Thursday, 2018-08-23

*** zbitter has joined #openstack-tc00:01
*** zaneb has quit IRC00:03
*** gouthamr has joined #openstack-tc00:03
* tonyb has a message in moderation on openstack-tc, any chnace it can be approved?00:08
cdenttonyb: if I had the power, but I do not00:10
tonybcdent: Okay thanks.00:10
cdenttonyb: 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
tonybcdent: it was a reply to a thread on the -tc list that was specifcally pre release to -dev00:17
cdentah, okay00:17
tonybcdent: the PTG lunch talks schedule00:17
* cdent is not confident that have the tc list limited is the right thing00:18
*** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc00:19
dims_tonyb : drat, i don't have karma either.00:21
mtreinishiirc only ttx and dhellmann have moderator powers on that list00:23
tonybcdent: Yeah I get that there is some stuff that needs to be more focused and thin the TC list is fine for that discussion00:24
tonybcdent: I *like* that as a member of the community I can watch that discussion and participate via moderation00:24
tonybcdent: but sometimes it's a little awkward00:24
tonyb(like now)00:24
tonybdims_, mtreinish: Thanks00:25
* tonyb would suggest whitelisting some addresses but that way turns into a clique/popularity contest so I guess I'00:25
tonybll just wait ... y'all know about it now and can nag dhellmann and ttx  ;P00:26
persiatonyb: 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 IRC00:46
*** cdent has quit IRC00:51
tonybpersia: I am subscribed to the list so I think that chnaged at soem point00:53
persiaMaybe during one of the big email storms, hrm.01:00
*** gcb_ has quit IRC01:00
tonybpersia: Yeah perhaps01:04
*** harlowja has quit IRC01:06
*** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc01:18
*** dangtrinhnt_ has quit IRC01:25
*** masayukig has joined #openstack-tc01:27
fungitonyb: i agree, the ptg lunch session scheduling discussion should probably have simply happened on the -dev ml instead01:30
tonybfungi: Probably01:30
fungitc members are whitelisted on -tc, all other subscriber posts go into the moderation queue01:30
fungimakes it not at all effective for interacting with the community01:31
fungiand some threads we think will only garner input from the tc actually have other members of the community interested in weighing in01:31
*** dangtrinhnt has joined #openstack-tc01:33
persiaMy 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
persiait'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
fungisounds about right01:40
*** mriedem has quit IRC01:48
*** diablo_rojo has quit IRC02:20
*** dansmith has joined #openstack-tc02:28
*** srwilkers has quit IRC02:29
*** htimsnad has quit IRC02:29
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc02:37
*** masayukig has quit IRC03:09
*** masayukig has joined #openstack-tc03:11
*** zbitter has quit IRC06:37
*** zaneb has joined #openstack-tc06:38
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc07:13
*** dangtrinhnt_x has joined #openstack-tc07:29
*** jpich has joined #openstack-tc07:29
*** tosky has joined #openstack-tc07:34
*** diablo_rojo has quit IRC07:38
ttxwow I missed a bunch of moderation requests on -tc, due to the -owner alias being spammed and blackholed at config level07:55
ttxtonyb: approved your posts07:55
*** jaosorior has quit IRC08:10
tonybttx: Thanks08:14
*** cdent has joined #openstack-tc08:20
cdentalways a bit disorienting when the moderation queue gets flushed08:20
*** bodgix has joined #openstack-tc08:29
*** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur08:33
*** gcb_ has joined #openstack-tc08:55
*** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc09:08
*** dangtrinhnt_x has quit IRC09:13
*** gcb_ has quit IRC09:13
*** gcb_ has joined #openstack-tc09:19
cdentsome good comments in 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" variety09:52
*** jaosorior has quit IRC09:54
*** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc11:33
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-tc11:42
dhellmannttx: I wondered why I hadn't seen any of those moderation requests11:50
dhellmanntc-members: I'm going to be OOO for the day tomorrow (24 Aug).11:50
*** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc11:54
dhellmanntonyb : are you still around? I'm a bit confused by some details in your tag request11:55
*** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc12:27
*** dims_ is now known as dims12:37
*** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc12:46
openstackgerritMerged openstack/governance master: Retire rst2bash (step 5)
*** jaosorior has quit IRC13:09
*** bodgix has quit IRC13:24
*** bodgix has joined #openstack-tc13:25
*** bodgix has left #openstack-tc13:25
*** bodgix has joined #openstack-tc13:28
*** zaneb has quit IRC13:42
*** zaneb has joined #openstack-tc13:42
*** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc13:55
*** ianychoi has quit IRC13:59
*** ianychoi has joined #openstack-tc14:00
*** dangtrinhnt_x has joined #openstack-tc14:03
fungittx: yeah, i just keep the infra ml moderation interface up in a browser tab and try to remember to refresh it daily14:03
fungibefore i started doing that, we'd go months not approving posts from non-subscribers14:04
dhellmanntc-members: we still need some reviews on our goal patches: and
cdentEmilienM: you still in france or back in canadia?14:10
EmilienMcdent: I'm in Canada until PTG14:12
fungidhellmann: i haven't approved that last one yet because i'm not sure if you care about the extra whitespace, but should be fine14:15
dhellmannfungi : looking14:22
openstackgerritMerged openstack/project-team-guide master: import zuul job settings from project-config
dhellmannthe round-trip features of the yaml parser leave quite a bit to be desired14:22
dhellmannthe next time someone invents a file format, I hope they consider comments as significant and build a round-trip editor14:23
dhellmannfungi :
*** Bhujay has joined #openstack-tc14:39
*** annabelleB has quit IRC14:41
cdentttx, dhellmann I invoked both you in discussion in the nova meeting just now 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 more14:48
*** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc14:49
dhellmanncdent : it looks like the consensus was to wait for the T cycle for the governance change, is that right?14:50
cdentthat's why I'm pointing it out, I don't want that to be conclusion14:51
cdentit is okay if that is what happens, but it's clear we've not addressed all the issues14:51
cdentthe assertion by me, ed, eric was: if that's the only way forward, then yes, we'll do that14:51
* dhellmann goes to read the logs more closely14:52
cdentand _if_ we do it that way, it needs a solid commitment14:52
cdentbut 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 opportunity14:53
dhellmannok, so I see where folks seem to generally agree to at least continue with the extraction.14:56
dhellmannAnd I see you suggest that ttx and I may have more to say14:56
dhellmannand I see other folks say they want to wait for T14:57
dhellmannand I see a couple of mentions of concerns with "coupling and tailing"14:57
cdentsome want to wait, and some are _willing_ to wait (but have other preferences)14:57
dhellmannbut I don't see a clear statement that anyone disagrees and wants to push ahead with governance right now14:57
cdented says "even if it seems unnecessary"14:58
edleafedhellmann: I think Chris, Eric, and I have all said that14:58
cdentthanks edleafe14:58
dhellmann"Thu 10:36:46 AM]  <edleafe>I'm not opposed, even if it seems unnecessary"14:58
dhellmannso, not opposed14:58
edleafedhellmann: 09:57 <       dhellmann>| but I don't see a clear statement that anyone disagrees and wants to push ahead14:59
cdentdhellmann: do you really miss the nuance there?14:59
cdentthat is a preference to do it differently but trying to be nice to avoid conflict14:59
edleafeI don't want to be the one who is always being the PITA14:59
edleafeI've stated my feelings several times, very clearly15:00
edleafeAs have others15:00
cdentI'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
edleafeBut in the face of the continued obstruction, I'd *accept* this alternative15:00
cdentthat doesn't mean I don't the better choice is the better choice15:00
cdentyes, that15:00
edleafe"Even if I think it's unnecessary"15:00
dhellmannok, but you do see how saying you will accept the compromise is doing just that and accepting  it?15:00
cdentwhat? how?15:00
cdentI said, we need to wait to decide15:01
cdentto let the issues play out15:01
dhellmannduring which conversation is that going to happen?15:01
ttxohai! tc officehour15:01
* smcginnis half pays attention15:01
cdenttc-members it's that time of day15:02
dhellmannedleafe , cdent : if you do not want to way, you need to say just that clearly and persistently.15:02
edleafedhellmann: Do you see how constantly sticking to a position can be seen as being a jerk?15:02
ttxI 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" side15:04
dhellmannedleafe : 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
mugsiehonestly, 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
dhellmannI support having placement be its own team, and I thought we'd gotten past the soft-peddling discussions15:06
edleafedhellmann: 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 Nova15:06
mugsieand the key is that we don't force teams to live under other governance just to satisify governance15:07
dhellmannyou 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
ttxmugsie: 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 moment15:08
dhellmannif 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
mugsiettx: yeah, I agree.15:09
dhellmannthe membership freeze for a series, as set by the release team, is milestone 2. maybe that's a good deadline.15:09
ttxbecause otherwise it's no longer to ensure a good transition15:09
ttxdhellmann: that seems much more reasonable yes. Time to extract it and get critical work over15:09
mugsieI think repo + governance extraction can happen in pretty close order.15:10
cdenthmm, 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
mugsiethe technically hard bit is repo extraction, the rest is mushy human stuff15:11
dhellmannthe harder part of all of this seems to be the human stuff15:11
ttxmugsie: 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-off15:12
cdentwhen 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 root15:12
cdentif we _only_ solve this situation for governance we are doing the entire community a disservice15:12
cdentbecause we, as usual, solving the symptom, not the disease15:13
edleafecdent: +115:13
cdentAnd for once, I'd really like to solve the disease15:13
mugsiettx: yeah, I can see that. I reject it, as I think if it is an openstack thing, nova needs to act like any other project15:13
dhellmannwhat are you proposing be done?15:13
cdentand at the same stop being in the hot seat15:13
dtroyercdent: I think I get what you are saying and it is consistent with what I've seen looking in form the outsideā€¦15:13
cdentdhellmann: I don't have a proposal, I have questions, and the people here right now are supposed to help with that kind of thing15:13
ttxcdent: i think saying that placement is a distinct subgroup and therefore needs its own separate team IS  about solving the dominance issue15:14
mugsiettx: but allowing nova "extra time" says that nova is allowed to force people to stay under them, because nova.15:14
cdentttx it helps moves things in the right direction, and may be enough of a sea change to mean a difference, at least I hope so15:14
ttxmugsie: 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
ttxextra time to complete extraction -> ok15:15
cdentif we get hung up on issues of timing, we are not really acking the underlying issue15:15
mugsiettx: no. but project + repo creation can be done in parallel15:16
ttxextra time to retain control once everythgin is technically separated -> not so ok15:16
cdenthaving extra time is good, unlimited time is not good, but neither is really relevant15:16
dtroyerIt feels like solving placement is treating a symptom, necessary but insufficient15:16
ttxmugsie: project creation is pretty quick.15:16
ttxit;s just a few lines in a YAML15:16
cdentto be clear: i don't even think that the separate team thing is all that important, it's just emblematic15:17
mugsieyeah, my view is that as soon as the repo is pulled out of nova, there is a new team, that has placement as a deliverable15:17
dhellmannteam creation can happen as fast as 10 days.
dhellmannbut someone has to actually ask for it15:17
zanebon 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-core15:18
cdentzaneb: the problem fo the working relationship is overblown: we have worked well together for years. placement is great and healthy.15:19
cdentthere have been strains but most of them have been around the larger issue I mentioned above15:19
ttxzaneb: I think it will. Once people realize that the placement folks work to fill their consuming projects needs15:19
zaneband 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 values15:19
ttxand not on some weird personal agenda15:19
cdentzaneb: nailed it15:20
edleafezaneb: I don't think that there currently are any "placement-only folsk"15:20
*** dklyle has quit IRC15:20
edleafeWe all live in the Nova-Placement world15:20
ttxedleafe: i think he mans "people that are not nova-core that would be placement-core"15:21
zanebedleafe: sorry, that was shorthand for 'people who work on placement but are not nova cores', but your point is taken15:21
dhellmannttx's response to melwitt on the mailing list pretty clearly laid out the response on the culture issue.15:21
ttxyes, I don;t think we are ignoring the issue. At least I'm not15:21
dhellmannand I think there's a lot of support within the TC to move ahead with creating a new team around placement15:22
mnaseri dont see the difference of splitting the repo into its own thing under nova-team, or it getting it's own governance15:22
mnaserit will have the same core team anyways + a few15:23
mnaserand again i think we're *seriously* underestimating the technical complexity of splitting it out into its own thing15:23
edleafemnaser: We've already gotten most of the way there15:23
edleafemnaser: We have a working extraction with tests passing15:23
mnaseredleafe: where is it? and how is the upgrade procedure? has there been work with distros to export it out? deployment tools?15:24
lbragstadit sounds like there have been consistent discussions, specifically since dublin, to work towards the split from a technical perspective, no?15:24
edleafemnaser: We just want to apply what we learned to clean up the process a bit before pushing to a separate repo under openstack15:24
mnaserit will be a huge technical undertaking affecting *many* downstream consumers15:24
mnaserhence i would want the nova team be involved in that split, because it directly affects their own deliverable15:25
zanebmnaser: 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 reasons15:25
mnaserzaneb: right, but can we cross the technical split problem first and then we can discuss the placement core problem next?15:25
mnaserbecause that's not a small "hey just use http requests", not all deployments are greenfield15:25
edleafemnaser: of course the nova team will be involved. Nobody has suggested otherwise.15:25
mnaserdevstack will have to change to deploy from another repo, deployment tools (tripleo, openstack-ansible, etc) all have to rewrite stuff to add placement15:26
smcginnisRather 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
cdentzaneb: again, I think the "core" issue is vastly overstated by people observing. there's general agreement15:26
dtroyermnaser: are you suggesting that all of that needs to be underway, if not complete, before a split can happen?15:26
mnaserdtroyer: i think before we talk governance and politics, we should be more concerned with the technical issues, imho.15:26
mnaserthe nova team is welcoming a split of the code into its own repo (as mentioned by melwitt, the ptl)15:27
mnaserand i really don't think it's a simple as it's made out to be15:27
ttxI'm not convinced the technical issue will be solved faster or better, whatever the governance resolution is15:27
dtroyermnaser: even with placement in the nova repo, pretty much everything you mentioned is affected.15:28
ttxplacement team folks will chase down distros as efficiently as placement -in - nova team folks15:28
mnaserttx: correct. but if nova-core will be part of placement, it's the same thing.15:29
dimsfyi, nova team meeting they talked about it today as well -
mnaserand changing leadership/adding a ptl to the equation, in the *middle* of technical extraction, is not a godo time15:29
cdentdims: yeah, that's how this discussion started, by me pointing to that15:29
mnaseryou need some sort of common/shared leadership as it is extracted15:29
dimsack. just catching up :)15:29
ttxmaking the decision dependent on the technical resolution is just a way to punt on the social bit, at the risk of discouraging placement-focused folks15:30
mnaserbecause 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 stalemate15:30
mnaseri'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
zanebI'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 to15:30
mnaserwhich based on how "simple" it is, it might just take a week or two.15:30
edleafezaneb: it's also very offensive that needing a veto is being suggested15:31
mugsiemnaser: 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
edleafeLike the placement people wouldn't want Nova to succeed15:31
fungihow is it any different from nova ptl disagreeing with people working on placement within the nova team?15:31
zanebedleafe: totally agree15:31
mriedemfwiw i agree with everything mnaser is saying, and have said myself several times15:31
dhellmannto 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
mugsiemnaser: and, what if the placement ptl is right about that disagreement?15:32
mriedemthe technical extract is going to be a small nightmare15:32
fungilike, 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
cdentmriedem: I totally agree on that front. The downstream impact is huge, but comprehensible.15:32
cdentI'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
mugsiefungi: 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 it15:34
cdentThe 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
fungimugsie: 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 further15:35
mnasermugsie: 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 hostage15:35
*** Bhujay has quit IRC15:35
mnaserPTL very openly said: let's split out the repo, and see where we go from there.15:35
ttxmriedem: and you think the end of the nightmare part of the extraction is more around start of T than mid-stein, correct?15:36
mnaserin 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 sides15:36
fungias 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 like15:36
mugsiemnaser: sure, but in OpenStack that is not how we aspire to operate15:36
fungisocially that might be awkward15:36
fungibut it's an available process open to them now15:36
dhellmannif we all agree it should be in its own repo, then let's at least get on with *that* change15:37
edleafefungi: yeah, that wouldn't work, because placement contributors are all nova contributors15:37
mnaserdhellmann: yes, 100%.15:37
cdentmnaser: 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 fore15:37
smcginnisThey can also apply for formal recognition now, then work on extraction, right?15:37
edleafedhellmann: it's already underway15:37
*** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc15:37
mriedemso i'm not even caught up here,15:37
dhellmannsmcginnis : it would be easier if there was already a repo15:37
fungiedleafe: i'm a contributor to multiple teams. why is that a problem?15:38
mriedemand it's surprising that when this started about 50 minutes ago,15:38
mriedemthere 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
edleafefungi: because to do a fork as you described would be seen as a hostile action15:38
jrollmriedem: ++15:38
* mnaser doesn't want to be the one behind the mass highlight15:38
fungino more hostile than the accusations of holding efforts hostage within another team15:39
mriedemit's annoying that i have to lurk in the tc channel to make sure there aren't things being said with viewpoints from all sides15:39
cdentI 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 meeting15:39
funginote that i don't believe either of those extremes, just painting the perimeter15:39
mriedemyeah i see where it started15:39
mriedemand i have a reminder for the tc office hours15:39
edleafefungi: ack15:39
mriedemand i'm about 2 hours later for a shower...15:39
ttxthen the tc-office hour started and everyone chimed in15:39
mriedembut seriously,15:39
ttxmriedem: i can tell from here15:39
mriedemlike, maybe ping the nova ptl15:40
* dhellmann did15:40
mriedemwhen you're debating nova dominating everything15:40
melwittI'm listening, but on a call right now15:40
mnaseri feel like melwitt has written a few *very* clear emails on the overall position15:40
mnaserand i suggest going over them as they're pretty clear on why as a ptl, mel feels that this is the best decision15:41
ttxmnaser did mention too15:41
zanebcan 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
mugsiemnaser: as has ttx - the main one about OpenStack culture he replied with ahs not been replied to15:41
mriedemok i got about to the last 15 minutes and had to fast forward15:41
fungii'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 case15:42
dims++ zaneb15:42
ttxIt's also worth noting this is just discussion, as as dhellmann said, there is nothing to vote on15:42
mriedemthat's not what it sounds like,15:42
mriedemwhen there is a lot of like, "T is way too late!"15:42
fungidefinitely debate, not a vote15:42
mnasermriedem: i'd say this is just people voicing their thoughts.15:43
mriedemwhen i feel that's a pretty decent compromise in the face of the technical extract challenge looming before us15:43
dhellmannI 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
mnaseryeah, it's going to be a giant effort15:43
fungialso, "mailing list or it didn't happen"15:43
melwittzaneb: 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 clear15:43
dhellmannand if the people who are involved seem to come to agreement, I'm going to support them.15:43
dimsmelwitt : yes that was clear15:43
zanebmelwitt: yes, I believe that was clear from the mailing list, thank you15:44
dhellmannand 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
cdentif 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 lessened15:46
cdent(that's based on _my_ reading of the meeting logs)15:47
*** efried has joined #openstack-tc15:47
dhellmannyes, a formal timeline seems like a good place to start working out the details15:47
dhellmannwho 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 needed15:48
mriedemprobably won't surprise anyone that i don't think a formal timeline, unless it's a fuzzy Train release, is very helpful15:48
mriedemreminds me of a time in college with a girlfriend talking for hours about what "exactly" was the nature of our relationship15:48
cdentmriedem: formal timeline may be the wrong phrase. More like a commitment of "before T starts for sure"15:48
mriedemmy head nearly exploded15:48
lbragstadis this a timeline for technical things?15:49
*** dangtrinhnt has quit IRC15:49
mnaserif it is, we should involve the ptl.15:49
*** dangtrinhnt has joined #openstack-tc15:49
mnaserbut 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-core15:49
mriedemmy goals, again, would be extract in stein, new core team with nova-core as the seed15:49
mriedemwith a plan to change governance in T15:49
mriedemprior to PTL elections obviously15:50
edleafeCan someone explain to me how placement remaining under Nova governance would make the technical issues of extraction any easier?15:50
mnaserand the S cycle will allow a health transition15:50
mriedemedleafe: it won't, it's to avoid the social distraction at the same time15:50
mriedemwhich this has been all week15:50
mriedemwhen we could be, oh idk, fixing rc3 which is due today15:50
cdentmriedem: you say that, but we got a lot done this week15:50
mriedemor i could be reviewing the reshaper stuf15:50
mriedemcdent: you and i are also putting in long hours this week as a result15:51
edleafemriedem: Umm... if the governance was changed, then that would end the social distraction15:51
*** e0ne has quit IRC15:51
edleafejust in a different way15:51
cdentmriedem: true enough, we are a river to our people15:51
dhellmannmriedem : does "in T" mean in time for T elections? or after the T cycle has actually started?15:51
mriedemgovernance to me means new PTL<15:51
dhellmannoh, nevermind, my client caught up15:51
mriedemso before T elections15:51
mriedemwhich is stein i guess15:51
mriedemend of stein15:51
persiaLikely to be February.15:52
mnaserwhy are we so against making this a two step process15:52
mnaserwe're extracting a very fundamental nova deliverable15:52
mriedemfear that nova will hold hostages forever15:52
mriedemand "dominate" forever15:52
mugsiemnaser: it goes against what we say we do in openstack15:52
ttxmnaser: nobody is really. People are just questioning why the two steps shall be linked15:52
mnasermugsie: how so?15:52
mnaserthe two steps don't have to be linked, but it's easier for the transition to happen under a *single* leadership15:53
mnaserrather than 2.15:53
mugsiewe allow teams to self organise around deliverables15:53
mnasersure, and the nova team can start doing that15:53
mnaserbootstrap openstack/placement with nova-core and some new  placement  cores15:53
mugsieno, in OpenStack, we allow teams to do that.15:53
mugsieand we let them have their own PTL to help guide a project15:54
mugsieotherwise Octavia would still be part of Neutron15:54
mugsieand Designate would have joined Neutron15:54
smcginnisbootstrap openstack/placement with some new  placement  cores and nova-core15:54
mnaseryes. but right now, placement is a nova deliverable.15:54
mnaserwithin nova15:54
mnaserand it would make sense that the team that works on it is involved in splitting it15:55
mnaserand once it's split, we make a governance change and that's it15:55
mugsiemnaser: the point is that we allow teams to decide to go their own way, and splinter deliverables off15:55
mriedemas dansmith has also said many times,15:55
mriedemnova is the only project with major skin in this game right now as a "consumer"15:55
mriedemif something breaks during extract, it's our ass15:55
mriedemno other project is critically dependent on placement15:55
mugsiemriedem: and will continue to be as long as the nova team decides priorities for it15:55
mriedemneutron doesn't require designate or octavia15:55
mnasermugsie: but what you're saying works in theory but would make us a failing community15:56
zanebmriedem: but placement contributors all have plenty of skin in the Nova game too15:56
mriedemmugsie: it's like you're not hearing people saying we want it out, and that's been the plan all along15:56
mriedemzaneb: yes i totally realize15:56
mugsiemriedem: but that has been a long time of "its in the roadmap"15:56
mriedemi assume good faith that cdent, edleafe and efried (among others, including myself) want placement to be a success15:56
mriedemit is?15:57
mriedemwe said in dublin we'd extract in stein15:57
mnaseragain: 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
mriedemwe haven't talked about governance until now15:57
mriedemnot publicly anyway15:57
mriedemmugsie: you seem to know a shit load about how internal nova discussions happen15:57
mriedemw/o actually working on th eproject15:57
mnaserso my very straight forward question to the placement team: do you want to escalate this to the tc?15:57
persiaUm, that could be clearer.15:58
zanebthis is, uh, not going in a helpful direction15:58
mriedemthis is what drives me nuts about the tc15:58
persiaThere's a big difference between "Could the TC please advise on best practices" and "Could the TC please force a governance change".15:58
cdentmriedem: 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 issue15:58
dimsmnaser : mriedem : TC has not yet been asked to do anything (nothing to vote on)15:59
mnaserpersia: i think we've all given plenty of advice and unfortunately i think it has brought more negative than positive :(15:59
mnaserpeople probably don't feel so great at this point over this whole situation15:59
mnaserso we either decide to take action or we can let the team handle it15:59
mnaserrather than going back and forth15:59
persiamnaser: 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 IRC16:00
mnaserpersia: yes, i totally agree with that16:00
cdentas 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
dhellmannnext 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
mnaserdhellmann: i agree on next steps16:01
cdentthey are more important to me, as a representative, than the details of placement's governabce or disposition16:01
*** mdbooth has joined #openstack-tc16:01
* dhellmann has a call16:01
cdentyet, we have spent the entire hour discussing the disposition of placement16:01
ttxoh! I wanted to discuss forum selection committee16:01
ttxwe need 2 tc-members, everyone seems ok to help so we need to choose16:02
ttxcdent dims mugsie mnaser smcginnis ttx zaneb are good candidates because not up for reelection16:02
*** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc16:03
smcginnisList our names, generate two random numbers? :)16:03
cdentI'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 mean16:03
dimsmriedem : 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
EmilienMI'm not up for re-election as well16:03
zanebI 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 do16:03
ttxah hmm16:03
EmilienMand I can help16:03
zanebbut I think we need to have a separate discussion about the cultural concerns that cdent mentions16:04
ttxok, I'll pass, so I can roll the dice twice16:04
ttxany other person that would rather pass now that we have more than enough candidates ?16:04
*** mriedem is now known as mriedem_sudsy16:04
cdentttx: let's take me off the list, apparently I'm going to be busy16:04
zanebttx: I'm happy to pass and leave it to the folks who have volunteered16:05
dimsttx : i won't make it to berlin :(16:05
*** johnthetubaguy has joined #openstack-tc16:07
ttxdims: we have a plan to kidnap you and ship you in a box. Look out for black vans16:07
ttxdims: also, being present in Berlin is not a prerequisite16:08
dimsttx : ack then i can help if there arent enough volunteers :)16:08
dimslol. i'll be in india to meet family. so you have to send them there :)16:09
ttxthey are already there.16:12
EmilienMjust 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
dimsEmilienM : +100016:13
zanebEmilienM: you are awesome, thank you for all your work16:14
fungiEmilienM: i've appreciated your input, hopefully you'll continue to provide it even without being on the tc!16:14
EmilienMthanks for the kind words, despite what people think or say, this is a strong group, we need to keep our efforts going16:15
* ttx hugs EmilienM too16:16
*** harlowja has joined #openstack-tc16:17
EmilienMso much love16:17
* dims schedules some time for a group hug at denver :)16:17
EmilienMwe need more of that16:17
*** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc16:18
*** Bhujay has joined #openstack-tc16:19
smcginnisThanks EmilienM16:22
zanebjbryce: have Airship and StarlingX been officially accepted for incubation?16:23
ttxzaneb: I'm not sure what you call "incubation"... they are pilot projects at this point16:24
*** ricolin has quit IRC16:24
ttxas are Kata Containers and Zuul16:25
ttxalthough zuul should be quickly confirmed once the governance is set up16:26
*** mriedem_sudsy is now known as mriedem16:26
mnaserttx: i think maybe zaneb was wondering if they have been fully 'adopted' as a full-on OSF project16:28
* persia is confused16:29
ttxthen the answer would be "no", although we are still working on what that confirmation process will look like16:29
persiaI 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
ttxpersia: hmm, so far the only thing we operate under is that the Board allowed the staff to pilot projects for a limited time period16:30
mugsiewas there a board meeting I missed? Last I heard the entire thing was in flux :/16:31
ttxand now we need to formalize the process to get to the next stage16:31
ttxmugsie: that was the resolution we got to in .. Dublin iirc16:31
persiaAh, 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 IRC16:32
mugsieyeah, I remember the pilot thing from Sydney - it was the 3 step model I had missed16:33
ttxyes, next stage is to post a strawman proposal, which shoudl happen soon16:33
fungipersia: 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 osf16:33
persiathree-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
ttxmugsie: that's because you don't live in persia's head (which is a good thing)16:33
* mugsie is very glad of that :D16:34
persiafungi: 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
ttxfungi: yes that's the working hypothesis16:34
fungiopenstack is the only representative of its class at the moment16:34
notmynamettx: is there a way to follow any of these discussions?16:34
funginotmyname: yes, dial into or show up for board meetings, read meeting minutes16:35
fungithe only formal discussion happens in the presence (virtual or literal) of a quorum of the board of directors16:35
notmynamefungi: where are the minutes logged?16:35
persiamugsie: 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
funginotmyname: they get linked from the schedule... just a sec16:36
notmynameso 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
dhellmannfungi : I thought there was a subset of the board working on this separately. Maybe I misunderstood something I read.16:38
fungibasically 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 meeting16:38
ttxyes, and that draft is almost ready16:40
persianotmyname: 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 IRC16:40
jbrycenotmyname: 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 email16:41
jbryceThe goal being time got public feedback ahead of the mid September board meeting where it will be discussed formally16:42
*** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc16:42
notmynamejbryce: 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
zanebsorry, yeah incubated was probably the wrong word16:43
zaneblast I heard in Vancouver they were not pilot projects yet16:43
fungizaneb: there aren't necessarily wrong words until the board agrees on what the right words are ;)16:43
zanebbut the board meeting notes indicate that they now are16:44
zaneband I didn't see an announcement16:44
mugsiejbryce: it does seem like something that would be good to have in advance of the PTG for informal feedback gathering16:44
ttxmugsie, notmyname: I hope we can get it posted this week or early next16:44
ttxI'll make sure to point y'all to that -foundation ML thread when it starts, since it's easy to overlook posts there16:46
zanebjbryce: 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
mugsiettx: ++16:46
jbryce(Landing airplane disconnected my wifi)16:50
zanebpersia: the three stages are sandbox/pilot/confirmed where sandbox means totally unofficial but hosted on Winterscale16:50
zanebI should say *proposed* stages16:51
jbrycezaneb: I think we're going to use the foundation mailing list for that going forward16:52
zanebjbryce: OK, that makes sense to me16:53
ttxclarifying which is under what status will be easier once we have those statuses finally defined.16:54
jbryceI know the comms have been a little rough, but some of that has been trying to figure out what channel to use16:54
persiazaneb: Those words map well to my concepts :)16:56
jbryceWe settled on the foundation list though and could use help pointing interested people there16:56
*** annabelleB has quit IRC17:05
*** Bhujay has quit IRC17:08
fungizaneb: i wouldn't consider sandbox a phase necessarily, nor are new projects required to use any of the winterscale infrastructure17:08
fungic.f., kata17:09
zanebfungi: I'm only reporting what the board discussed17:09
funginor are projects who want to use the winterscale infrastructure necessarily expected to ever want to apply to be pilot projects17:10
fungijust wanting to make sure we don't repeat the same "official openstack projects incubate in stackforge" nonsense from years past17:10
fungii 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 orthogonal17:13
zanebyeah, 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, projects17:15
fungihopefully we'll come up with a better name for that17:17
*** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc17:30
persiaDecoupling "sandbox" from "winterscale" is more compatible with my previous understanding :)17:35
*** mriedem is now known as mriedem_away17:36
*** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk17:46
*** tosky has quit IRC17:54
*** ricolin has quit IRC18:07
*** mriedem_away is now known as mriedem18:17
*** annabelleB has quit IRC18:26
*** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc18:28
*** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc18:29
*** gcb_ has quit IRC18:41
*** efried is now known as efried_afk18:43
*** e0ne has quit IRC18:46
*** dangtrinhnt_x has quit IRC18:53
*** cdent has quit IRC19:02
*** gcb_ has joined #openstack-tc19:18
*** jaypipes has quit IRC19:46
*** jaypipes has joined #openstack-tc19:47
tonybdhellmann: 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 one20:26
*** rosmaita has quit IRC21:00
*** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc21:15
*** dklyle has quit IRC21:17
*** mriedem is now known as mriedem_afk21:43
*** zaneb has quit IRC22:48
fungiin 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-posts23:20
fungiat least based on a naive matching of message-id headers23:21
fungimore 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-tc23:29
fungithat's 11% of total messages which were cross-posted (counting the corresponding instances of them on each list)23:30
fungiif you look at it from a unique messages perspective, then 504 of 9588 unique messages (5%) appeared on more than one of those lists23:31
fungistill a fairly significant number23:31
*** jaypipes has quit IRC23:33

Generated by 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!