Monday, 2018-01-29

*** gcb has joined #openstack-tc00:53
*** liujiong has joined #openstack-tc01:19
*** gcb has quit IRC01:21
*** liujiong has quit IRC01:27
*** mriedem has quit IRC01:37
*** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc03:11
*** harlowja has quit IRC03:18
*** kumarmn_ has joined #openstack-tc04:07
*** kumarmn has quit IRC04:11
*** rosmaita has quit IRC04:26
*** gcb has joined #openstack-tc07:39
openstackgerritChangBo Guo(gcb) proposed openstack/governance master: Add Rocky goal to toggle the debug option at runtime
*** jpich has joined #openstack-tc08:41
*** chandankumar has joined #openstack-tc09:47
*** gcb has quit IRC10:29
*** gcb has joined #openstack-tc10:53
*** gcb has quit IRC10:59
-openstackstatus- NOTICE: Zuul is currently under heavy load. Do not *recheck* or *approve* any changes.11:04
*** gcb has joined #openstack-tc11:17
*** gcb has quit IRC11:18
*** dklyle has quit IRC11:52
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc11:53
*** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc13:06
-openstackstatus- NOTICE: Zuul is currently under heavy load. Do not *recheck* or *approve* any changes until we give the go ahead.13:34
*** ChanServ changes topic to "Zuul is currently under heavy load. Do not *recheck* or *approve* any changes until we give the go ahead."13:34
*** cdent has joined #openstack-tc13:57
*** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc14:03
*** kumarmn_ has quit IRC14:04
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc14:05
*** purplerbot has quit IRC14:06
*** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc14:06
*** purplerbot has quit IRC14:07
*** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc14:07
*** kumarmn has quit IRC14:09
*** david-lyle has quit IRC14:15
*** dmsimard is now known as dmsimard|afk14:17
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc14:24
*** superdan is now known as dansmith14:28
-openstackstatus- NOTICE: we've been able to restart zuul, and re-enqueue changes for gate. Please hold off on recheck or approves, we are still recovering. More info shortly.14:30
*** gcb has joined #openstack-tc14:52
*** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc15:12
johnthetubaguyjust thinking about the PTG, is the board meeting likely to follow the same morning/afternoon pattern?15:31
johnthetubaguyI don't see that called out on the wiki page yet15:31
johnthetubaguymaybe we said no to a joint meeting, I don't remember now15:33
mugsiejohnthetubaguy: there is not joint meeting afaik, just the board itself15:34
TheJuliaThe last thing I remember being mentioned about it was what mugsie indicated15:35
cmurphythat's also what wendar's response on the -foundation ml indicates15:38
*** gcb has quit IRC15:47
johnthetubaguyah, thanks folks, that clears it up15:54
johnthetubaguyI would go and loiter, but I think a few more hours with little Francis is probably what is going to happen!15:55
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc15:56
dhellmannjohnthetubaguy : good choice16:00
ttxyes, just board16:04
mugsiejohnthetubaguy: it is on during the PTG anyway - so most non board people will probably have to skip16:06
mugsie(not on the sunday before as usual)16:06
mugsieas is usual*16:07
johnthetubaguymugsie: ah, I totally missed that16:11
cdentyeah, whole things seems a bit wrong16:12
mugsiecdent: yeah - it does.16:17
mugsieyou were at the SYD meeting, right? I remember a short discussion, but not an agreement on the date of this meeting - or did I miss somethign?16:17
cdentmugsie: yes, I didn't think there was agreement16:19
cdentI think the agreememt came later16:19
cdentthere was also some discussion here in which ttx said we didn't all need to be there and smcginnis and I disputed that (and ran for the board as a result)16:19
mugsieyeah, that is what I remembered16:20
cdentI was going to respond on the email thread, but I've been ill16:21
cdentIt's bad form to overlap16:21
*** ChanServ changes topic to "OpenStack Technical Committee office hours: Tuesdays at 09:00 UTC, Wednesdays at 01:00 UTC, and Thursdays at 15:00 UTC | | channel logs"16:22
-openstackstatus- NOTICE: zuul.o.o is back online, feel free to recheck / approve patches.16:22
dhellmannwe've tried to make that point a few times. the first time they wanted to colocate with the ptg we convinced them not to do it at all. loosening that to support the meeting the sunday before denver seems to have produced mixed messages.16:23
cmurphyI would have thought some of the existing board members would have objected to the overlap16:24
dhellmannvery few of them actually participate in the ptg16:24
cmurphybut some do16:24
dhellmannapparently not enough to sway the rest of the board members16:25
johnthetubaguyhaving missed some of the in person meeting with the Board (various annoying reasons), I certainly felt quick out of the loop16:26
johnthetubaguy(and was please to see cdent and smcginnis offer their services to help with that)16:27
smcginnisI would hope that lack of vocal engagement at those cross meetings is not taken as lack of interest or involvement.16:27
dhellmannI think the only way the meeting scheduling is going to change is for board members to object to the rest of the board directly, because input from those of us not on the board doesn't seem to be doing it.16:28
smcginnisNeed some "cdent 2019" t-shirts and buttons at the PTG.16:28
mugsiesmcginnis: I know a few printers in Dublin :D16:28
smcginnismugsie: ;)16:28
cdent /o\16:31
johnthetubaguycdent: smcginnis: combining ideas here, is there a specific formal request we can get a board member to propose on our behalf, to help improve the communication?16:33
smcginnisI would like it proposed that the meeting take place in a time that doesn't directly conflict with non-board members being able to at least be present.16:34
cdentjohnthetubaguy: a) I think that's a good thing to think about, b) I'm too ill think about it16:34
mugsiejohnthetubaguy: afaik, there is nothing stoping us from putting an item on the agenda, and talking to them directly16:34
* johnthetubaguy sends warm blanket and jug of water to cdent16:34
mugsieand then letting them vote16:34
cdentI think mugsie's suggestion is the only "real" one16:35
mugsiethe last couple of boards I have been on have allowed non members to present to it16:35
johnthetubaguycertainly that happens with member applications16:35
johnthetubaguyDo we want to send thoughts based on the published agenda, like these are top 3 things the TC things need a board level response?16:38
smcginnisjohnthetubaguy: I like that idea.16:39
mugsiejohnthetubaguy: if the agenda is published far enough in advance, that would be a good idea imho16:39
johnthetubaguyI guess deep down I struggle with the whole formality of the conversations, and that's not really constructive, so that is just an attempt to adopt the formality16:39
johnthetubaguymugsie: part of me wonders about doing that before, so it could shape the agenda if needed, but that is getting very chicken and egg, might be worth doing both I guess16:40
mugsiejohnthetubaguy: I think that shaping the agenda is great, but it would really need people from the TC there, and actively participating to make an impact16:41
johnthetubaguyI think if we stimulate the conversation that makes it clear we are needed, it kinda shakes a whole set of things out for itself, so I guess I am not as worried about that16:42
dhellmannmugsie : the agenda is in the wiki
smcginnisI would saying barring the change of TC actually attending the meeting, being able to give input/feedback on the planned agenda might be our best option.16:43
dhellmanniiuc, they decided that since we just had a joint meeting we didn't need to have another so soon because there wasn't much to report16:43
dhellmannI don't necessarily agree with the argument, but that's how it was presented when I asked16:43
mugsieI could just see a session of "Topic A" being rasied, no one really talking, and the topic being dropped and the board just moving on16:43
dhellmannit looks like most of the agenda is about welcoming the new members and making sure they understand how things work16:44
mugsiedhellmann: that was the basis of the discussion in here as well16:44
johnthetubaguyI guess it went from every six to every three, which is quite a lot of their meetings16:44
dhellmannwith an hour of strategic discussion at the end16:44
dhellmannjohnthetubaguy : right16:44
johnthetubaguyit feels like the conversation we had about TC meetings and how it restricted what we could do16:45
mugsieso - there seems to be a chance for them to change the date for the f2f in tomorrows meeting16:45
dhellmannas much as I would like to dig in deeper on one of the "help wanted" items, I'm not sure that format is the best way to do it16:45
johnthetubaguydhellmann: ++16:45
dhellmannmy guess is that most people have already booked travel so it's unlikely to change16:45
johnthetubaguythat too16:46
dhellmannwhich isn't to say that you should stop asking, just to set expectations realistically16:46
mugsieoh, true16:46
johnthetubaguyI would rather we were clear on what we need to talk to them about, I just did nothing in here, in case that starts some ideas:
*** jpich has quit IRC16:59
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc17:14
smcginnisThis may be interesting to this crowd:
dhellmanntheir model is a bit different17:27
dhellmannthey encourage projects to have their own governance structure17:27
dhellmannwe try to have projects follow a common structure17:27
dhellmannthat means it may be easier for us to bring projects in earlier, so we can help them establish those patterns17:27
dhellmannthat's less important for cncf projects, if they're all expected to be a little different anyway17:28
ttxinteresting nevertheless17:29
ttxIn the case of CNCF they are using it more as an early landgrab, but the technical/community rationale for getting rid of the concept is eeringly similar to ours17:31
cdentI have an amusing reaction to jessfraz which is something like:
dhellmannwe still support bringing new projects in, we just don't call it incubation any more17:33
dhellmannwe said diversity and consumption weren't requirements, right?17:34
smcginniscdent: LOL17:34
cdentthanks for being there smcginnis17:34
smcginnisdhellmann: She seems to be pressing for comsumption first, then incubation.17:35
cdentyes, and I think she's right17:35
dhellmannsmcginnis : yes17:35
dhellmanncdent : I see you voted in favor of qinling. how many users does that have?17:35
cdentdhellmann: you make a good point. Sadly I've tended to vote for projects with an eye to how we've done voting before, not with my conscience17:37
dhellmannyeah, I realized my phrasing came out sort of snarky, and I didn't mean it that way17:37
cdentbecasue it seems unfair to say "no" after we've helped foster so many things that may never should have existed in the first place17:38
dhellmannit would be interesting to review our project list with the consumption criteria in mind to see if we would want to drop any17:38
cdenthalf of me would _love_ to do that17:38
cdentand half of me thinks that would be cruel17:38
smcginnisCareful, I was told I couldn't do that as TC. :)17:38
* cdent sends smcginnis a hat box17:39
cdent"what's in the box?"17:39
dhellmannsmcginnis : removing them from the official project list is within our purview17:39
dhellmannremoving them from infra is fuzzier17:39
smcginnisWhat's in the box cdent? What's in the box!?!17:39
smcginnisSorry, had to do it.17:39
cdentwould be wrong not to17:40
cdentI think an issue with the way we do projects is that openstack is old enough and enclosed enough that we have our own ecosystem.17:43
cdentthat ecosystem is insufficiently open for "new things" to grow organically simply because they are good17:43
cdentLong ago I argued that the closedness of the ecosystem was the bug17:43
dhellmannwe've always had the tension between becoming a set of unique projects and being a set of tools that act the same for deployers and users17:45
cdentIf we agree that closedness is a fact of life, then some kind of inception is pretty much a requirement17:46
dhellmannI'm not sure what you mean by "closedness"17:49
cdentdhellmann: a mixture of things, but things like: we operate in a cloister (an albeit glorious and impressive one) run by infra that requires a special visit to get to; our projects and tools were for a long time for use with each other and not with the whole world; or to put it another way:17:53
cdentopenstack is a bit of a cult. you join it. once you join it, you're in it. it is very consuming.17:54
cdentcase in point17:54
cdentI just went to look at that toc that jessfraz wrote and I was all "oh, okay, github, I  know this"17:55
cdentI was able to decode the context easily17:55
dhellmannbecause you were familiar with the tool17:58
cdentbecause being familiar with _that_ tool is damn near equivalent to being familiar with open source these days17:59
cdentwhich I don't agree is a good thing, but is a thing17:59
dhellmannotoh, every project of any real scale is having issues with that tool. all the ones I know about are far smaller than us, too.17:59
cdentyeah, no argument there, I'm not saying "let's move to github"18:00
cdentI'm saying that people have perceptions18:00
dhellmannI agree18:00
cdentanother factor is that open source projects only grow organically when they are actively and immediately useful to individuals18:03
cdentopenstack doesn't quite fit with that, thus, again, the need for inception18:03
dhellmannthat's back to my question about which projects aren't seeing adoption18:04
cdent(by actively and immediately, I mean "something I can try for myself, now")18:04
dhellmannyeah, it's hard to set up a demo environment, even as an all-in-one18:05
cdentwhich is not a slight on openstack, it just means that different rules apply for how to "govern"18:07
dhellmanntime for lunch, bbiab18:07
cdentjessfraz wants to apply the opensource mechanics to cncf stuff, and it might work there, but I don't know what it would here18:07
cdentwhich may provide us with a useful evaluative lens18:08
*** david-lyle has quit IRC18:09
*** cdent has quit IRC18:26
dhellmannperhaps. since we expect projects to host themselves on git.o.o there may be a bit more of a migration effort for a project that gains traction elsewhere first18:38
*** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc19:25
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc19:27
*** kumarmn has quit IRC19:31
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc19:37
*** kumarmn has quit IRC19:39
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc19:39
*** kumarmn has quit IRC19:40
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc19:40
*** kumarmn has quit IRC19:41
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc19:42
*** kumarmn has quit IRC19:42
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc19:42
*** kumarmn has quit IRC19:44
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc19:45
*** kumarmn has quit IRC19:48
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc19:48
*** mriedem1 has joined #openstack-tc19:52
*** mriedem has quit IRC19:52
*** mriedem1 is now known as mriedem19:57
*** kumarmn has quit IRC19:58
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc19:58
*** kumarmn has quit IRC20:00
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc20:01
*** kumarmn has quit IRC20:18
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc20:18
*** kumarmn has quit IRC20:19
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc20:20
*** kumarmn has quit IRC20:21
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc20:22
*** kumarmn has quit IRC20:26
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc20:28
*** kumarmn has quit IRC20:31
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc20:31
*** kumarmn has quit IRC20:40
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc20:41
*** kumarmn_ has joined #openstack-tc20:44
*** kumarmn has quit IRC20:45
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc20:47
*** kumarmn_ has quit IRC20:49
*** rockyg has joined #openstack-tc21:22
*** rockyg has quit IRC21:29
*** dtruong has quit IRC22:13
*** dtruong has joined #openstack-tc23:04
*** kumarmn has quit IRC23:31
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc23:32
*** kumarmn has quit IRC23:36
*** dtantsur|afk has quit IRC23:45
*** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc23:49
*** dtantsur|afk has joined #openstack-tc23:51
*** kumarmn has quit IRC23:54
*** hongbin has quit IRC23:57

Generated by 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!