aren't so many things to communicate about. We are mostly aligned on strategic issues16:15
mugsieAnd I would prefer things like that at&t proposal happen with TC people in the room, rather than just board members16:15
ttxFor example, the TC vision was nearly point by point the same as what the joint meeting came up with16:15
smcginnisBut is that because we've been meeting?16:15
ttxsmcginnis: yes. Means meeting sometimes is useful. Doesn't mean we should meet 4 times per year16:16
ttxor that everyone needs to come every time16:17
smcginnisDuring PTG, I think it's probably good if we have a "this is what the BoD discussed at the meeting" update during the TC sessions.16:17
ttxsmcginnis: the board rarely discusses / decides something that affects the TC, though?16:18
ttx(by design under the bylaws)16:18
smcginnisYes, but still nice to get that "bigger picture" I think.16:18
ttxsmcginnis: that assumes there is one and they have it16:18
cdentI think many people keep saying “we need to work on the big picture” and “the way to work on the big picture is by communicating, together"16:19
smcginnisYeah, just saying if there is one at the PTG that the TC is not a part of, then at a minimum I think it would be good to get an update on it.16:19
ttxpersonally I feel like the "joint" meeting could be something like 3 people from each governance body, rather than 30 people with half of them sleeping16:19
cdent“half of them sleeping” is highly relevant (to me) signal :)16:20
ttxremove the need to participate and replace with the will to participate16:20
cdenthow about if you don’t have the will to participate you can’t be on the board?16:20
* smcginnis needs to go mash yams or something16:21
cdentyeah, I’m supposed to make cornbread, but lack some key ingredients16:21
* ttx stops brainstorming aloud16:21
pabelangerI was mostly just listening at TC/Board meeting, absorbing everything. But I did nod along when I agreed :)16:23
cdentttx brainstorming aloud is _exactly_ what I think we need more of16:24
cdentbut yeah16:24
* cdent heads to the kitchen16:24
*** jpich has quit IRC17:07
*** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc17:19
*** kumarmn has quit IRC17:28
*** lbragstad has quit IRC17:36
*** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk17:44
*** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc18:10
*** david-lyle has quit IRC18:10
*** cdent has quit IRC18:14
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc18:17
*** kumarmn has quit IRC18:46
*** purplerbot has quit IRC19:20
*** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc19:20
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc19:46
*** kumarmn has quit IRC19:51
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc20:27
*** kumarmn has quit IRC20:45
*** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc21:16
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc21:35
*** kumarmn has quit IRC21:54
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc22:01
*** kumarmn has quit IRC22:22
-openstackstatus- NOTICE: Zuul has been restarted due to an unexpected issue. We're able to re-enqueue changes from check and gate pipelines, please check for more information.22:55
*** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc23:56

Generated by 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!