Thursday, 2018-01-18

*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc00:03
*** kumarmn has quit IRC00:08
*** persia has joined #openstack-tc00:49
*** diablo_rojo has quit IRC01:06
*** liujiong has joined #openstack-tc01:22
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc01:23
*** kumarmn has quit IRC01:28
*** liujiong has quit IRC01:28
*** liujiong has joined #openstack-tc01:30
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc01:31
*** openstackstatus has quit IRC01:55
*** harlowja has quit IRC01:55
*** johnsom has quit IRC01:55
*** robcresswell has quit IRC01:55
*** mnaser has quit IRC01:55
*** fdegir has quit IRC01:55
*** mnaser has joined #openstack-tc01:56
*** johnsom has joined #openstack-tc01:56
*** robcresswell has joined #openstack-tc01:56
*** fdegir has joined #openstack-tc01:56
*** openstackstatus has joined #openstack-tc01:57
*** ChanServ sets mode: +v openstackstatus01:57
*** diablo_rojo has quit IRC01:58
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc03:29
*** alex_xu has quit IRC03:30
*** ildikov has quit IRC03:30
*** TheJulia has quit IRC03:30
*** samueldmq has quit IRC03:30
*** alex_xu has joined #openstack-tc03:30
*** samueldmq has joined #openstack-tc03:30
*** ildikov has joined #openstack-tc03:31
*** TheJulia has joined #openstack-tc03:31
*** kumarmn has quit IRC03:33
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc03:49
*** kumarmn has quit IRC03:59
*** gcb has quit IRC05:07
*** gcb has joined #openstack-tc05:14
*** rosmaita has quit IRC06:18
*** gcb has quit IRC06:58
*** ianw has quit IRC07:02
*** coolsvap has joined #openstack-tc07:03
*** dims has quit IRC07:12
*** dims has joined #openstack-tc07:14
*** dims has quit IRC07:19
*** dims has joined #openstack-tc07:20
*** notmyname has quit IRC08:13
*** notmyname has joined #openstack-tc08:16
ttxmordred: I think the next step for masakari is through the self-healing SIG and better cooperation with related components08:24
*** ianw has joined #openstack-tc08:58
*** jpich has joined #openstack-tc09:03
*** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur09:07
*** liujiong has quit IRC09:13
*** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc12:12
*** coolsvap has quit IRC13:05
*** ianychoi has quit IRC13:12
*** chandankumar has quit IRC13:51
*** ianychoi has joined #openstack-tc13:55
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc14:09
*** flaper87 has quit IRC14:16
*** flaper87 has joined #openstack-tc14:16
ttxnote: I'll miss most of the office hour due to a call14:59
* cmurphy waves15:00
*** edleafe has joined #openstack-tc15:04
dhellmannas part of setting up for managing goals with storyboard, we've created a goal-tools repo15:16
dhellmannfor now lbragstad and I are reviewers and there is no code15:16
dhellmannI hope to write something in the next couple of weeks to create stories and boards15:16
dhellmannif anyone else is interested in helping let me know15:17
*** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc15:22
dhellmannwhat do people think of the qinling project?15:27
* dhellmann taps mic15:31
cmurphyI'm +1 on approving it15:31
dhellmannI'm thinking about scope and whether it makes sense as a separate foundation-level thing15:32
dhellmannI don't necessarily think so, but I think it's a good exercise to go through15:32
cmurphyin my head it maps to a sahara-like thing, or as ttx mentioned on tuesday it could be thought of as a compute replacement15:33
persiadhellmann: In contrasting PaaS vs. IaaS?15:33
cmurphyso I feel like it fits in the map15:33
persiaI suggest that only projects with reasonably well-structured internal governance structures are recommended to be separate foundation-level things.  Projects that are mostly just code and seek governance support (i.e. by applying to the TC) are unlikely to be suitable in many cases [not that this means they belong in OpenStack, but rather that they may need to either grow governance or find another bucket].15:34
fungigrr, i got absorbed in other side conversations and missed the first half of our office hour. catching up now!15:35
mugsiedhellmann: I also feel that asking a project like qinling to setup a new sub foundaiton would be far too much work for them, and they may prefer to stay outside any form of governance15:35
dhellmannpersia : all new projects lack internal governance structure, though. The point is to get them on the right path, either to working with the TC or starting their own foundation-level thing.15:35
dhellmanncmurphy : that's a reasonable perspective15:36
dhellmanncmurphy : where would you draw the line?15:36
persiadhellmann: If they need guidance, then yes.  Sadly, my experience includes lots of projects that do governance before code: most of these tend not to be hugely successful for obvious reasons.15:36
dhellmannmugsie : that's possible, too. Do we need to take all new projects just because they don't already have a structure, though?15:36
cmurphydhellmann: that's a harder question :)15:37
dhellmannthe technical lines with kata were easier to see, but I suspect as we move on we're going to have decisions that are harder15:37
dhellmannthe social lines were easier there, too, since they didn't want to be under TC governance15:37
persiaTo me, there are three categories: a) things that belong in openstack (without structure), b) things that belong outside openstack (without structure), c) things that belong outside openstack (with structure).15:37
fungiyeah, so to take a couple of recent examples... the infra team breaking off to form the seed of the ci/cd focus area comes with its own governance structure due to being an established group of collaborators. the container focus area has the kata project newly formed by intel and hyper, where they don't know how they're going to go about things yet15:37
fungiand the edge computing focus area... i don't even know if there are any teams of people creating software under that umbrella yet15:38
dhellmannI expect as the foundation goes through the exercise a few times they'll build up a roadmap of decisions that need to be made and we'll see a few patterns emerge in how the groups organize15:38
mugsiedhellmann: I see the stratigic focus areas as good mechanisms for projects that want them, but I don't think we should start closing doors because they exisit15:39
dhellmannso I'm less concerned with how other folks are going to set up their projects than I am with how we're going to know when to recommend that they do so15:39
mugsieI don;t think anyone who has to be recommended to set one up should.15:39
dhellmannmugsie : well, no. I'm not closing doors. I think qinling is probably a good fit. I just think it's important that we figure out why, and what might not be, so we have some sort of idea of where the line is.15:40
persiamugsie: +115:40
fungito me the questions are probably: 1. why are you interested in being an official part of openstack; 2. is there another focus area (or even outside community not under the osf) where your work might be a better technical and cultural fit; 3. would you be interested in forming your own focus area under the osf15:40
mugsiefungi: from what I can see on edge calls, they are focusing on how they can use the software in the OpenStack project bucket, then the "glue" software will fall out of that - but I think that is a ways down the line15:41
dhellmannso if someone came along with a nascent machine learning system that runs on openstack but is written with no tools in common and shares no common contributors, we would bring them into the tent instead of recommending a separate focus area?15:41
dhellmannfungi : those are good questions for us to ask15:41
dhellmannalong with the existing question of "does this further the mission of openstack?"15:42
fungii think i personally would start by asking them the above questions, before recommending anything, yes15:42
mugsiedhellmann: well, I don't think we would have taken them before, would we?15:42
fungiin some cases it may simply be that they didn't consider those other options, or weren't aware they even were options15:43
persiaIs there an expectation that projects that would have been accepted previously will now be rejected?15:43
dhellmannmugsie : I don't know. Maybe that example is too obvious. What would you change about the scenario to make the decision something we'd need to talk about?15:43
fungii don't have that expectation15:43
persiaOr is this just an exercise to determine the messaging to include with rejection?15:43
dhellmannpersia : we used to have 2 options, yes or no. Now we have yes, no, and "let us help you set up your own thing over here"15:43
dhellmannI'm trying to figure out where that third option fits in when the TC is asked about a project15:44
dhellmannso far we haven't15:44
dhellmannhaven't been15:44
mugsiedhellmann: tools in common would be the thing that would make it a "lets talk about the tent"15:44
dhellmannkata didn't want to be part of the tc's governance15:44
* persia always interpreted "no" as "let someone help you set up your own thing", but may not have the most disinterested viewpoint in that regard15:44
dhellmannmugsie : so if they're using python we talk about it but if they're using rust we default to no?15:44
fungifrom what i've seen so far, the "strategic focus areas" work is aimed at giving groups of related efforts other options where they can form their own communities independent of the openstack community, but not telling the openstack community it has to reduce its scope in any way15:45
* cmurphy pulls up
mugsiedhellmann: I think so? that seems in line with what we have done in the past15:45
dhellmannmugsie : what about golang? we support that now.15:45
dhellmannor javascript15:45
mugsiee.g. Monasca was in Java, but we took them on the condition that they re-wrote the stuff to python15:45
fungiif someone did the necessary work to put together some integration standards for rust-based projects, then i don't see why we wouldn't consider them as well15:46
mugsieI thought we had to justify the use of golang vs python still?15:46
dhellmannfungi : that's true. I'm trying to conduct a thought experiment to get us to consider what we might do if we were asked to accept a borderline project15:46
dhellmannmugsie : that was before we broadened our language rules15:46
dhellmann*that == monasca15:46
dhellmannwe don't want projects rewriting themselves in golang to chase the new hotness, but I don't think it's ruled out as a useful tool15:47
dhellmannso if a project came along, we might consider it15:47
dhellmannso the language or tools may not be a reason to say yes or no15:48
mugsieI would hope so. I think as much as we want TC decisions to be objective, each one comes down to context15:48
dhellmannhow would the details of qinling need to change for us to question it?15:48
mugsiee.g. a project that is diverse, interesting and wants to get onboard, but uses golang would be far preferable to a project that is being chucked over the wall that uses every single oslo library15:49
dhellmann"the attitude of the contributors" is hard to judge objectively15:49
dhellmannalthough I agree with that as a criteria15:49
persiamugsie: What criteria would you apply to judge if a project is being chucked over a wall vs. having a narrow interest?15:49
*** alex_xu has quit IRC15:50
dhellmannfungi's question about why they want to join goes directly to that15:50
dhellmannI'm not sure how I would judge "interesting" though. A lot of the projects we already have aren't necessarily that "interesting" to me personally, as I don't use them.15:50
fungicould also be rephrased as "what do you expect to get out of being an official openstack project?"15:51
mugsiepersia: is there criteria? if a repo starts with a "open source <name>" commit, and then all the rest of the commits are fixing CI / global requrements ?15:51
dhellmannfungi : right, we've asked that one in the past and I think we should keep asking it15:51
mugsiedhellmann: yeah, interesting was abad choice of word15:51
dhellmannmugsie : a bad choice, but I think there's something there15:51
dhellmannmaybe relevant?15:52
*** alex_xu has joined #openstack-tc15:52
mugsiefungi: ++ on that question - it is a good bellwether15:52
fungithe corollary of course being "what does openstack get out of making your project an official part of its whole?"15:52
dhellmannthat goes to the question of whether they're furthering the mission15:52
persiamugsie: Paucity of substantial commits while using openstack infra is an excellent criterion to determine over-the-wall-ness :)15:52
fungidhellmann: precisely15:52
mugsiedhellmann: yeah, relevent seems better15:52
dhellmannIt's difficult to set hard guidelines up front for these sorts of things. I guess we'll know a bad fit when we see one. :-)15:54
mugsieyeap. its a messy people problem as much a clean technical one, which makes hard and fast guidelines more difficult15:55
dhellmannthat's why we left space for the tc to exercise their judgement in the process15:55
* dhellmann can't wait to see what cdent makes of this in his summary15:57
ttxCall ended but my birthday cake is waiting, now15:59
ttxI'll catch up later :)15:59
dhellmannhappy birthday, ttx!15:59
pabelangerdhellmann: regarding kata, was there a specific reason for not to be part of TC? That also doesn't mean they can choose to use common tooling but guess give them options to say they support slack15:59
dhellmannpabelanger : I know they did not want to be. I don't know exactly why.16:00
ttxpabelanger: one key rule of open source governance is that  the governed must feel represented by the governance board16:00
dhellmannyeah, that was reason enough for me16:01
ttxThat works as long as there is overlap and commonality across the parts governed16:01
ttxIt's a trade off16:01
ttxbetween the value you get by single governance16:02
pabelangeryah, that make sense16:02
ttx(in openstack, commonality across components)16:02
ttxand the dilution of representation16:02
ttxBasically for kata that trade-off is on the side of separate governance16:02
ttxnot enough commonality or value in being governed in the same bucket16:03
persiaAlso, the structure of the TC is very different to the structure of a number of other projects, especially those with "steering committee"s: folk steeped in those cultures may find being part of OpenStack confusing or difficult: easy enough to address on the part of individual contributors, but harder for projects as a whole.16:03
ttxNow I really need to eat my cake16:03
dhellmannone of the reasons I think it's important to consider this stuff more carefully now is that we already have some teams that chafe under the TC's governance16:03
ttxdhellmann: right, for them we decide that the benefits of commonality outweigh the dilution16:04
ttxbut that's definitely grey area16:04
ttxbbl really :)16:04
persiadhellmann: Does the TC know which and why?  I don't think they necessarily have to be exposed widely, but maybe finding volunteers to understand the source of chafing could help in general (it may be as simple as reminding folk of the model).16:04
dhellmannttx: go eat cake!16:04
dhellmannpersia : yes, that is a long lived and ongoing effort16:05
persiaThat matches my memories: I am glad this is not something new :)16:05
fungipabelanger: for a bit of background, the platinum board member representing intel had been for a year or more, suggesting that it should be possible to form new projects benefiting from the openstack foundation's resources but with their own separate technical committees, not under the thumb of the openstack tc. those suggestions ended about the same time the foundation announced it would be considering16:07
fungiadding new focus areas and that a collaboration between intel and hyper would be the basis for one of those16:07
fungiwhile i don't know that the two are necessarily related, the correlation seems strong16:08
dhellmann"under the thumb" is strong imagery16:08
pabelangerI see16:08
fungiyeah, i suppose that wording was unnecessarily strong; my take on the suggestion was that there should be the ability to have projects benefitting from openstack foundation resources but providing their own technical direction rather than having to agree to technical direction provided by the openstack technical committee16:10
fungithat's probably a more fair-handed phrasing16:10
pabelangerMaybe I am looking at it with wrong hat on, but I do idle in kata-dev, just to better understand the project, but really don't understand how some of their infrastructure is working. EG: slackbot and slack invite systems.16:10
persiaI have seen a couple organisations (including that mentioned) talking about the restrictiveness of openstack governance over the past few years: often from folk with long history working with open source within other governance structures.  I think unfamiliarity with the openstack model combined with experience in overcontrolled environments leads some of the interest.16:11
pabelangerWhere our TC would have help policies in place to work with infra, I don't fully understand how kata will manage that or if important16:11
fungipersia: also i think people looking from outside get the impression this is driven by the technical committee rather than the technical committee being an outgrowth of the community which has formed16:12
persiaMost critically, when watching the OpenStack TC, I see little explicit statement "project foo must do bar", and more "if foo did bar, everything would work better" or general assistance helping projects handle questions they cannot handle themselves.16:12
persiaThis is very different than some other projects, especially many on the periphery of openstack.16:12
fungilots of people are familiar with communities which don't elect their technical committees but rather have a technical committee thrust upon them by some dictate16:13
persiafungi: Yes.  That is the "Steering Committee" model I described earlier.  Example nearby projects with that model include OpenNFV,, CNCF, etc.16:13
persiaAlso, many contributing orgs are more comfortable with buying a seat for control than instructing their staff to promote a policy agenda politically within a democracy.16:14
mugsiepersia: I think that is what a lot of enterprises are used to, you buy a seat on a standards body / industry group, and you have a seat with power proportional to the money you paid.16:15
persiamugsie: Yes.  OpenStack is not like that.  OpenStack is perceived like that.  I have participated in conversations where folk talk about how much it costs to buy a TC seat (involving offering a sufficiently compelling offer to cause sitting TC members to change employers).16:17
mugsievs paying for x FTE and hoping that they can drive the policies you need, but could in theory be blocked by a sole trader if the arguements do not match up16:17
fungipabelanger: so far i've been taking a wait-and-see attitude toward the katacontainers use of our shared infrastructure. it's possible they'll be more interested in collaborating once it's no longer officially part of "openstack" but ultimately it's up to them to figure out16:17
pabelangerfungi: Yah, I can also see that too16:18
mugsieyeah, number of TC / PTLs / Cores used to be a big metric in some parts of HP from what I remember. Ironically, I think that group of people were very good about wearing two hats and doing what was right for the comunity16:18
fungipabelanger: they may also simply be allergic to the idea of any virtualization-based test platform, since they see their technology as an evolutionary step beyond either virtualization or container technologies16:19
persiaIndeed.  I have no complaints about any of the folk that changed employers in part because of roles, especially for TC members.  I am unhappy with the employers for being mistaken.16:19
ttxre: Qinling it's very much an "openstack" project -- walks like an openstack service, talks like an openstack service, tightly integrated with other openstack services, benefits a lot from being part of the same product16:19
ttx(catching up on backlog)16:20
mugsiefungi: yeah, that will be interesting to see - I wonder will the ability for zuul to work on github PRs help that?16:20
persiattx: I think there was broadly consensus there, more concern is "how do these things walk, talk, integrate, or benefit?"16:20
* mugsie is very much a gerrit proponant, but I can see how people would prefer github for some things16:20
fungimugsie: perhaps. similar to future consideration of nodepool/zuul being able to use aws/azure/gce16:21
pabelangerfungi: I hope that isn't the case, it would be a shame if each new focus group (is that the word) under the foundation each had their of teams managing services16:22
mugsiefungi: oh, I didn't realise that was on the nodepool roadmap. thats cool16:22
fungimugsie: it's been discussed, i don't know whether "roadmap" is an appropriate term but it's not been ruled out anyway16:22
fungipabelanger: right. my position is that we can't tell them it's disallowed, but we _can_ provide a compelling excuse for them to not waste their time duplicating effort16:23
persiapabelanger: My mental model of "OpenStack Infra" is "A team managing useful services for open source development", rather than "The team that manages infrastructure for the OpenStack Foundation".16:23
ttxBeyond cultural and technical fit, there is a bit of a product decision too. Does it fit well in the map, or does it feel odd in the map.16:23
fungipersia: and you'd be right. the openstack foundation also has a separate team managing its own infrastructure (for the www.o.o site, summit web app, et cetera)16:23
pabelangerpersia: yes!16:24
pabelangerfungi: ++16:24
ttxwe should definitely not "force" anyone to be under the TC if they don't want to. Actually we can't force anyone.16:25
persiaAs a result, I don't think either the TC nor OpenStack Infra should mind if adjacent communities within the foundation wish to use alternate infrastructure.  Where the adjacent focus is indistinguishable from "OpenStack", presumably the TC would like to suggest merging, and where the adjacent focus workflow is a good match to "OpenStack Infra", that team would presumably offer services.16:25
ttxIf any team wants to be under their own governance, they can. But they might not be able to call themselves a part of openstack as a result16:26
ttxsame way Kata is not a part of openstack16:26
persiattx: I suggest strengthening that, such that any team that is not under TC governance *may not* call themselves OpenStack, although I realise this is not the body with the mandate to make that decision.16:27
ttxThe difference with Kata is that the OpenStack Foundation decided to also support them16:27
ttxpersia: who knows, the board could decide to apply the trademark to other projects (would be VERY confusing, but not my decision)16:28
ttxpabelanger: regarding Kata being different, two things. Their culture is different, they are not issued from "the OpenStack community". I'd like to make sure they are not gratuitously different, encourage them to learn about how we do things and why, and decide for themselves what's best for them16:30
ttxIf we do a great job, they will want to be more like us16:30
persiaOh, absolutely true.  I just believe in the power of guiding language, if we avoid the subjunctive, maybe others will not have the undesired thought.16:31
ttxpersia: we also did not really market our tooling well. Since OpenStack had to use it, not much effort was done to explain why the model is superior16:32
ttxWhile there is no shortage of doc on the Internet explaining the GitHub PR model16:32
ttxMy hope is that setting up the Infrastructure as its own thing will help market it16:33
ttx(not a dirty word)16:33
fungittx: can the board actually decide to apply the openstack wordmark/trademark to anything the openstack tc hasn't agreed to be covered by that trademark? i thought that was the point to the tc:approved-release governance tag?16:33
persiafungi: Absolutely.16:33
fungii mean without a vote of the membership16:34
persiattx: I think simply setting it up isn't sufficient: it would need active promotion.16:34
ttxfungi: they would have a hard time... but anything can change :)16:34
persiafungi: Yes.16:34
pabelangerttx: Yup, I can see that. I do question if we have people on the openstack side that might also offer up support or guidance on things. I know that is a fine line of having things grow into their own vs being that person always saying 'well, this is how we do it...'16:34
ttxpabelanger: I intend to spend some time reaching out to them in 2018 :)16:34
persiafungi: Except for the narrow set of things prohibited by bylaws, board can do anything: membership response is limited to the next election.16:34
fungipersia: well, i'm referring to the bylaws there16:35
pabelangerttx: cool! I'm excited to see how it goes (I'm sure others are too)16:35
fungipersia: The Technical Committee shall designate a subset of the OpenStack Project an “OpenStack Technical Committee Approved Release” from time to time. The Board of Directors may determine "Trademark Designated OpenStack Software" from time to time, which will be a subset of the "OpenStack Technical Committee Approved Release" as provided in Section 4.1(b)(ii) and (iii).16:36
fungii expect deciding to apply the openstack trademark separately from what's set there would take a revision to the bylaws16:37
fungibut i am certainly not a lawyer16:37
dhellmannfungi : the bylaws would have to be changed16:38
ttxfungi: yeah, sounds difficult to interpret it in a way that would allow then to do it. More importantly, they have really no good reason of wanting it. My point in that hypothetical was that there is a slight indirection layer between the OSF, the trademarks it drives and the projects / governance entities associated to them16:38
fungidhellmann: right, which is why i mentioned "without a vote of the foundation membership"16:39
persiafungi: On re-reading, I realise that I) I am unqualified to have an opinion on the detailed application of 4.1(b), and II) that those probably have to change to support adjacent projects anyway.16:39
ttxI think we put ourselves in a weird corner by saying that everything we do is openstack16:39
ttxfor various definitions of "we"16:39
persiattx: +1 on identity positioning16:40
fungior "identity poisoning" depending on how you look at it ;)16:40
persiaNow I'm curious how it might be "identity poisoning".16:40
ttxbig tent was one way to look at it, but resulted in product dilution and making it hard to answer "what is openstack"16:40
ttxI prefer a future where you don't have to make yourself a part of the openstack product to be supported by the OpenStack Foundation.16:42
ttxThat opens options like the ability to market the way we do software development to a wider audience16:43
persiaI would prefer if the two things had different names, even.16:43
persiaBut that boat has long-sailed.16:43
mugsiepersia: +++16:43
* ttx opens his birthday gifts.... No, still no time machine16:44
persiattx: Go birthday harder: nothing said here can't wait until next office hour :)16:44
smcginnisWas there some rumbling of rebranding the foundation to Open Infrastructure? Or was that just my take?16:45
smcginnisAnd yeah, go have some good wine and another piece of cake. :)16:45
persiaOOh!  Exciting.16:45
mugsiesmcginnis: I like that, but I think it was just wishful thinking, or possibly a new tagline16:47
smcginnisI would like it too. I think it opens things up for more of what we would like to cover.16:48
EmilienMhi (late, stuck in meetings since 6am)16:55
dims@smcginnis : "OSF" like "Dunkin"17:14
*** jpich has quit IRC17:38
mugsieI have kicked the interop testing nest again, with a few definable actions - hopefully we can come to an agreement soon17:54
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc17:55
*** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk17:58
fungidims: more like "KFC" i fear18:28
dims"So good" :)18:28
*** edleafe has quit IRC18:58
*** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc19:52
dhellmannttx, fungi : if we're going to have "talks" at the ptg it might be useful to have someone from infra do a quick tour of the new features of things like ara for finding error messages when your job fails20:50
dhellmannor maybe not someone from infra specifically, but someone20:51
* fungi nominates dmsimard to present on that topic20:53
* dhellmann seconds20:53
fungidhellmann: yeah, in the context of the lunchtime presentations idea, it could be a cool topic for sure20:54
fungicould even just be an informal show&tell/question&answer20:54
* persia thinks informal show&tell+q&a is the best format for lunch talks, especially as some folk arrive late, want to leave early, etc.20:59
dmsimardI'm not attending the PTG unfortunately :(21:02
dhellmanndmsimard : d'oh. maybe you can recommend someone else?21:02
dmsimardI did a video demo of ARA a while back:
dmsimardI could make one that is more streamlined/zuul targetted or I can figure out who could talk about it21:04
dmsimardI do plan on submitting a proper talk on CI/troubleshooting at the CI/CD Vancouver track FWIW21:06
dhellmanndmsimard : either way would be good. I thought the ptg would have the right audience, but having a recorded talk would be a good thing, too21:08
smcginnisI think ARA would be good, but having something showing how to convert over legacy jobs or create new local in-repo ones I think would be very welcome.21:08
dhellmannyeah, that's another good topic21:09
dhellmannclarkb doesn't seem to be in this channel21:09
dmsimardIf ajaeger is going to the PTG, I nominate him, he's been doing an excellent job with that :D21:09
*** openstackgerrit has quit IRC21:33
*** diablo_rojo has quit IRC22:08
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc22:10
*** hongbin has quit IRC22:12
*** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc22:14
*** kumarmn has quit IRC23:34

Generated by 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!