| *** zbitter has joined #openstack-tc | 00:01 | |
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 00:03 | |
| *** gouthamr has joined #openstack-tc | 00:03 | |
| * tonyb has a message in moderation on openstack-tc, any chnace it can be approved? | 00:08 | |
| cdent | tonyb: if I had the power, but I do not | 00:10 |
|---|---|---|
| tonyb | cdent: Okay thanks. | 00:10 |
| cdent | tonyb: unless there's a pretty specific reason about why you want to use the -tc list, may as well use the -dev list? | 00:16 |
| tonyb | cdent: it was a reply to a thread on the -tc list that was specifcally pre release to -dev | 00:17 |
| cdent | ah, okay | 00:17 |
| tonyb | cdent: the PTG lunch talks schedule | 00:17 |
| * cdent is not confident that have the tc list limited is the right thing | 00:18 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 00:19 | |
| dims_ | tonyb : drat, i don't have karma either. | 00:21 |
| mtreinish | iirc only ttx and dhellmann have moderator powers on that list | 00:23 |
| tonyb | cdent: Yeah I get that there is some stuff that needs to be more focused and thin the TC list is fine for that discussion | 00:24 |
| tonyb | cdent: I *like* that as a member of the community I can watch that discussion and participate via moderation | 00:24 |
| tonyb | cdent: but sometimes it's a little awkward | 00:24 |
| tonyb | (like now) | 00:24 |
| tonyb | dims_, mtreinish: Thanks | 00:25 |
| * tonyb would suggest whitelisting some addresses but that way turns into a clique/popularity contest so I guess I' | 00:25 | |
| tonyb | ll just wait ... y'all know about it now and can nag dhellmann and ttx ;P | 00:26 |
| persia | tonyb: Something that worked for me before was to use the TC moderation tooling to cancel my message, subscribe to the TC list, and then resend from the subscribed address. Rules might be different now, but such a trick can avoid waiting for other folk if it still works. | 00:39 |
| *** dangtrinhnt_x has quit IRC | 00:46 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 00:51 | |
| tonyb | persia: I am subscribed to the list so I think that chnaged at soem point | 00:53 |
| persia | Maybe during one of the big email storms, hrm. | 01:00 |
| *** gcb_ has quit IRC | 01:00 | |
| tonyb | persia: Yeah perhaps | 01:04 |
| *** harlowja has quit IRC | 01:06 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 01:18 | |
| *** dangtrinhnt_ has quit IRC | 01:25 | |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-tc | 01:27 | |
| fungi | tonyb: i agree, the ptg lunch session scheduling discussion should probably have simply happened on the -dev ml instead | 01:30 |
| tonyb | fungi: Probably | 01:30 |
| fungi | tc members are whitelisted on -tc, all other subscriber posts go into the moderation queue | 01:30 |
| fungi | makes it not at all effective for interacting with the community | 01:31 |
| fungi | and some threads we think will only garner input from the tc actually have other members of the community interested in weighing in | 01:31 |
| *** dangtrinhnt has joined #openstack-tc | 01:33 | |
| persia | My impression from traffic here, traffic in openstack-dev, governance reviews, the dev list, and attendance at TC sessions at events suggests the number of folk actively interested in governance is about twice the size of the TC, with another floating group of a similar size as active stakeholders in items under discussion. | 01:33 |
| persia | it's not really the full 75 folk in this channel, but probably more than 20 on any given day (I suspect the rest of the folk in-channel to just want to follow TC discussion, rather than participate) | 01:34 |
| fungi | sounds about right | 01:40 |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 01:48 | |
| tonyb | c | 02:18 |
| tonyb | *sigh* | 02:19 |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 02:20 | |
| *** dansmith has joined #openstack-tc | 02:28 | |
| *** srwilkers has quit IRC | 02:29 | |
| *** htimsnad has quit IRC | 02:29 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 02:37 | |
| *** masayukig has quit IRC | 03:09 | |
| *** masayukig has joined #openstack-tc | 03:11 | |
| *** zbitter has quit IRC | 06:37 | |
| *** zaneb has joined #openstack-tc | 06:38 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:13 | |
| *** dangtrinhnt_x has joined #openstack-tc | 07:29 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 07:29 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:34 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 07:38 | |
| ttx | wow I missed a bunch of moderation requests on -tc, due to the -owner alias being spammed and blackholed at config level | 07:55 |
| ttx | tonyb: approved your posts | 07:55 |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 08:10 | |
| tonyb | ttx: Thanks | 08:14 |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 08:20 | |
| cdent | always a bit disorienting when the moderation queue gets flushed | 08:20 |
| *** bodgix has joined #openstack-tc | 08:29 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 08:33 | |
| *** gcb_ has joined #openstack-tc | 08:55 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 09:08 | |
| *** dangtrinhnt_x has quit IRC | 09:13 | |
| *** gcb_ has quit IRC | 09:13 | |
| *** gcb_ has joined #openstack-tc | 09:19 | |
| cdent | some good comments in https://www.influxdata.com/blog/its-time-for-the-open-source-community-to-get-real/ related to the redis situation, but more generally as well. I don't fully agree with the whole doc, but some good bits in there of the "we need to get real about this" variety | 09:52 |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 09:54 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 11:33 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-tc | 11:42 | |
| dhellmann | ttx: I wondered why I hadn't seen any of those moderation requests | 11:50 |
| dhellmann | tc-members: I'm going to be OOO for the day tomorrow (24 Aug). | 11:50 |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 11:54 | |
| dhellmann | tonyb : are you still around? I'm a bit confused by some details in your tag request | 11:55 |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 12:27 | |
| dims_ | o/ | 12:37 |
| *** dims_ is now known as dims | 12:37 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc | 12:46 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Retire rst2bash (step 5) https://review.openstack.org/592293 | 12:46 |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 13:09 | |
| *** bodgix has quit IRC | 13:24 | |
| *** bodgix has joined #openstack-tc | 13:25 | |
| *** bodgix has left #openstack-tc | 13:25 | |
| *** bodgix has joined #openstack-tc | 13:28 | |
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 13:42 | |
| *** zaneb has joined #openstack-tc | 13:42 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 13:55 | |
| *** ianychoi has quit IRC | 13:59 | |
| *** ianychoi has joined #openstack-tc | 14:00 | |
| *** dangtrinhnt_x has joined #openstack-tc | 14:03 | |
| fungi | ttx: yeah, i just keep the infra ml moderation interface up in a browser tab and try to remember to refresh it daily | 14:03 |
| fungi | before i started doing that, we'd go months not approving posts from non-subscribers | 14:04 |
| dhellmann | tc-members: we still need some reviews on our goal patches: https://review.openstack.org/593702 https://review.openstack.org/593703 https://review.openstack.org/593704 and https://review.openstack.org/593705 | 14:09 |
| EmilienM | ack | 14:10 |
| cdent | EmilienM: you still in france or back in canadia? | 14:10 |
| EmilienM | cdent: I'm in Canada until PTG | 14:12 |
| fungi | dhellmann: i haven't approved that last one yet because i'm not sure if you care about the extra whitespace, but should be fine | 14:15 |
| dhellmann | fungi : looking | 14:22 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/project-team-guide master: import zuul job settings from project-config https://review.openstack.org/593704 | 14:22 |
| dhellmann | the round-trip features of the yaml parser leave quite a bit to be desired | 14:22 |
| dhellmann | the next time someone invents a file format, I hope they consider comments as significant and build a round-trip editor | 14:23 |
| dhellmann | fungi : https://review.openstack.org/595801 | 14:24 |
| smcginnis | yayaml | 14:25 |
| *** Bhujay has joined #openstack-tc | 14:39 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 14:41 | |
| cdent | ttx, dhellmann I invoked both you in discussion in the nova meeting just now http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-meeting/%23openstack-meeting.2018-08-23.log.html#t2018-08-23T14:42:22 as we were discussion placement extraction. You may wish to catch up there for a bit of context, and then I can provide a bit more | 14:48 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 14:49 | |
| dhellmann | cdent : it looks like the consensus was to wait for the T cycle for the governance change, is that right? | 14:50 |
| cdent | no | 14:50 |
| cdent | that's why I'm pointing it out, I don't want that to be conclusion | 14:51 |
| cdent | it is okay if that is what happens, but it's clear we've not addressed all the issues | 14:51 |
| cdent | the assertion by me, ed, eric was: if that's the only way forward, then yes, we'll do that | 14:51 |
| * dhellmann goes to read the logs more closely | 14:52 | |
| cdent | and _if_ we do it that way, it needs a solid commitment | 14:52 |
| cdent | but throughout I made the point that based on emails from you and ttx, and from various conversations i've had, there are people who think there's more at play here that needs to be addressed if we have the opportunity | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | ok, so I see where folks seem to generally agree to at least continue with the extraction. | 14:56 |
| dhellmann | And I see you suggest that ttx and I may have more to say | 14:56 |
| dhellmann | and I see other folks say they want to wait for T | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | and I see a couple of mentions of concerns with "coupling and tailing" | 14:57 |
| cdent | some want to wait, and some are _willing_ to wait (but have other preferences) | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | but I don't see a clear statement that anyone disagrees and wants to push ahead with governance right now | 14:57 |
| cdent | ed says "even if it seems unnecessary" | 14:58 |
| edleafe | dhellmann: I think Chris, Eric, and I have all said that | 14:58 |
| cdent | thanks edleafe | 14:58 |
| dhellmann | "Thu 10:36:46 AM] <edleafe>I'm not opposed, even if it seems unnecessary" | 14:58 |
| dhellmann | so, not opposed | 14:58 |
| dhellmann | ? | 14:59 |
| edleafe | dhellmann: 09:57 < dhellmann>| but I don't see a clear statement that anyone disagrees and wants to push ahead | 14:59 |
| cdent | dhellmann: do you really miss the nuance there? | 14:59 |
| dhellmann | apparently | 14:59 |
| cdent | that is a preference to do it differently but trying to be nice to avoid conflict | 14:59 |
| edleafe | I don't want to be the one who is always being the PITA | 14:59 |
| edleafe | I've stated my feelings several times, very clearly | 15:00 |
| edleafe | As have others | 15:00 |
| cdent | I've stated my position very clearly several times, I didn't feel it necessary to repeat it in the meeting, other than to say that, "if necessary, I will accept the compromise" | 15:00 |
| edleafe | But in the face of the continued obstruction, I'd *accept* this alternative | 15:00 |
| cdent | that doesn't mean I don't the better choice is the better choice | 15:00 |
| cdent | yes, that | 15:00 |
| edleafe | "Even if I think it's unnecessary" | 15:00 |
| dhellmann | ok, but you do see how saying you will accept the compromise is doing just that and accepting it? | 15:00 |
| cdent | what? how? | 15:00 |
| cdent | I said, we need to wait to decide | 15:01 |
| cdent | to let the issues play out | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | during which conversation is that going to happen? | 15:01 |
| ttx | ohai! tc officehour | 15:01 |
| * smcginnis half pays attention | 15:01 | |
| cdent | tc-members it's that time of day | 15:02 |
| EmilienM | o/ | 15:02 |
| zaneb | o/ | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | edleafe , cdent : if you do not want to way, you need to say just that clearly and persistently. | 15:02 |
| cmurphy | o/ | 15:02 |
| mugsie | o/ | 15:02 |
| edleafe | dhellmann: Do you see how constantly sticking to a position can be seen as being a jerk? | 15:02 |
| TheJulia | o/ | 15:02 |
| ttx | I could see how placement needs to be fully extracted before the placement team itself can be spun off... a full cycle might be on the "long" side | 15:04 |
| dhellmann | edleafe : I'm not sure what you expect me to do here. There isn't a formal proposal to create a team, there's just a lot of discussion about why and when to do it. If that discussion seems to move to consensus because of apparent, but not actual, compromise then it's not an honest discussion, is it? | 15:04 |
| cdent | wow | 15:04 |
| mugsie | honestly, the responses about why it should stay as part of nova, make me feel even stronger about it being its own thing. If we wait for it to be "finished" for nova, it has the potential to be something thrown over the wall. If we want it to be useful for other projects, they should have input on what it is, and how it works, so they can say "don't do $THING it will block $OTHER_THING we want to do" | 15:05 |
| dhellmann | I support having placement be its own team, and I thought we'd gotten past the soft-peddling discussions | 15:06 |
| edleafe | dhellmann: I'm not expecting you to do anything here. I was just trying to correct a false assumption of yours that we haven't stated our clear preference, and stated it repeatedly. That is difficult to do in a hostile environment like Nova | 15:06 |
| mugsie | and the key is that we don't force teams to live under other governance just to satisify governance | 15:07 |
| dhellmann | you need to be consistent, though, because the point of having multiple conversations is to see what is changing. so when it looks like agreement is being reached, do you see how it's confusing when in the next conversation it seems that's not true? | 15:08 |
| ttx | mugsie: yes that's wher i am too. The team needs to be spun out. there is some leeway in the timing, but start of T sounds like the last moment, not the earliest moment | 15:08 |
| dhellmann | if it's actually not acceptable to wait, just say that. and if there's some period of time that would be ok, then say *that* | 15:08 |
| mugsie | ttx: yeah, I agree. | 15:09 |
| dhellmann | the membership freeze for a series, as set by the release team, is milestone 2. maybe that's a good deadline. | 15:09 |
| ttx | because otherwise it's no longer to ensure a good transition | 15:09 |
| ttx | dhellmann: that seems much more reasonable yes. Time to extract it and get critical work over | 15:09 |
| mugsie | I think repo + governance extraction can happen in pretty close order. | 15:10 |
| cdent | hmm, I trying to think how to word what I'm about to say, so if it makes no sense, please help me shape it rather than jumping to conclusions: | 15:10 |
| mugsie | the technically hard bit is repo extraction, the rest is mushy human stuff | 15:11 |
| dhellmann | the harder part of all of this seems to be the human stuff | 15:11 |
| ttx | mugsie: the Nova team is afraid that things will start going west once the governance is split, so giving then a bit of time to bake more things in placement before being spun off might assuage some of those fears, which is why a short period of transition might be reasonable as a trade-off | 15:12 |
| cdent | when placement goes and where it goes is not what the real tension in this situation is about. it is about whether it is okay for nova to hold dominance over either subteams or other projects because of what nova perceives to be nova's needs. that placement (and/or me) sometime show up at the center of that question is happenstance, not the root | 15:12 |
| cdent | if we _only_ solve this situation for governance we are doing the entire community a disservice | 15:12 |
| cdent | because we, as usual, solving the symptom, not the disease | 15:13 |
| edleafe | cdent: +1 | 15:13 |
| cdent | And for once, I'd really like to solve the disease | 15:13 |
| mugsie | ttx: yeah, I can see that. I reject it, as I think if it is an openstack thing, nova needs to act like any other project | 15:13 |
| dhellmann | what are you proposing be done? | 15:13 |
| cdent | and at the same stop being in the hot seat | 15:13 |
| dtroyer | cdent: I think I get what you are saying and it is consistent with what I've seen looking in form the outside… | 15:13 |
| cdent | dhellmann: I don't have a proposal, I have questions, and the people here right now are supposed to help with that kind of thing | 15:13 |
| ttx | cdent: i think saying that placement is a distinct subgroup and therefore needs its own separate team IS about solving the dominance issue | 15:14 |
| mugsie | ttx: but allowing nova "extra time" says that nova is allowed to force people to stay under them, because nova. | 15:14 |
| cdent | ttx it helps moves things in the right direction, and may be enough of a sea change to mean a difference, at least I hope so | 15:14 |
| ttx | mugsie: it's an extraction process, and it's in progress. "today" is not an option since the repo is not even separated, so some level of "extra time" is warranted. | 15:15 |
| ttx | extra time to complete extraction -> ok | 15:15 |
| cdent | if we get hung up on issues of timing, we are not really acking the underlying issue | 15:15 |
| mugsie | ttx: no. but project + repo creation can be done in parallel | 15:16 |
| ttx | extra time to retain control once everythgin is technically separated -> not so ok | 15:16 |
| cdent | having extra time is good, unlimited time is not good, but neither is really relevant | 15:16 |
| dtroyer | It feels like solving placement is treating a symptom, necessary but insufficient | 15:16 |
| ttx | mugsie: project creation is pretty quick. | 15:16 |
| ttx | it;s just a few lines in a YAML | 15:16 |
| cdent | to be clear: i don't even think that the separate team thing is all that important, it's just emblematic | 15:17 |
| mugsie | yeah, my view is that as soon as the repo is pulled out of nova, there is a new team, that has placement as a deliverable | 15:17 |
| dhellmann | team creation can happen as fast as 10 days. https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#motions | 15:17 |
| dhellmann | but someone has to actually ask for it | 15:17 |
| zaneb | on one level I think we may be having the wrong discussion, because I don't think *either* keeping the project in Nova *nor* splitting it out is going to solve the problem of the working relationships between placement-only folks and nova-core | 15:18 |
| cdent | zaneb: the problem fo the working relationship is overblown: we have worked well together for years. placement is great and healthy. | 15:19 |
| cdent | there have been strains but most of them have been around the larger issue I mentioned above | 15:19 |
| ttx | zaneb: I think it will. Once people realize that the placement folks work to fill their consuming projects needs | 15:19 |
| zaneb | and even that may not be the right discussion, because it appears that there may be a disconnect opened up between nova-core's culture and OpenStack's values | 15:19 |
| ttx | and not on some weird personal agenda | 15:19 |
| cdent | zaneb: nailed it | 15:20 |
| edleafe | zaneb: I don't think that there currently are any "placement-only folsk" | 15:20 |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 15:20 | |
| edleafe | We all live in the Nova-Placement world | 15:20 |
| ttx | edleafe: i think he mans "people that are not nova-core that would be placement-core" | 15:21 |
| zaneb | edleafe: sorry, that was shorthand for 'people who work on placement but are not nova cores', but your point is taken | 15:21 |
| dhellmann | ttx's response to melwitt on the mailing list pretty clearly laid out the response on the culture issue. | 15:21 |
| ttx | yes, I don;t think we are ignoring the issue. At least I'm not | 15:21 |
| dhellmann | and I think there's a lot of support within the TC to move ahead with creating a new team around placement | 15:22 |
| mnaser | i dont see the difference of splitting the repo into its own thing under nova-team, or it getting it's own governance | 15:22 |
| mnaser | it will have the same core team anyways + a few | 15:23 |
| mnaser | and again i think we're *seriously* underestimating the technical complexity of splitting it out into its own thing | 15:23 |
| edleafe | mnaser: We've already gotten most of the way there | 15:23 |
| edleafe | mnaser: We have a working extraction with tests passing | 15:23 |
| mnaser | edleafe: where is it? and how is the upgrade procedure? has there been work with distros to export it out? deployment tools? | 15:24 |
| lbragstad | it sounds like there have been consistent discussions, specifically since dublin, to work towards the split from a technical perspective, no? | 15:24 |
| edleafe | mnaser: We just want to apply what we learned to clean up the process a bit before pushing to a separate repo under openstack | 15:24 |
| mnaser | it will be a huge technical undertaking affecting *many* downstream consumers | 15:24 |
| mnaser | hence i would want the nova team be involved in that split, because it directly affects their own deliverable | 15:25 |
| zaneb | mnaser: the difference in practice seems to be that nova-core has veto power over adding new placement cores in one scenario and not the other, which seems to be important to people on both sides for opposite reasons | 15:25 |
| mnaser | zaneb: right, but can we cross the technical split problem first and then we can discuss the placement core problem next? | 15:25 |
| mnaser | because that's not a small "hey just use http requests", not all deployments are greenfield | 15:25 |
| edleafe | mnaser: of course the nova team will be involved. Nobody has suggested otherwise. | 15:25 |
| mnaser | devstack will have to change to deploy from another repo, deployment tools (tripleo, openstack-ansible, etc) all have to rewrite stuff to add placement | 15:26 |
| smcginnis | Rather than nova having say and choosing who will be placement-core, I think the placement contributors should be the ones deciding that and deciding if and for how long nova-core is included as a group within that placement-core group. | 15:26 |
| cdent | zaneb: again, I think the "core" issue is vastly overstated by people observing. there's general agreement | 15:26 |
| dtroyer | mnaser: are you suggesting that all of that needs to be underway, if not complete, before a split can happen? | 15:26 |
| mnaser | dtroyer: i think before we talk governance and politics, we should be more concerned with the technical issues, imho. | 15:26 |
| mnaser | the nova team is welcoming a split of the code into its own repo (as mentioned by melwitt, the ptl) | 15:27 |
| dims | o/ | 15:27 |
| mnaser | and i really don't think it's a simple as it's made out to be | 15:27 |
| ttx | I'm not convinced the technical issue will be solved faster or better, whatever the governance resolution is | 15:27 |
| dtroyer | mnaser: even with placement in the nova repo, pretty much everything you mentioned is affected. | 15:28 |
| ttx | placement team folks will chase down distros as efficiently as placement -in - nova team folks | 15:28 |
| mnaser | ttx: correct. but if nova-core will be part of placement, it's the same thing. | 15:29 |
| dims | fyi, nova team meeting they talked about it today as well - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova/2018/nova.2018-08-23-14.00.log.html#l-236 | 15:29 |
| mnaser | and changing leadership/adding a ptl to the equation, in the *middle* of technical extraction, is not a godo time | 15:29 |
| cdent | dims: yeah, that's how this discussion started, by me pointing to that | 15:29 |
| mnaser | you need some sort of common/shared leadership as it is extracted | 15:29 |
| dims | ack. just catching up :) | 15:29 |
| ttx | making the decision dependent on the technical resolution is just a way to punt on the social bit, at the risk of discouraging placement-focused folks | 15:30 |
| mnaser | because the last thing we want is to have $nova_ptl and $placement_ptl start disagreeing on how things are extracted and now instead we're in a stalemate | 15:30 |
| mnaser | i'm not punting it, i'm saying, let's talk about it when placement is it's *own* repo, it's *own* project, super seperate. | 15:30 |
| zaneb | I'm struggling with this one because I don't want anything at all to get in the way of the repo split, and I'm happy for placement to remain temporarily in Nova to make sure nothing disrupts that, but then this idea of nova cores wanting to retain veto power is something I am very very unsympathetic to | 15:30 |
| mnaser | which based on how "simple" it is, it might just take a week or two. | 15:30 |
| edleafe | zaneb: it's also very offensive that needing a veto is being suggested | 15:31 |
| mugsie | mnaser: so we are saying that our governance model needs to change then? We allow groups of people writing code to self organise into projects. | 15:31 |
| edleafe | Like the placement people wouldn't want Nova to succeed | 15:31 |
| fungi | how is it any different from nova ptl disagreeing with people working on placement within the nova team? | 15:31 |
| zaneb | edleafe: totally agree | 15:31 |
| mriedem | fwiw i agree with everything mnaser is saying, and have said myself several times | 15:31 |
| dhellmann | to be clear, if someone asks to have a team created, the other teams in the community do not make that decision. The TC does. | 15:31 |
| mugsie | mnaser: and, what if the placement ptl is right about that disagreement? | 15:32 |
| mriedem | the technical extract is going to be a small nightmare | 15:32 |
| fungi | like, if the people currently working on placement decided to stop because they felt their ideas and plans for it weren't being well represented by the nova team as a whole, what would happen? | 15:32 |
| cdent | mriedem: I totally agree on that front. The downstream impact is huge, but comprehensible. | 15:32 |
| cdent | I'll say, again: I think we've gone away from the real issues. One of which is a desire to open things up to the wider community without nova's priorities being the only priorities. In any scenario they will of course remain priorities, but balanced agains all. | 15:34 |
| mugsie | fungi: I suspect it would turn into a nova only project forever, and nova would just update as they needed, without the guidence / input from the people that initially designed it | 15:34 |
| cdent | The reason I keep pushing on these "real issues" is because people seem to think that mriedem and I want to punch one another or something. As I indicated this morning, I want to go bowling with him. | 15:35 |
| fungi | mugsie: the nova team already complains that they lack sufficient number of folks and bandwidth to get things done, so wondering if that cripples their efficacy even further | 15:35 |
| mnaser | mugsie: right, the placement ptl could be right, but right now the placement code lives under the nova team, with the PTLs leadership. i don't think the code is being held hostage | 15:35 |
| *** Bhujay has quit IRC | 15:35 | |
| mnaser | PTL very openly said: let's split out the repo, and see where we go from there. | 15:35 |
| ttx | mriedem: and you think the end of the nightmare part of the extraction is more around start of T than mid-stein, correct? | 15:36 |
| mnaser | in this case, i feel like the nova team *is* trying to coordinate, *is* trying to work with those splitting placement, but a comprimise is not happening on both sides | 15:36 |
| fungi | as dhellmann points out, the placement contributors can fork it out from under nova as an unofficial project and apply to the tc for formal recognition any time they like | 15:36 |
| mugsie | mnaser: sure, but in OpenStack that is not how we aspire to operate | 15:36 |
| fungi | socially that might be awkward | 15:36 |
| fungi | but it's an available process open to them now | 15:36 |
| dhellmann | if we all agree it should be in its own repo, then let's at least get on with *that* change | 15:37 |
| edleafe | fungi: yeah, that wouldn't work, because placement contributors are all nova contributors | 15:37 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: yes, 100%. | 15:37 |
| cdent | mnaser: if you read the nova-meeting log, "placement-people" have indicate they are willing to compromise, but the dicussion was brought back here to try to bring the "real" issues back to the fore | 15:37 |
| smcginnis | They can also apply for formal recognition now, then work on extraction, right? | 15:37 |
| edleafe | dhellmann: it's already underway | 15:37 |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 15:37 | |
| mriedem | so i'm not even caught up here, | 15:37 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : it would be easier if there was already a repo | 15:37 |
| fungi | edleafe: i'm a contributor to multiple teams. why is that a problem? | 15:38 |
| mriedem | and it's surprising that when this started about 50 minutes ago, | 15:38 |
| mriedem | there are a bunch of nova people not directly pinged as in, | 15:38 |
| mriedem | "hey we're going to start talking about you now" | 15:38 |
| mriedem | "you might want to listen" | 15:38 |
| edleafe | fungi: because to do a fork as you described would be seen as a hostile action | 15:38 |
| jroll | mriedem: ++ | 15:38 |
| * mnaser doesn't want to be the one behind the mass highlight | 15:38 | |
| fungi | no more hostile than the accusations of holding efforts hostage within another team | 15:39 |
| mriedem | it's annoying that i have to lurk in the tc channel to make sure there aren't things being said with viewpoints from all sides | 15:39 |
| cdent | I agree with you mriedem, that was a mistake. I don't want to accept responsibility for it this time, though, because I was simply trying to point dhellmann and ttx to the conversation we had in the meeting | 15:39 |
| fungi | note that i don't believe either of those extremes, just painting the perimeter | 15:39 |
| mriedem | yeah i see where it started | 15:39 |
| mriedem | and i have a reminder for the tc office hours | 15:39 |
| edleafe | fungi: ack | 15:39 |
| mriedem | and i'm about 2 hours later for a shower... | 15:39 |
| ttx | then the tc-office hour started and everyone chimed in | 15:39 |
| mriedem | but seriously, | 15:39 |
| ttx | mriedem: i can tell from here | 15:39 |
| mnaser | :O | 15:39 |
| mriedem | like, maybe ping the nova ptl | 15:40 |
| mriedem | ? | 15:40 |
| * dhellmann did | 15:40 | |
| mriedem | when you're debating nova dominating everything | 15:40 |
| melwitt | I'm listening, but on a call right now | 15:40 |
| mnaser | i feel like melwitt has written a few *very* clear emails on the overall position | 15:40 |
| mnaser | and i suggest going over them as they're pretty clear on why as a ptl, mel feels that this is the best decision | 15:41 |
| ttx | mnaser did mention too | 15:41 |
| zaneb | can I just mention that I am super grateful to mriedem for being totally upfront about how he perceives the dynamic (and very mature about analysing his own contribution to it) | 15:41 |
| cdent | (on the nova dominance thing: that is my position as an elected representative of the community, who people talk to a lot, not a personal grievance) | 15:41 |
| mugsie | mnaser: as has ttx - the main one about OpenStack culture he replied with ahs not been replied to | 15:41 |
| mriedem | ok i got about to the last 15 minutes and had to fast forward | 15:41 |
| fungi | i'm still lacking clarity in particular where melwitt referred to some placement-only contributors but edleafe is saying all placement contributors are contributors to other parts of nova too... having a hard time figuring out where the dissent is in this case | 15:42 |
| dims | ++ zaneb | 15:42 |
| ttx | It's also worth noting this is just discussion, as as dhellmann said, there is nothing to vote on | 15:42 |
| mriedem | that's not what it sounds like, | 15:42 |
| mriedem | when there is a lot of like, "T is way too late!" | 15:42 |
| fungi | definitely debate, not a vote | 15:42 |
| mnaser | mriedem: i'd say this is just people voicing their thoughts. | 15:43 |
| mriedem | when i feel that's a pretty decent compromise in the face of the technical extract challenge looming before us | 15:43 |
| dhellmann | I proposed the Stein-2 milestone as a goal. I'm not going to file any patches to create a team I'm not a member of, though. | 15:43 |
| mnaser | yeah, it's going to be a giant effort | 15:43 |
| fungi | also, "mailing list or it didn't happen" | 15:43 |
| melwitt | zaneb: on that, mriedem expressed his own opinion, about himself. what he said does not speak for me, and does not speak for others on that team. I want that to be clear | 15:43 |
| dhellmann | and if the people who are involved seem to come to agreement, I'm going to support them. | 15:43 |
| dims | melwitt : yes that was clear | 15:43 |
| zaneb | melwitt: yes, I believe that was clear from the mailing list, thank you | 15:44 |
| dhellmann | and I thought after reading those meeting logs there was agreement, but it seems there wasn't really. So perhaps someone else would like to propose an alternative plan to the one discussed in the meeting? | 15:45 |
| cdent | if we want to compromise on the compromise a bit, I think an idea we can put on the table is making a formal timeline, so that concerns about "but we still need to finish..." lasting forever are lessened | 15:46 |
| cdent | (that's based on _my_ reading of the meeting logs) | 15:47 |
| *** efried has joined #openstack-tc | 15:47 | |
| dhellmann | yes, a formal timeline seems like a good place to start working out the details | 15:47 |
| dhellmann | who is going to do that? | 15:47 |
| dims | ++ dhellmann, we can poke/prod/nudge from the TC side, but ultimately would defer to folks who have to work together to propose a plan and vote on it if needed | 15:48 |
| mriedem | probably won't surprise anyone that i don't think a formal timeline, unless it's a fuzzy Train release, is very helpful | 15:48 |
| mriedem | reminds me of a time in college with a girlfriend talking for hours about what "exactly" was the nature of our relationship | 15:48 |
| cdent | mriedem: formal timeline may be the wrong phrase. More like a commitment of "before T starts for sure" | 15:48 |
| mriedem | my head nearly exploded | 15:48 |
| lbragstad | is this a timeline for technical things? | 15:49 |
| *** dangtrinhnt has quit IRC | 15:49 | |
| mnaser | if it is, we should involve the ptl. | 15:49 |
| *** dangtrinhnt has joined #openstack-tc | 15:49 | |
| mnaser | but if it was up to me? extract to its own repo in stein and start the process of letting the team be it's own 'entity' by having a few more cores + nova-core | 15:49 |
| mriedem | my goals, again, would be extract in stein, new core team with nova-core as the seed | 15:49 |
| mriedem | with a plan to change governance in T | 15:49 |
| mriedem | prior to PTL elections obviously | 15:50 |
| edleafe | Can someone explain to me how placement remaining under Nova governance would make the technical issues of extraction any easier? | 15:50 |
| mnaser | and the S cycle will allow a health transition | 15:50 |
| mriedem | edleafe: it won't, it's to avoid the social distraction at the same time | 15:50 |
| mriedem | which this has been all week | 15:50 |
| mriedem | when we could be, oh idk, fixing rc3 which is due today | 15:50 |
| cdent | mriedem: you say that, but we got a lot done this week | 15:50 |
| mriedem | or i could be reviewing the reshaper stuf | 15:50 |
| mriedem | cdent: you and i are also putting in long hours this week as a result | 15:51 |
| edleafe | mriedem: Umm... if the governance was changed, then that would end the social distraction | 15:51 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 15:51 | |
| edleafe | just in a different way | 15:51 |
| cdent | mriedem: true enough, we are a river to our people | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | mriedem : does "in T" mean in time for T elections? or after the T cycle has actually started? | 15:51 |
| mriedem | governance to me means new PTL< | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | oh, nevermind, my client caught up | 15:51 |
| mriedem | so before T elections | 15:51 |
| mriedem | which is stein i guess | 15:51 |
| mriedem | end of stein | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | ok | 15:52 |
| persia | Likely to be February. | 15:52 |
| mnaser | why are we so against making this a two step process | 15:52 |
| mriedem | fear | 15:52 |
| mnaser | we're extracting a very fundamental nova deliverable | 15:52 |
| mriedem | fear that nova will hold hostages forever | 15:52 |
| mriedem | and "dominate" forever | 15:52 |
| mugsie | mnaser: it goes against what we say we do in openstack | 15:52 |
| ttx | mnaser: nobody is really. People are just questioning why the two steps shall be linked | 15:52 |
| mnaser | mugsie: how so? | 15:52 |
| mnaser | the two steps don't have to be linked, but it's easier for the transition to happen under a *single* leadership | 15:53 |
| mnaser | rather than 2. | 15:53 |
| mugsie | we allow teams to self organise around deliverables | 15:53 |
| mnaser | sure, and the nova team can start doing that | 15:53 |
| mnaser | bootstrap openstack/placement with nova-core and some new placement cores | 15:53 |
| mugsie | no, in OpenStack, we allow teams to do that. | 15:53 |
| mugsie | and we let them have their own PTL to help guide a project | 15:54 |
| mugsie | otherwise Octavia would still be part of Neutron | 15:54 |
| mugsie | and Designate would have joined Neutron | 15:54 |
| smcginnis | bootstrap openstack/placement with some new placement cores and nova-core | 15:54 |
| mnaser | yes. but right now, placement is a nova deliverable. | 15:54 |
| mnaser | within nova | 15:54 |
| mnaser | and it would make sense that the team that works on it is involved in splitting it | 15:55 |
| mnaser | and once it's split, we make a governance change and that's it | 15:55 |
| mugsie | mnaser: the point is that we allow teams to decide to go their own way, and splinter deliverables off | 15:55 |
| mriedem | as dansmith has also said many times, | 15:55 |
| mriedem | nova is the only project with major skin in this game right now as a "consumer" | 15:55 |
| mriedem | if something breaks during extract, it's our ass | 15:55 |
| mriedem | no other project is critically dependent on placement | 15:55 |
| mugsie | mriedem: and will continue to be as long as the nova team decides priorities for it | 15:55 |
| mriedem | neutron doesn't require designate or octavia | 15:55 |
| mnaser | mugsie: but what you're saying works in theory but would make us a failing community | 15:56 |
| mriedem | ffs | 15:56 |
| zaneb | mriedem: but placement contributors all have plenty of skin in the Nova game too | 15:56 |
| mriedem | mugsie: it's like you're not hearing people saying we want it out, and that's been the plan all along | 15:56 |
| mriedem | zaneb: yes i totally realize | 15:56 |
| mugsie | mriedem: but that has been a long time of "its in the roadmap" | 15:56 |
| mriedem | i assume good faith that cdent, edleafe and efried (among others, including myself) want placement to be a success | 15:56 |
| mriedem | it is? | 15:57 |
| mriedem | we said in dublin we'd extract in stein | 15:57 |
| mnaser | again: shared leadership for the current state is what is needed, and that's my viewpoint. and at the end of the day, this is melwitt's call. if the folks behind placement want to escalate this to the TC, then they can. | 15:57 |
| mriedem | we haven't talked about governance until now | 15:57 |
| mriedem | not publicly anyway | 15:57 |
| mriedem | mugsie: you seem to know a shit load about how internal nova discussions happen | 15:57 |
| mriedem | w/o actually working on th eproject | 15:57 |
| mnaser | so my very straight forward question to the placement team: do you want to escalate this to the tc? | 15:57 |
| persia | Um, that could be clearer. | 15:58 |
| zaneb | this is, uh, not going in a helpful direction | 15:58 |
| mriedem | this is what drives me nuts about the tc | 15:58 |
| persia | There's a big difference between "Could the TC please advise on best practices" and "Could the TC please force a governance change". | 15:58 |
| cdent | mriedem: we've had extraction on the table since early 2017, that's when I did my first temp repo on the topic. But that's irrelevant. I've mostly been agreeing with much of what you're saying. we (that is the people who work on placement) are all heavily invested in nova's sucess. that's never been an issue | 15:58 |
| dims | mnaser : mriedem : TC has not yet been asked to do anything (nothing to vote on) | 15:59 |
| mnaser | persia: i think we've all given plenty of advice and unfortunately i think it has brought more negative than positive :( | 15:59 |
| mnaser | people probably don't feel so great at this point over this whole situation | 15:59 |
| mnaser | so we either decide to take action or we can let the team handle it | 15:59 |
| mnaser | rather than going back and forth | 15:59 |
| persia | mnaser: Fair enough. My point matches dims: if you want something else, then someone needs to describe the something else in a change. There is no "hand the problem to the TC" button. | 16:00 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 16:00 | |
| mnaser | persia: yes, i totally agree with that | 16:00 |
| cdent | as I said before, as a representative of the community I care abou the two issues I said before: | 16:00 |
| cdent | [t Lh9] | 16:00 |
| purplerbot | <cdent> when placement goes and where it goes is not what the real tension in this situation is about. it is about whether it is okay for nova to hold dominance over either subteams or other projects because of what nova perceives to be nova's needs. that placement (and/or me) sometime show up at the center of that question is happenstance, not the root [2018-08-23 15:12:12.852571] [n Lh9] | 16:00 |
| cdent | [t dUn] | 16:00 |
| purplerbot | <cdent> I'll say, again: I think we've gone away from the real issues. One of which is a desire to open things up to the wider community without nova's priorities being the only priorities. In any scenario they will of course remain priorities, but balanced agains all. [2018-08-23 15:34:03.923465] [n dUn] | 16:00 |
| dhellmann | next steps seems to be continue with the code extraction and repo setup. what else do we need before the ptg? what discussion is planned at the ptg? | 16:00 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: i agree on next steps | 16:01 |
| cdent | they are more important to me, as a representative, than the details of placement's governabce or disposition | 16:01 |
| *** mdbooth has joined #openstack-tc | 16:01 | |
| * dhellmann has a call | 16:01 | |
| cdent | yet, we have spent the entire hour discussing the disposition of placement | 16:01 |
| ttx | oh! I wanted to discuss forum selection committee | 16:01 |
| ttx | we need 2 tc-members, everyone seems ok to help so we need to choose | 16:02 |
| ttx | cdent dims mugsie mnaser smcginnis ttx zaneb are good candidates because not up for reelection | 16:02 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 16:03 | |
| smcginnis | List our names, generate two random numbers? :) | 16:03 |
| cdent | I'm sure that all of us in the greater nova-placement conurbation can work something out, but I think we need to concern ourselves with what various choices mean | 16:03 |
| dims | mriedem : cdent : melwitt : edleafe : slight modification to what was proposed in the nova meeting - new repo with new team ( seeded by active contributors to the new repo ), but still under overall nova governance for now until a specific deadline when we would propose a separate PTL for it. | 16:03 |
| EmilienM | I'm not up for re-election as well | 16:03 |
| zaneb | I think the compromise to set an explicit timeline for separate governance prior to the T PTL elections (in late Stein cycle) is a reasonable way to handle the legitimate *technical* concerns expressed by melwitt and others, and I will support it if the people involved do | 16:03 |
| ttx | ah hmm | 16:03 |
| EmilienM | and I can help | 16:03 |
| zaneb | but I think we need to have a separate discussion about the cultural concerns that cdent mentions | 16:04 |
| ttx | ok, I'll pass, so I can roll the dice twice | 16:04 |
| smcginnis | :) | 16:04 |
| ttx | any other person that would rather pass now that we have more than enough candidates ? | 16:04 |
| *** mriedem is now known as mriedem_sudsy | 16:04 | |
| cdent | ttx: let's take me off the list, apparently I'm going to be busy | 16:04 |
| zaneb | ttx: I'm happy to pass and leave it to the folks who have volunteered | 16:05 |
| dims | ttx : i won't make it to berlin :( | 16:05 |
| *** johnthetubaguy has joined #openstack-tc | 16:07 | |
| ttx | dims: we have a plan to kidnap you and ship you in a box. Look out for black vans | 16:07 |
| ttx | dims: also, being present in Berlin is not a prerequisite | 16:08 |
| dims | ttx : ack then i can help if there arent enough volunteers :) | 16:08 |
| dims | lol. i'll be in india to meet family. so you have to send them there :) | 16:09 |
| ttx | they are already there. | 16:12 |
| EmilienM | just to clarify why I don't plan to re-elect, so you don't think i'm leaving anywhere: I'm a strong believer in rotations and that it's good to have new people coming and bringing fresh ideas and ways of working together. I respect the ones who decide to stay a long time but this is just not for me. | 16:12 |
| * cdent hugs EmilienM | 16:13 | |
| dims | EmilienM : +1000 | 16:13 |
| zaneb | EmilienM: you are awesome, thank you for all your work | 16:14 |
| fungi | EmilienM: i've appreciated your input, hopefully you'll continue to provide it even without being on the tc! | 16:14 |
| EmilienM | thanks for the kind words, despite what people think or say, this is a strong group, we need to keep our efforts going | 16:15 |
| * ttx hugs EmilienM too | 16:16 | |
| *** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc | 16:17 | |
| EmilienM | so much love | 16:17 |
| * dims schedules some time for a group hug at denver :) | 16:17 | |
| EmilienM | we need more of that | 16:17 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 16:18 | |
| *** Bhujay has joined #openstack-tc | 16:19 | |
| TheJulia | +1Million | 16:19 |
| smcginnis | Thanks EmilienM | 16:22 |
| zaneb | jbryce: have Airship and StarlingX been officially accepted for incubation? | 16:23 |
| ttx | zaneb: I'm not sure what you call "incubation"... they are pilot projects at this point | 16:24 |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 16:24 | |
| ttx | as are Kata Containers and Zuul | 16:25 |
| ttx | although zuul should be quickly confirmed once the governance is set up | 16:26 |
| *** mriedem_sudsy is now known as mriedem | 16:26 | |
| mnaser | ttx: i think maybe zaneb was wondering if they have been fully 'adopted' as a full-on OSF project | 16:28 |
| * persia is confused | 16:29 | |
| ttx | then the answer would be "no", although we are still working on what that confirmation process will look like | 16:29 |
| persia | I thought there was to be a three step process, to which I assigned semantics "proposed", "adopted", "approved". I map "incubated" to my "adopted". | 16:29 |
| ttx | persia: hmm, so far the only thing we operate under is that the Board allowed the staff to pilot projects for a limited time period | 16:30 |
| mugsie | was there a board meeting I missed? Last I heard the entire thing was in flux :/ | 16:31 |
| ttx | and now we need to formalize the process to get to the next stage | 16:31 |
| ttx | mugsie: that was the resolution we got to in .. Dublin iirc | 16:31 |
| persia | Ah, excellent. I am now unconfused. It seems the current model is that projects can be "pilot" or "openstack", with a new model required in order to support current "pilot" projects, for which the three-state model is one of many proposals. Thank you. | 16:32 |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 16:32 | |
| mugsie | yeah, I remember the pilot thing from Sydney - it was the 3 step model I had missed | 16:33 |
| ttx | yes, next stage is to post a strawman proposal, which shoudl happen soon | 16:33 |
| fungi | persia: i think the upcoming proposal is modeled so that openstack is already (or at least instantly as of accepting the proposal) confirmed by the board, the rest of the named projects are pilot projects awaiting confirmation as official projects under the osf | 16:33 |
| persia | three-step is my vague memory of people talking about stuff in Vancouver, but I thought someone was planning to try to write something up for Denver. | 16:33 |
| ttx | mugsie: that's because you don't live in persia's head (which is a good thing) | 16:33 |
| * mugsie is very glad of that :D | 16:34 | |
| persia | fungi: Right: key in that is that until there is a name for things like "confirmed projects", we end up with "openstack" as a state :) | 16:34 |
| fungi | fair | 16:34 |
| ttx | fungi: yes that's the working hypothesis | 16:34 |
| fungi | openstack is the only representative of its class at the moment | 16:34 |
| notmyname | ttx: is there a way to follow any of these discussions? | 16:34 |
| fungi | notmyname: yes, dial into or show up for board meetings, read meeting minutes | 16:35 |
| fungi | the only formal discussion happens in the presence (virtual or literal) of a quorum of the board of directors | 16:35 |
| notmyname | fungi: where are the minutes logged? | 16:35 |
| persia | mugsie: For clarity, the three-step thing got into my head from people talking about "incubation", in that when there is "incubation", there are two approval gates, which requires three states (before first gate, between gates, after second gate). | 16:35 |
| fungi | notmyname: they get linked from the schedule... just a sec | 16:36 |
| mugsie | notmyname: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation | 16:36 |
| fungi | notmyname: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation#OpenStack_Board_of_Director_Meetings | 16:36 |
| notmyname | so what I can tell from that is that there has been *no* discussion on the state of the non-openstack projects since the summit? | 16:38 |
| dhellmann | fungi : I thought there was a subset of the board working on this separately. Maybe I misunderstood something I read. | 16:38 |
| fungi | basically the current situation is that board has asked the osf executive team to draft a proposed process, which when ready will be presented to the board for discussion at a meeting | 16:38 |
| ttx | yes, and that draft is almost ready | 16:40 |
| persia | notmyname: Rather, discussion has been either a) random folk saying things that other folk probably ignored and don't have any impact and b) within (and involving) the osf team who are drafting something for the board to consider. | 16:40 |
| *** harlowja has quit IRC | 16:40 | |
| jbryce | notmyname: there's a board working group that has met a couple of times to draft the initial strawman. ttx and I have been working on capturing that discussion in text form for a foundation list email | 16:41 |
| jbryce | The goal being time got public feedback ahead of the mid September board meeting where it will be discussed formally | 16:42 |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 16:42 | |
| notmyname | jbryce: mid september is about 2 weeks from now. there will be something published for public feedback gathering before the meeting so the feedback can be discussed at the board meeting? | 16:42 |
| zaneb | sorry, yeah incubated was probably the wrong word | 16:43 |
| zaneb | last I heard in Vancouver they were not pilot projects yet | 16:43 |
| fungi | zaneb: there aren't necessarily wrong words until the board agrees on what the right words are ;) | 16:43 |
| zaneb | but the board meeting notes indicate that they now are | 16:44 |
| zaneb | and I didn't see an announcement | 16:44 |
| mugsie | jbryce: it does seem like something that would be good to have in advance of the PTG for informal feedback gathering | 16:44 |
| ttx | mugsie, notmyname: I hope we can get it posted this week or early next | 16:44 |
| notmyname | ok | 16:45 |
| ttx | I'll make sure to point y'all to that -foundation ML thread when it starts, since it's easy to overlook posts there | 16:46 |
| smcginnis | ++ | 16:46 |
| zaneb | jbryce: so I guess I'll amend my initial question to: where should Foundation individual members expect to hear about it when new projects are piloted? | 16:46 |
| mugsie | ttx: ++ | 16:46 |
| jbryce | (Landing airplane disconnected my wifi) | 16:50 |
| zaneb | persia: the three stages are sandbox/pilot/confirmed where sandbox means totally unofficial but hosted on Winterscale | 16:50 |
| zaneb | I should say *proposed* stages | 16:51 |
| jbryce | zaneb: I think we're going to use the foundation mailing list for that going forward | 16:52 |
| zaneb | jbryce: OK, that makes sense to me | 16:53 |
| ttx | clarifying which is under what status will be easier once we have those statuses finally defined. | 16:54 |
| jbryce | I know the comms have been a little rough, but some of that has been trying to figure out what channel to use | 16:54 |
| persia | zaneb: Those words map well to my concepts :) | 16:56 |
| jbryce | We settled on the foundation list though and could use help pointing interested people there | 16:56 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| *** Bhujay has quit IRC | 17:08 | |
| fungi | zaneb: i wouldn't consider sandbox a phase necessarily, nor are new projects required to use any of the winterscale infrastructure | 17:08 |
| fungi | c.f., kata | 17:09 |
| zaneb | fungi: I'm only reporting what the board discussed | 17:09 |
| fungi | right | 17:10 |
| fungi | nor are projects who want to use the winterscale infrastructure necessarily expected to ever want to apply to be pilot projects | 17:10 |
| fungi | just wanting to make sure we don't repeat the same "official openstack projects incubate in stackforge" nonsense from years past | 17:10 |
| fungi | i think "sandbox" was thrown in there to mean projects who have approached the osf about becoming pilot projects, but have not become pilot projects yet. any discussion of hosting infrastructure is entirely orthogonal | 17:13 |
| zaneb | yeah, we need some way to describe them, because otherwise they're prone to being discussed in such a way that makes them sound like pilot, or even official, projects | 17:15 |
| fungi | hopefully we'll come up with a better name for that | 17:17 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 17:30 | |
| persia | Decoupling "sandbox" from "winterscale" is more compatible with my previous understanding :) | 17:35 |
| *** mriedem is now known as mriedem_away | 17:36 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 17:46 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 17:54 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| *** mriedem_away is now known as mriedem | 18:17 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 18:26 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:28 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 18:29 | |
| *** gcb_ has quit IRC | 18:41 | |
| *** efried is now known as efried_afk | 18:43 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 18:46 | |
| *** dangtrinhnt_x has quit IRC | 18:53 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| *** gcb_ has joined #openstack-tc | 19:18 | |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 19:46 | |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-tc | 19:47 | |
| tonyb | dhellmann: I (clearly wasn't at that point but I am now). Please ignore that tag request ttx flished the moderator queue and you've already done that one | 20:26 |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 21:15 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 21:17 | |
| *** mriedem is now known as mriedem_afk | 21:43 | |
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 22:48 | |
| fungi | in revisiting the mailing list "big crunch" we've discussed in the past i've been trying to slice ml participation across the openstack, openstack-dev, openstack-operators and openstack-sigs mailing lists in a variety of different dimensions. particularly interesting is that of the 10155 messages posted to those lists in aggregate so far this year, 1071 (11%) were cross-posts | 23:20 |
| fungi | at least based on a naive matching of message-id headers | 23:21 |
| fungi | more specifically, cross-posts between two or more of that set of 4 lists (so not necessarily counting cross-posting outside that limited set of lists) | 23:22 |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 23:29 | |
| fungi | that's 11% of total messages which were cross-posted (counting the corresponding instances of them on each list) | 23:30 |
| fungi | if you look at it from a unique messages perspective, then 504 of 9588 unique messages (5%) appeared on more than one of those lists | 23:31 |
| fungi | still a fairly significant number | 23:31 |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 23:33 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!