| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 00:04 | |
| *** hongbin has quit IRC | 00:12 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:14 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 00:14 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:18 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 00:18 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:21 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 00:21 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:40 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 00:41 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:45 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 00:56 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 00:57 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 01:12 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 01:17 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 01:18 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 01:23 | |
| *** liujiong has joined #openstack-tc | 01:27 | |
| *** liujiong has quit IRC | 01:33 | |
| *** liujiong has joined #openstack-tc | 01:33 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 01:39 | |
| *** gcb has joined #openstack-tc | 02:16 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 02:48 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 02:48 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 02:51 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 02:51 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 03:02 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 03:03 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 03:08 | |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 03:17 | |
| *** coolsvap has joined #openstack-tc | 04:07 | |
| *** harlowja has quit IRC | 04:12 | |
| *** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc | 04:41 | |
| *** harlowja has quit IRC | 06:12 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 07:22 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 07:22 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 07:22 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 07:23 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 07:23 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 07:23 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 07:24 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 07:24 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 07:25 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 07:25 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 07:25 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 07:25 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 07:25 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 07:26 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 08:04 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 08:08 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 08:39 | |
| *** liujiong has quit IRC | 09:27 | |
| *** mtreinish_ has joined #openstack-tc | 11:08 | |
| *** mtreinish has quit IRC | 11:11 | |
| *** DuncanT has quit IRC | 11:11 | |
| *** ianw has quit IRC | 11:11 | |
| *** TheJulia has quit IRC | 11:11 | |
| *** ildikov has quit IRC | 11:11 | |
| *** mtreinish_ is now known as mtreinish | 11:11 | |
| *** ildikov has joined #openstack-tc | 11:11 | |
| *** DuncanT has joined #openstack-tc | 11:12 | |
| *** ianw has joined #openstack-tc | 11:12 | |
| *** TheJulia has joined #openstack-tc | 11:12 | |
| *** gcb has quit IRC | 11:25 | |
| *** gcb has joined #openstack-tc | 11:25 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 12:04 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 12:09 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 12:18 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 12:18 | |
| *** robcresswell has left #openstack-tc | 12:34 | |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 13:05 | |
| *** coolsvap has quit IRC | 13:22 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 13:34 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 13:34 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 13:40 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 14:03 | |
| *** alex_xu has quit IRC | 14:27 | |
| *** alex_xu has joined #openstack-tc | 14:30 | |
| *** mriedem is now known as mriedem_afk | 14:35 | |
| *** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc | 14:46 | |
| *** mriedem_afk is now known as mriedem | 14:58 | |
| cdent | tc-members and the entire rest of the world, let's have office hours | 15:00 |
|---|---|---|
| * smcginnis flips the sign | 15:00 | |
| cmurphy | hiya | 15:00 |
| cdent | jinx | 15:00 |
| EmilienM | hola | 15:00 |
| ttx | ohai | 15:00 |
| dtroyer | o/ | 15:00 |
| smcginnis | Back in the land of the living cdent? | 15:00 |
| cdent | smcginnis: no sir, I am the undead | 15:00 |
| dims | o/ | 15:00 |
| ttx | I had a few topics, to continue Tuesday's discussions | 15:00 |
| pabelanger | hello | 15:01 |
| ttx | Re: PTG the track layout is now mostly frozen | 15:01 |
| fungi | howdy, y'all | 15:01 |
| * EmilienM in meeting the next hour | 15:01 | |
| ttx | https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRmqAAQZA1rIzlNJpVp-X60-z6jMn_95BKWtf0csGT9LkDharY-mppI25KjiuRasmK413MxXcoSU7ki/pubhtml?gid=1374855307 | 15:01 |
| ttx | We have room for missing topics though | 15:02 |
| ttx | I started https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PTG-Dublin-missing-topics to track ideas | 15:02 |
| fungi | ptl nominations are underway and going strong | 15:02 |
| * fungi needs to go review a few more now | 15:02 | |
| ttx | I did add the one idea currently under discussion on the ML | 15:03 |
| ttx | + one idea that rose from a discussion between ildikov and me this morning | 15:03 |
| pabelanger | fungi: great to hear | 15:03 |
| ttx | Please add any other idea | 15:03 |
| ttx | Regarding the post-lunch presentations, we have a strawman schedule for the week at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/dublin-PTG-postlunch | 15:04 |
| ttx | Monday: Welcome to the PTG / housekeeping / set tone / situational awareness / release goals | 15:04 |
| ttx | That would be done by Erin + interested TC members | 15:04 |
| ttx | Tuesday: Infra update, including Zuulv3 | 15:04 |
| ttx | We keep Wednesday in case we have a bright idea | 15:05 |
| ttx | Thursday we'd do meetings outcome show and tell | 15:05 |
| ttx | and Friday, lightning talks for the survivors | 15:05 |
| dhellmann | o/ | 15:05 |
| smcginnis | Sounds like a good logical plan. | 15:06 |
| ttx | Again, just a default proposal, if there are other ideas lmk | 15:06 |
| ttx | Quick reminder that we are getting low on available tickets, and prices are increasing in a couple of hours | 15:06 |
| ttx | I think all TC members registered already | 15:06 |
| smcginnis | ttx: Any preliminary numbers? | 15:06 |
| TheJulia | o/ | 15:07 |
| ttx | like how many people ? We passed 300 yesterday, even capacity is around 350 | 15:07 |
| ttx | event | 15:07 |
| smcginnis | Great | 15:07 |
| ttx | so it will sell out | 15:07 |
| smcginnis | Did we sell out with past PTGs? | 15:07 |
| ttx | we did have a bit more capacity in past PTGs, so not really, but close | 15:08 |
| ttx | we've been pretty good at estimating the number of people so far. <fingerscrossed> | 15:08 |
| ttx | I'm working to get the track layout linked above on the PTG website | 15:09 |
| ttx | That's all I had PTG-wise, let me know if you have questions | 15:09 |
| mugsie | One topic that came up in the interop wg was the tempest test resolution, and they asked me to ping the TC aboiut getting some time to talk about it F2F | 15:09 |
| mugsie | https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropDublin2018PTG (line 24) | 15:09 |
| mugsie | I suggested the friday 1/2 day TC slot might be useful for them | 15:10 |
| fungi | sounds like a good idea to mwe | 15:11 |
| fungi | to me too | 15:11 |
| ttx | Hmm InteropWG is meeting on that same day ,so we could probably schedule a 90min block on some other day in a free reservable room | 15:11 |
| mugsie | unless that is planned to be the same as Denver and be a retrospective | 15:12 |
| ttx | The other topic I had is.... Rocky goals! | 15:13 |
| cdent | unpossible | 15:13 |
| TheJulia | cdent: everything is possible! | 15:14 |
| cdent | but we _never_ talk about rocky goals | 15:14 |
| ttx | on Tuesday I expressed a soft preference for mutable-debug + mox | 15:14 |
| ttx | as a good mix of opsfacing/tecdebtreduction | 15:14 |
| ttx | mani issue with the mox one seems to be that nova might not complete it in one cycle | 15:15 |
| ttx | main* | 15:15 |
| mugsie | yeah - they seem good | 15:15 |
| ttx | but I think that's ok | 15:15 |
| mugsie | ttx: we have said that is OK though, in the past | 15:15 |
| ttx | yep | 15:15 |
| smcginnis | We always have some projects that are not able to complete goals, so I don't think nova should be the deciding factor there. | 15:15 |
| pabelanger | +1 | 15:16 |
| smcginnis | And I would rather see _some_ work done towards getting rid of mox than having it keep out there as "something that we should do someday." | 15:16 |
| TheJulia | But it might be a useful measure of what is reasonable in the cycle | 15:16 |
| jroll | do we know how many projects still use mox, just out of curiousity? | 15:16 |
| mugsie | I think there may be less projects than we thought for mox - designate doesn't actually have any mox, we just install it as its required by oslotest | 15:16 |
| * jroll skims http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=mox&i=nope&files=requirements.txt&repos= | 15:17 | |
| smcginnis | jroll: I tried to list all the ones that were directly or indirectly using it in the goal proposal. | 15:17 |
| jroll | smcginnis: ah cool, I'll take a look, thanks | 15:17 |
| smcginnis | jroll: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/532361/5/goals/rocky/mox_removal.rst | 15:17 |
| ttx | EmilienM and other tc-members: how do you want to proceed for the final step of goal selection? Gerrit doesn't lend itself too well to select a set of 2 from a set of 6 | 15:19 |
| ttx | even condorcet is not that great since you want to judge the set, not individual merit | 15:19 |
| smcginnis | Maybe just reset our votes on goals to only vote for the two we each prefer? | 15:20 |
| ttx | for example here mox is heavy on nova but they have the other one already covered | 15:20 |
| ttx | so they are a good complentary set, on paper | 15:21 |
| ttx | +me | 15:21 |
| TheJulia | I like the idea of resetting votes as long as we are all on the same page | 15:21 |
| dtroyer | that works for me | 15:22 |
| cmurphy | +1 | 15:23 |
| pabelanger | wfm | 15:23 |
| ttx | Another random question: is anyone interested in running the S name selection ? It's mostly about csetting the geographic rule, collecting names and checking that they match the naming rules | 15:23 |
| EmilienM | yeah, we can do that too | 15:23 |
| ttx | then set up a Condorcet poll | 15:24 |
| smcginnis | ttx: I'm trying to remember what we did in the past. Wiki page to collect ideas, prefiltering, then set up voting? | 15:24 |
| smcginnis | Then letting the lawyers take off the top 3 selections. :) | 15:24 |
| ttx | I'll do it if nobody picks it up / I just realized that I don't have that much time though, and it's always prio 2 | 15:24 |
| ttx | so if I do it it will probably be delayed a bit | 15:25 |
| smcginnis | I can probably fit it in, but am just fine if someone else wants it. | 15:25 |
| ttx | the process is described at https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/release-naming.html | 15:25 |
| ttx | recently updated to set a public poll, which facilitated a lot | 15:26 |
| smcginnis | Ah, nice. I missed that it was spelled out so nicely. | 15:26 |
| fungi | catching back up... too many simultaneous conversations for me. on the mox goal, how many projects who think they'll be unable to complete the proposed goal within the cycle are too many? we have other notable goals we've pushed out to future cycles because we don't think enough projects would be willing/able to complete them in the upcoming cycle | 15:26 |
| smcginnis | So far I've only heard a no from nova. | 15:27 |
| dhellmann | yeah | 15:27 |
| smcginnis | no va | 15:27 |
| smcginnis | Sorry | 15:27 |
| dhellmann | for the python 3 goal I think we only had one no as well and we went ahead with that one | 15:28 |
| fungi | so ~1 project knowing in advance they can't make it in one cycle is probably fine... ~10+ is not | 15:28 |
| ttx | fungi: pretty much yes | 15:29 |
| dhellmann | yeah, and the actual number is probably somewhere in between, depending | 15:29 |
| cmurphy | i think glance voiced concerns about being able to complete goals in general, but i'm not sure whether the mox goal applies to them | 15:29 |
| smcginnis | I don't think that one did. | 15:29 |
| fungi | it sounded like there were at least some deliverables for glance which used mox (or were those only indirect deps)? | 15:29 |
| dhellmann | cmurphy : they do use mox a little, but it looks like only 3-4 files | 15:29 |
| smcginnis | Oh wait, I think glance_store had some mox. | 15:30 |
| dhellmann | yes, one set of tests for the swift storage | 15:30 |
| fungi | yeah, the glance deliverable itself was mox-free, but that's not all their deliverables | 15:30 |
| dhellmann | the tests for glance, the service, do use mox | 15:30 |
| dhellmann | only in a few places | 15:30 |
| fungi | ahh, so a minimal amount of mox in glance, considerably more in glance_store? | 15:31 |
| dhellmann | other way around | 15:31 |
| dhellmann | http://paste.openstack.org/show/658322/ | 15:31 |
| fungi | got it | 15:32 |
| dhellmann | we know we're always going to get pushback from teams on these goals because they have pressure to implement other, project-specific, work. | 15:33 |
| dhellmann | The situation in nova is ongoing, and we can just allow for that. | 15:33 |
| dhellmann | The situation in glance means we need to help recruit contributors to do some of the work. | 15:33 |
| fungi | rosmaita: ^ i know you're stepping down as ptl, but jokke doesn't seem to be in here either... what's the odds glance contributors/reviewers would be able to knock that out next cycle, do you think? | 15:34 |
| smcginnis | Even if nova can reduce mox usage by ~10%, I would consider that a win. | 15:34 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : good point. we want at least some forward progress | 15:34 |
| rosmaita | fungi was in searchlight meeting, reading back now | 15:34 |
| fungi | it seemed like nova has been steadily reducing mox usage anyway (between attrition in old tests/not allowing it for new tests and also some direct test rewriting) | 15:34 |
| dhellmann | If either team flat out refuses to participate in either goal, that is a bigger problem than if they don't complete the work. | 15:35 |
| fungi | but yeah, it does look like the amount of mox usage in glance and glance_store is small by comparison to nova, at least | 15:35 |
| ttx | In the nova case it was more a case of "it's already WIP, and we won't finish it in 6 months" | 15:35 |
| dhellmann | right, I'm not that concerned that nova won't finish | 15:36 |
| dhellmann | because they're already working on it | 15:36 |
| dhellmann | for glance I think we need to put a call out that help is needed | 15:37 |
| dhellmann | but I don't think that's a blocker for the other teams -- part of the point of these tech-debt goals is also to help channel some of the "random patch" energy into useful areas | 15:37 |
| rosmaita | yes, so the problem is that we have a small crew working on glance now, and we need to do stuff that has visible impact | 15:37 |
| rosmaita | even if other people do the mox conversion, it eats reviewer bandwidth | 15:38 |
| pabelanger | ttx: smcginnis: I can help with S naming, if you'd like | 15:38 |
| rosmaita | and tbh, there's some non-visible stuff that we need to do, like refactor the policy layer | 15:38 |
| ttx | pabelanger: you got it | 15:38 |
| smcginnis | pabelanger: All yours then. :) | 15:39 |
| dhellmann | rosmaita : it sounds like you don't consider community goals to have a visible impact | 15:39 |
| ttx | pabelanger: start by proposing a patch to release-naming.rst adding your name and suggestion for geographic area (I'd say Germany as a country but your call) | 15:39 |
| pabelanger | ttx: sure | 15:39 |
| ttx | Once the TC approves that you can start doing a wiki page, pushing to the list etc. | 15:40 |
| pabelanger | understood | 15:40 |
| rosmaita | dhellmann well, the mox one, anyway | 15:41 |
| ttx | Oh, another wild idea I got due to drinking too much rum last week -- to solve the ML disconnect/duplication issue | 15:41 |
| dhellmann | rosmaita : who do you need the work to be visible to? | 15:41 |
| ttx | basically we have a number of technical topics that span ops+devs. openstack general ML is not so much used those days. And the -sigs list is not as attended as I hoped | 15:41 |
| TheJulia | rosmaita: I agree, mox has no visible operator impact unless they are operator/developers in the specific project. The visible impact that I think we need is to drive and maintain adoption. | 15:42 |
| ttx | Currently people cross-post or duplicate threads, which is both non-ideal | 15:42 |
| rosmaita | dhellmann at least operators | 15:42 |
| ttx | Solution: We could try to create a virtual list that would dynamically include all -dev and all -ops subscribers. | 15:43 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 15:43 | |
| ttx | That would let people either send to -dev (for pure dev topics), ops (for pure ops topics), or the -all list to reach both | 15:43 |
| TheJulia | ttx: would it rewrite the headers so mail servers don't drop the messages on the floor? | 15:43 |
| dhellmann | rosmaita : ok. well, not all goals are going to be directly relevant to operators, beyond the fact that we can continue to maintain the project when tools we use are obsolete | 15:43 |
| pabelanger | ttx: how much lead time should we account because opening voting window? is that something we can do before or after PTG? | 15:43 |
| ttx | TheJulia: there are various tricks to force mailman to behave yes | 15:43 |
| dhellmann | rosmaita : so we have to sell *that* rather than ensure that every goal has a shiny thing they can see | 15:43 |
| TheJulia | ttx: because that would be my only logistical concern, having run mail servers that were mean and did things like that :) | 15:44 |
| ttx | pabelanger: not sure... maybe ask mordred for experience | 15:44 |
| pabelanger | ttx: sure | 15:44 |
| ttx | TheJulia: I need to look deeper in the technical solution, not sure it would work -- but want to know if that remotely sounds like a good idea | 15:44 |
| ttx | before we spend more time on it | 15:45 |
| TheJulia | ttx: it does to me | 15:45 |
| ttx | MailMan second name is MeanMan | 15:45 |
| dhellmann | ttx: how big is the existing overlap in subscriptions to the two lists? | 15:45 |
| rosmaita | dhellmann i agree in principle (and maybe in practice, even) | 15:45 |
| ttx | dhellmann: not sure. | 15:46 |
| dhellmann | it would be interesting to see how high that overlap is | 15:46 |
| ttx | I can probably find out... if there is an easy way to extract the lists | 15:47 |
| dhellmann | where would the "all" messages actually go? a fake mailing list? or a new one that just has everyone subscribed? | 15:47 |
| TheJulia | ttx: if you have backend access, you can dump it to csv and compare | 15:47 |
| ttx | a new one that is cron-refreshed to include both other lists subscribers | 15:47 |
| ttx | TheJulia: so I don't have backend access, but I know people who do. | 15:47 |
| dhellmann | how is that different from openstack@lists.openstack.org, aside from the auto-subscription? | 15:48 |
| TheJulia | ttx: this is where you get to laugh evilly :) | 15:48 |
| * ttx whistles innocently and looks to his left and right | 15:48 | |
| * ttx spots fungi | 15:48 | |
| dims | LOL | 15:48 |
| fungi | rosmaita: TheJulia: i think mox usage does have an operator-visible impact, just not immediately. eventually operators are going to want to be able to use python3-only deployments and we need to have well-maintained tools and tests to support that. mox is a dead-end there and mox3 is a mostly-abandoned hackaround | 15:49 |
| TheJulia | rosmaita: dhellmann: my perception is that it is a goal. A goal would be nice to be completed by the end of the cycle, but in my mind, it doesn't HAVE to be 100% completed for test refactoring work. I think forward progress is the key as smcginnis pointed out | 15:49 |
| ttx | dhellmann: arguably openstack@ is a bit dead because it has no topic | 15:49 |
| ttx | dhellmann: and people carefully ignore it those days | 15:49 |
| fungi | ttx: sorry, barely treading water in here but i see you're looking for mailman something something... | 15:49 |
| ttx | so a LOT of people are on -dev and -ops and not openstack@ | 15:50 |
| dhellmann | I really don't want us to adopt the policy that it's OK by default for goals to not be completed. There are extenuating circumstances for nova (volume of tests) and glance (lack of core reviewers). I don't think that should cause us to change our normal stance that goals are time-boxed for a reason. | 15:50 |
| ttx | fungi: dhellmann had one of THOSE questions you know | 15:50 |
| ttx | which require dumps of mailman data files | 15:50 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: I see your point, and I do agree that there is value in timeboxing, but perhaps a single cycle timebox is too small then? | 15:51 |
| ttx | (specific question was: what's the overlap in subscription between -dev and -ops) | 15:51 |
| rosmaita | dhellmann agree ... otherwise they start piling up as tech debt | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | ttx: ok. It feels like we're trying to solve a social problem with a technical answer again, so I'm interested in seeing what that overlap looks like and even what people think of merging all of the lists back into 1 again before we go build a cron-based autosubsriber | 15:52 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : maybe we should pick smaller goals? | 15:52 |
| dhellmann | if we think most teams can complete the mox conversion in 1 cycle, and we know about 2 exceptions, we should just go ahead and document those exceptions | 15:52 |
| ttx | dhellmann: some people can get territorial about their ML, but I see what you mean | 15:52 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: Perhaps, it is definitely less impactful in my mind than trying to migrate to storyboard from launchpad | 15:53 |
| dhellmann | if we think most teams cannot complete the conversion, we should redefine "done" for the goal to something we think they can complete | 15:53 |
| dhellmann | 50%? | 15:53 |
| dims | let them document before and after numbers? | 15:53 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: I think that is reasonable to document exceptions and expectations that there may be a lag. | 15:53 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : right, I agree. I just don't want us to say that no team is likely to finish. Because what's the point of saying "done" is something we know we can't do? | 15:54 |
| TheJulia | that is also a good point and possibility | 15:54 |
| dims | i kinda like that dhellmann | 15:55 |
| ttx | In other words, ops are not looking forward to having their discussions drowed in the middle of heaps of dev discussions | 15:55 |
| TheJulia | Actually, saying 50% is the goal with the end-goal of eliminating mox usage does seem like we could see >50% since momentum once started, and the end perception could be greater | 15:55 |
| dims | by inertia, some teams may end up finishing | 15:55 |
| ttx | which is why they asked for their own list in the first place | 15:55 |
| dims | yep TheJulia | 15:56 |
| * ttx needs to run | 15:56 | |
| * TheJulia feels like we are reaching reasonable compromise | 15:56 | |
| dhellmann | do we think 50% is too easily achievable? | 15:56 |
| dhellmann | we do want these goals to push teams a bit | 15:57 |
| cdent | I think the point of the goals is, at least a bit, do get the teams to do the things they've been ignoring for whatever reason | 15:57 |
| cdent | so in a sense it is supposed to be a bit unpleasant | 15:58 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: I could also see 75% as being entirely reasonable | 15:58 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia: if you think everyone can do 75%, then I think we should just stick with 100%. Because we won't actually be "done" at 75%, we'll have to either do another goal to finish or just hope that teams do. | 15:58 |
| dhellmann | we want mox *out*, not "mostly out" | 15:59 |
| dhellmann | with something like the python3 port, we had to stage it because "python 3 by default" was too big of a step | 16:00 |
| TheJulia | True, which then takes us back to placing the goal at 100%, and documenting the likely stragglers | 16:00 |
| TheJulia | and the expectation that we have upon them completing the goal "soon" | 16:00 |
| smcginnis | If we can get the list of projects using mox down to 2-3 at the end of the cycle, I see that as a good thing. | 16:00 |
| dhellmann | so we had the previous goal, and we'll need to have another one to get to "3 by default" and then maybe another for "3 only" | 16:00 |
| smcginnis | Then there is more pressure for those 2-3 to catch up and finally get the work done. | 16:00 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : I agree | 16:00 |
| fungi | ttx: dhellmann: so... wrt mailman, yes i can do some quick analysis on exported subscriber lists, and there _is_ a cli which we could use to mash together subscriber lists and add/remove as necessary, would just need some scripting (and a decision that it's something we want to do). i also worry that there may be confusion around limitations like people attempting to manually subscribe to (or moreso, | 16:00 |
| fungi | unsubscribe from) the combined list, so would need some fairly explicit descriptive wording about how that works | 16:00 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yeah, managing that subscription list is going to be a bit hairy. | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | do we know what the email volume on the lists look like? (messages per day or something?) | 16:02 |
| dhellmann | I had good luck with the docs team (much smaller, I know) moving from their special list to the -dev list | 16:02 |
| dhellmann | if we have some operators who don't want to do that, maybe we can set an example by saying we're closing the -dev list and moving everyone over to the main community list | 16:03 |
| dhellmann | and then we stop cross-posting to encourage people to subscribe to the community list | 16:03 |
| fungi | i can also get stats on list message volumes, sure | 16:05 |
| dhellmann | thanks, that would help | 16:05 |
| fungi | the lists.o.o situation is a little more complicated now that it hosts lists for multiple domains in different "focus areas" | 16:08 |
| fungi | including lists.zuul-ci.org now and soon lists.katacontainers.io | 16:08 |
| fungi | so may take me a bit of time to work out the stats | 16:09 |
| dhellmann | fungi : if you look at the subscriber lists, I can do the message volume | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | I'm on all of the lists, I just need to scan my imap folders | 16:10 |
| fungi | dhellmann: i can get monthly message volume pretty easily from the archive directories actually | 16:19 |
| fungi | okay, i have monthly message volumes across the openstack, openstack-dev and openstack-operators mailing lists. just getting them into a nicer tabular format now | 16:27 |
| fungi | the paste command is awesome, btw | 16:28 |
| fungi | http://paste.openstack.org/show/658329 indicates message volume is similar between openstack and openstack-operators, but an order of magnitude higher on openstack-dev | 16:34 |
| smcginnis | paste command? | 16:35 |
| fungi | though also, january message volume is surprisingly low compared to previous years | 16:35 |
| fungi | smcginnis: man paste (provided in the coreutils package on debian and friends) | 16:36 |
| smcginnis | Ah, thanks fungi. | 16:36 |
| fungi | merges lines from multiple files interleaved and tab-separated | 16:36 |
| smcginnis | Was actually hoping their was a cool CLI for interacting with paste.o.o for a moment there. | 16:37 |
| fungi | that's called pastebinit | 16:37 |
| fungi | note those numbers also don't account for cross-posting, so not sure what that might look like if we were to take it into account (would probably need to crunch message-id headers) | 16:38 |
| * fungi needs to disappear for a quick errand before the security meeting starts, but will analyze subscribers when he returns | 16:38 | |
| dhellmann | fungi : rough numbers like that are good enough | 16:43 |
| dhellmann | thanks | 16:43 |
| dhellmann | now it will be interesting to see how many people are already signed up for both lists and already getting all of that volume | 16:46 |
| fungi | yeah, i'll have that shortly | 17:06 |
| *** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc | 17:09 | |
| fungi | not sure quite how best to slice this... there are 9550 subscribers to openstack, 5396 to openstack-dev and 2541 to openstack-operators | 17:18 |
| fungi | 674 subscribers belong to all 3 | 17:19 |
| fungi | -dev and -operators has 1110 in common | 17:19 |
| fungi | so 44% of openstack-operators subscribers also subscribe to openstack-dev | 17:19 |
| fungi | 1090 (43%) of -operators subscribers also subscribe to the general openstack ml | 17:21 |
| fungi | 1824 (34%) of -dev subscribers also subscribe to the general openstack ml | 17:21 |
| fungi | on the -dev/-operators overlap you could also look at it as 21% of -dev subscribers also subscribe to -operators | 17:23 |
| fungi | if we want to broaden the dataset to additional mailing lists, lmk and i can run those numbers too | 17:24 |
| dhellmann | fungi : thanks, that's good | 17:25 |
| dhellmann | I was most interested in the crossover of -dev and -operators | 17:26 |
| dhellmann | since those are the 2 we're talking about "merging" somehow | 17:26 |
| dhellmann | 44% seems pretty high, but I wonder how many of those people are devs subscribing to operators vs. operators subscribing to dev | 17:26 |
| dhellmann | I guess to tell that we'd have to look at how often people post to each list | 17:27 |
| fungi | i'd love to stop thinking that there are people who are one or the other | 17:27 |
| dhellmann | yes, me, too | 17:28 |
| dhellmann | I think that's sort of the point of figuring this out | 17:28 |
| fungi | but yeah, munging up post from stats gets hairy since that's historical information while subscriber lists are a point in time snapshot | 17:29 |
| dhellmann | yeah | 17:29 |
| dhellmann | I'm not sure the stats are clear enough to know how many people would be angered by just merging the lists | 17:30 |
| dhellmann | It also leaves me wondering how many people will be angered by being automatically subscribed to an "-all" list, though | 17:30 |
| fungi | so the further back we look, the less valid this distinction becomes but the less history we include the smaller the sample size so the less accurate the model | 17:30 |
| smcginnis | We could start a thread in each now and see how many object. | 17:30 |
| smcginnis | Or unsubscribe. | 17:31 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : yeah, we would need to work carefully on the wording | 17:31 |
| fungi | my biggest concern is that when operating a mailing list you really, really, really need to make sure that people who want to opt out of a specific list are able to do so. i don't want someone reporting mail from our listserv as spam because they keep getting readded to a -all list after unsubscribing from it | 17:31 |
| dhellmann | yeah, managing that is going to be very tricky | 17:32 |
| dhellmann | and I don't want us to build a lot of complicated software to do it | 17:32 |
| fungi | and "you have to unsubscribe from -dev or -operators or both, depending on your situation) is not really a good answer | 17:32 |
| dhellmann | fungi : what's the overlap between openstack and openstack-dev? | 17:36 |
| dhellmann | openstack has way more subscribers | 17:36 |
| dhellmann | I can imagine a huge increase in volume there upsetting some people | 17:36 |
| dhellmann | which makes me think my idea of closing -dev and moving over to that list may not fly | 17:37 |
| dhellmann | time for food, bbiab | 17:37 |
| cdent | I'm not sure I understand the problem(s) that is trying to be addressed? | 17:37 |
| fungi | dhellmann: per above, 1824 (34%) of -dev subscribers also subscribe to the general openstack ml | 17:38 |
| fungi | so that's 1824/9550 or 19% of general openstack ml subscribers in -dev | 17:39 |
| fungi | i didn't mention the proportion of general ml subscribers on -dev and -operators because the percentages are obviously fairly low | 17:39 |
| smcginnis | cdent: I think this started from a conversation quite a while back about not having an artificial separation betwene ops and devs and the recently more common need to cross post. | 17:40 |
| * cdent misses usenet | 17:40 | |
| smcginnis | Personally I like having two separate lists and find it easy enough to subscribe to both. | 17:40 |
| fungi | the seed of the discussion was the decision in the zuul community to not have (or at least not start with) separate operator/user/developer mailing lists but just announcements and general discussion | 17:41 |
| smcginnis | cdent: Hah, need a usenet.o.o server? :) | 17:41 |
| fungi | smcginnis: you joke, but we've (infra) discussed it heavily in the past ;) | 17:41 |
| cdent | nntp is the bomb diggity | 17:41 |
| fungi | there are gateways to do mailman<->nntp | 17:41 |
| smcginnis | I do joke, but also don't think it would be an entirely bad idea. :) | 17:41 |
| fungi | the % of people likely to actually use nntp to interact with these lists is likely miniscule (though i count myself among them) | 17:42 |
| smcginnis | I think there's at least 3 potential users right here. ;) | 17:43 |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 17:45 | |
| fungi | the infra team and tc are likely going to have disproportionate numbers of people who even remember usenet as anything other than a place to download warez and get bombarded with spam | 17:47 |
| smcginnis | Haha, yep. | 17:47 |
| cdent | I broke my sysadmin baby teeth on some very large innd servers | 17:48 |
| dhellmann | I wrote a motif front-end for an nntp client as part of my thesis work. I can't remember which underlying terminal client I built it on now, though | 18:00 |
| dhellmann | but nntp is also a technical solution to a social problem, which is that we need a place for contributors and users to talk together and pay attention to each other | 18:01 |
| cdent | dhellmann: thanks, that partially answers my question | 18:12 |
| cdent | and presumably the challenge is that not all contributors and not all users wants to see all conversations | 18:12 |
| dhellmann | right | 18:14 |
| dhellmann | and also that it's not always clear in advance which conversations might be of interest to both | 18:14 |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:16 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 18:18 | |
| *** harlowja has quit IRC | 18:29 | |
| *** esberglu has joined #openstack-tc | 18:41 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 18:45 | |
| *** melwitt has joined #openstack-tc | 18:49 | |
| *** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc | 19:09 | |
| *** harlowja_ has joined #openstack-tc | 19:11 | |
| *** harlowja has quit IRC | 19:14 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 19:24 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 19:24 | |
| *** diablo_rojo_ has joined #openstack-tc | 19:25 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 20:04 | |
| ttx | yes motivation for exploring the possibility is to avoid cross-posting and facilitate having "common" threads. | 20:07 |
| fungi | well, nntp is a technical solution to a technical problem, which is that cross-posting between mailing lists is painful because it's an attempt to use them like newsgroups ;) | 20:08 |
| ttx | but yes the top 3 issues are : administrative pain, force-subscribing people just so that they get the "common" messages, and removing the possibility to ignore either list | 20:08 |
| fungi | the lines between subscriber/non-subscriber ina newsgroup are a lot more blurry, so it's easier to have a thread exist in multiple newsgroups without generating confusion | 20:09 |
| ttx | yep | 20:09 |
| * ttx remembers deploying a complete information system in 1996 that was entirely NNTP-based. That was way before you'd have things like Sharepoint :) | 20:11 | |
| ttx | It was holding technical documents describing how to manufacture various pieces of glass for a given car model. | 20:12 |
| fungi | however, the same blurry lines around subscription are what allowed usenet to become a cesspool of spam long before spammers found e-mail | 20:12 |
| ttx | You would post with a brand.model.position hierarchy :) | 20:12 |
| dhellmann | ttx: that actually sounds pretty clever, given a nice enough frontend | 20:13 |
| ttx | that was my last internship before graduation | 20:14 |
| ttx | allowed to distribute documents across the various factories and all | 20:14 |
| dhellmann | I worked for a while at a company bought by WebMD where they re-invented NNTP. | 20:15 |
| dhellmann | They didn't care very much for me pointing that out when they explained how proud they were of the features of their system. | 20:15 |
| ttx | Anyway, the whole thing is part of my personal objective of tearing down artificial walls between ops and devs | 20:16 |
| ttx | might be a bit of a long stretch though, since Mailman amd MLs in general are not really supporting such model | 20:16 |
| dhellmann | yeah. I worry a bit about the complexity of any automated subscription syncing thing | 20:17 |
| ttx | I don't see it as a technical solution to a social problem -- I see it as removing technical obstacles that create social problems :) | 20:17 |
| dhellmann | I guess I can see it that way | 20:17 |
| dhellmann | I'm trying to think of "forcing functions" to get people to move from one mailing list to another, or to sign up for multiple lists | 20:18 |
| dhellmann | do you think the existing cross-over is high enough that we could just stop cross-posting, for example? | 20:19 |
| ttx | it's hard to prevent people from doing so | 20:28 |
| dhellmann | well, yes, but we could start encouraging people to not do it | 20:28 |
| dhellmann | I mean, we've spent a bunch of time encouraging people to post cross-links, so maybe that's a bad idea | 20:29 |
| TheJulia | fungi: re: usenet... sooooo true. | 20:29 |
| * persia remembers NNTP->SMTP gateways existing, to support folk who don't want special clients (although folk not migrating get no benefits from new technical underpinnings) | 20:29 | |
| ttx | I used to reply to every cross-post saying it's evil, but stopped doing that after I observed no improvement | 20:30 |
| dhellmann | yeah | 20:30 |
| fungi | persia: yeah, that's basically what we were talking about gluing onto mailman | 20:38 |
| fungi | most of the bits needed exist, just a matter of putting them together | 20:38 |
| fungi | and, you know, someone having time to spend on such an endeavor | 20:39 |
| persia | That last is the most precious of resources :) | 20:41 |
| fungi | it's a rare isotope of unobtanium | 21:00 |
| smcginnis | Hah | 21:01 |
| *** ianychoi_ has joined #openstack-tc | 21:21 | |
| *** ianychoi has quit IRC | 21:24 | |
| *** kumarmn_ has joined #openstack-tc | 21:34 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 21:37 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc | 22:19 | |
| openstackgerrit | Matthew Edmonds proposed openstack/governance master: Add OpenStack-PowerVM project https://review.openstack.org/540165 | 22:19 |
| *** mriedem is now known as mriedem_parent | 22:20 | |
| openstackgerrit | Matthew Edmonds proposed openstack/governance master: Add OpenStack-PowerVM project https://review.openstack.org/540165 | 22:22 |
| *** hongbin has quit IRC | 22:23 | |
| *** kumarmn_ has quit IRC | 22:37 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 22:55 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 22:58 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 22:58 | |
| *** esberglu has quit IRC | 23:24 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!