| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 00:05 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 00:26 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 00:31 | |
| *** tristanC has quit IRC | 00:33 | |
| *** tristanC has joined #openstack-tc | 00:33 | |
| *** Bhujay has joined #openstack-tc | 02:24 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 02:28 | |
| *** Bhujay has quit IRC | 03:03 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 03:08 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:39 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 03:46 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 04:08 | |
| *** ianychoi_ has joined #openstack-tc | 04:15 | |
| *** ianychoi has quit IRC | 04:17 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 04:20 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 04:25 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 04:26 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 04:31 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 04:31 | |
| *** tdasilva has quit IRC | 04:39 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 04:49 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 04:52 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 05:02 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 05:10 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 05:16 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 05:19 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 05:24 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 05:51 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 05:55 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 06:24 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:45 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 08:42 | |
| *** Bhujay has joined #openstack-tc | 09:48 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 09:55 | |
| *** Bhujay has quit IRC | 10:06 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 10:29 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 11:14 | |
| dhellmann | zaneb : should I interpret your CR+1 on https://review.openstack.org/604935 as a roll call vote and approve that change? | 11:25 |
|---|---|---|
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: add Doug Hellmann as chair https://review.openstack.org/606098 | 11:32 |
| *** tdasilva has joined #openstack-tc | 12:34 | |
| *** tosky__ has joined #openstack-tc | 12:37 | |
| *** tosky is now known as Guest8399 | 12:37 | |
| *** tosky__ is now known as tosky | 12:37 | |
| *** Guest8399 has quit IRC | 12:39 | |
| openstackgerrit | Doug Hellmann proposed openstack/governance master: show the modification time of each page individually https://review.openstack.org/607629 | 13:14 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 13:31 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 13:40 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 13:42 | |
| dhellmann | tc-members: I may be late to office hours because I need to go pick up new eye glasses this morning | 13:49 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 13:51 | |
| TheJulia | Speaking of which, I'm in the process of driving to Albuquerque for my wedding next week. So, I'm going to miss office hours today. | 13:54 |
| cdent | \o/ | 13:55 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : that's the best reason anyone has ever given; congrats! | 13:55 |
| TheJulia | <3 | 13:55 |
| cmurphy | wow congrats TheJulia :D | 13:57 |
| ttx | Congrats! | 13:58 |
| * TheJulia realizes she doesn't talk about things going on in her life much, and how maybe that lack of context is sometimes a bad thing | 13:58 | |
| gmann | Congrats! TheJulia | 13:59 |
| TheJulia | Thanks everyone! | 14:01 |
| smcginnis | Congrats TheJulia! | 14:02 |
| *** njohnston has quit IRC | 14:02 | |
| *** njohnston has joined #openstack-tc | 14:03 | |
| fungi | TheJulia: have fun in new mexico! hope everything goes smoothly | 14:04 |
| fungi | dhellmann: all the better to be able to actually read our scrollback upon your return? | 14:04 |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 14:16 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 14:19 | |
| *** tosky__ has joined #openstack-tc | 14:27 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 14:28 | |
| *** tosky__ is now known as tosky | 14:28 | |
| *** Bhujay has joined #openstack-tc | 14:28 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 14:41 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:42 | |
| evrardjp | Congrats TheJulia indeed :) | 14:51 |
| evrardjp | enjoy! | 14:51 |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 14:53 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 14:58 | |
| fungi | tc-members and anyone else, we're already several minutes into our thursday office hour | 15:02 |
| fungi | (my attention is split with the security sig weekly meeting, as usual) | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | o/ | 15:03 |
| ttx | o/ | 15:03 |
| ttx | attention split with another meeting too | 15:03 |
| gmann | o/ | 15:03 |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 15:03 | |
| zaneb | o/ | 15:03 |
| ttx | shall we discuss the future of office hours ? | 15:03 |
| cdent | o/ | 15:04 |
| cdent | I'm beginning to feel like we need some kind of dedicated meeting. I'm not sure why I feel that way, but I guess I do. Structure, I suppose. | 15:05 |
| smcginnis | o/ | 15:05 |
| zaneb | apparently we are also obliged to do that once a quarter | 15:06 |
| smcginnis | Was there also some question of needing a meeting according to the current bylaws? | 15:06 |
| fungi | yes, the bylaws say we meet at least quarterly | 15:07 |
| zaneb | what constitutes a meeting? we have meetings that are quorate, but not minuted, at least once a quarter | 15:07 |
| fungi | one of the things ttx and i have been talking to jbryce about seeing if we can get adjusted in or remove from the foundation bylaws | 15:07 |
| cdent | I guess it largely comes down to what we feel the primary purposes of our role is. If we are mostly doing health checks and coordinating goals, the meeting might not be as important. If we are providing some kind of "active leadership" (whatever that means) it might be something different. | 15:07 |
| devananda | o/ | 15:08 |
| smcginnis | My feeling with the meetings in the past were we were trying to cram too much into the hour, but if we keep a couple office hours and try to continue with discussions outside of the meeting, I think it could now work better. | 15:08 |
| cdent | welcome back devananda | 15:08 |
| fungi | the argument was also made that to meet the legal definition of a governance body in at least some jurisdictions, we need to provide proof that we have regular "meetings" | 15:08 |
| fungi | but i don't know how flexibly that can be interpreted | 15:08 |
| cdent | this time slot certainly feels like a meeting | 15:08 |
| cdent | but one without an agenda | 15:09 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, what constitutes a "meeting" for those purposes? | 15:09 |
| fungi | we don't formally call roll | 15:09 |
| fungi | in our office hours | 15:09 |
| dhellmann | I can't find the reference to where it says that any more, does someone have the section number handy? | 15:09 |
| fungi | though we could change that i guess | 15:09 |
| smcginnis | Do we need to when it's all logged? | 15:09 |
| fungi | dhellmann: appendix 4 subsection 4 | 15:09 |
| dhellmann | ah, here it is https://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/ | 15:09 |
| dhellmann | yeah | 15:09 |
| gmann | and how we are consuming/scheduling the required discussion from any one from non-tc ? in office hours only ? | 15:09 |
| zaneb | we certainly have meetings at the PTG and Forum that are publicly-advertised and quorate, but there's no records to really prove it | 15:10 |
| fungi | gmann: our primary means of discussing things is asynchronously through the openstack-dev mailing list | 15:10 |
| jbryce | meetings don't have to be in real life to be a "meeting" | 15:10 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I think up until this cycle it hasn't been an issue because we did meet at events roughly quarterly | 15:11 |
| jbryce | and a meetbot log would be enough record keeping | 15:11 |
| fungi | zaneb: also with the ptg and forum now happening the same week, we would have trouble calling that quarterly | 15:11 |
| zaneb | jbryce: yeah, I think the question is more around what degree of formality do we need to prove that the meeting happened and who was present | 15:11 |
| dhellmann | so now that the event schedule is changing, we may need to do something a bit more formal than office hours | 15:11 |
| zaneb | whether physically or virtually | 15:11 |
| smcginnis | jbryce: Is there something different about a meetbot log vs just having the IRC channel logged? | 15:11 |
| dhellmann | prior to the ptgs we met weekly and used meetbot and no one complained | 15:12 |
| smcginnis | flaper87 did. :) | 15:12 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : the scheduling and announcement of an agenda | 15:12 |
| jbryce | well...a meeting technically is supposed to have a start and end time that would be noted by the meeting being called to order and dismissed (which you kind of get automatically with meetbot) | 15:12 |
| dhellmann | yes, well, no one complained about us not meeting (no pun) the bylaws requirements | 15:12 |
| dhellmann | yeah, so we don't use meetbot for office hours or the channel, so we'll need to start doing something scheduled | 15:13 |
| fungi | dhellmann: could also argue we didn't formally take roll at our claimed in-person meetings at the forum and ptg either | 15:13 |
| dhellmann | doing it quarterly just to meet the requirements feels like it goes against the spirit of the thing | 15:13 |
| jbryce | you wouldn't have to use meetbot i was just looking for a shortcut | 15:13 |
| dhellmann | fungi : sure | 15:13 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 15:13 | |
| fungi | dhellmann: well, we _do_ use meetbot for our office hours, we just don't have it produce specific meeting minutes. it still logs everything we say in channel | 15:13 |
| dhellmann | ok | 15:14 |
| dhellmann | we don't mark the start time and end time, which was my point | 15:14 |
| devananda | fungi: fwiw, my comment the other day about meetings was in reference to / recollection of a time when our irc meetings did have a roll call, clear start and end times, scheduled agenda, etc. | 15:14 |
| devananda | the TC used to meet all of the requirements for such regular meetings a governing body should hold, as I understand them | 15:15 |
| gmann | we can do that in office hour too. i do for qa office hour with start/end meeting for history ref | 15:15 |
| dhellmann | yes, we tried that a few times last term | 15:15 |
| fungi | dhellmann: one of us usually says office hours are starting, and says office hours have concluded. we don't use machine-parseable tags for those necessarily | 15:15 |
| smcginnis | "one of us" usually being fungi | 15:16 |
| dhellmann | fungi : are you arguing that we're already doing enough here? | 15:16 |
| fungi | dhellmann: i'm arguing that we *may* already meet the stated requirement, but it's worth deeper investigation | 15:16 |
| devananda | fungi: it appears that the tc no longer generates a record of the occurrence of the meeting. there's no separate log, and no meeting minutes. | 15:17 |
| njohnston | If I may share a perspective from outside the TC, I had a concern that I wanted to bring up for an interactive discussion with the TC yesterday. I noticed that according to eavesdrop.o.o the last time the TC office hours were recorded was on Jul 4 2018, so I thought the office hours might be derelict and I decided to just raise my issue in this channel yesterday. Was that an acceptable mode for engagement? | 15:17 |
| dhellmann | ok, well, I think we're not meeting it and that it would be relatively easy to be sure by doing slightly more than we're doing now | 15:17 |
| fungi | devananda: correct | 15:17 |
| smcginnis | njohnston: Definitely. | 15:17 |
| dhellmann | njohnston : yes | 15:17 |
| smcginnis | Part of not having the set meeting was to encourage discussions to happen whenever they needed to. | 15:17 |
| dhellmann | njohnston : office hours are just meant to ensure there's a known time when at least some members try to be present; it's not the only time that's true and it's not the only time or way to raise questions | 15:18 |
| fungi | njohnston: yes, we decided for a brief while to try treating office hours like meetings from the perspective of meetbot metadata tagging, but concluded nobody was reading them and after nobody objected to our proposal to stop doing that, we ceased again | 15:18 |
| evrardjp | smcginnis: let's keep that | 15:18 |
| evrardjp | :) | 15:18 |
| njohnston | oh good, thanks | 15:18 |
| fungi | yes, people had a tendency to save up important discussions until the scheduled meeting, which meant we only made progress on certain issues one hour out of the week, and all tried to talk over each other to be heard | 15:19 |
| evrardjp | I wouldn't mind a startmeeting/endmeeting during office hours | 15:19 |
| fungi | evrardjp: we did that for a few months | 15:19 |
| evrardjp | I saw that on this log :p | 15:19 |
| jbryce | i think you could make a case for office hours achieving a defensible minimum currently, and i think that with a couple of additional steps (clearly stating the start and end, maybe making the records more easily discoverable) it could clearly be achieving all meeting requirements | 15:19 |
| dhellmann | the purpose of a meeting and office hours are different, so I don't think we want to overload office hours | 15:20 |
| evrardjp | I just meant I am fine with taking this back if it's a requirement | 15:20 |
| devananda | fungi, dhellman: though, since this seems to be, at least partially, about the legal requirements, let me ask: does that apply to the TC? Or does it only apply to the BoD? | 15:20 |
| fungi | officially calling a hard stop to the official log of the office hour also discouraged continued discussion, which we saw as a net negative | 15:20 |
| dhellmann | devananda : at the bottom of https://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/ it says the TC meets quarterly | 15:20 |
| devananda | dhellmann: gotcha. so this is about meeting that requirement | 15:20 |
| dhellmann | right | 15:20 |
| smcginnis | I suppose if we need to, designating one of the office hours as a "meeting" would work, but I would still like to see other office hours kept around. | 15:21 |
| smcginnis | I would just hate to go back to discouraging non-timeslotted discussions. | 15:21 |
| devananda | having lurked in here for the last few weeks, I would say the office hours do not meet the legal reqiurements for a meeting of a governing body, as I understand them | 15:21 |
| evrardjp | so the real question is should we have an extra timeslot for a quarterly meeting or not? | 15:21 |
| dhellmann | I like the free-wheeling aspect of office hours, and don't think we need to meet formally every week (though more than quarterly would be good) so I propose we schedule a monthly meeting with a formal agenda, attendance, etc. and keep the weekly office hours. | 15:21 |
| evrardjp | I am okay with this dhellmann . It seems fair | 15:22 |
| smcginnis | That's another option. Keep office hours as is and add a quarterly meeting" | 15:22 |
| gmann | and that meeting is more for TC members to discuss the plan/progress of what TC should do. and all other regular discussion which need TC feedback is at anytime on ML. is it my understanding correct. ? | 15:22 |
| persia | Also, in practice, only one of the three "office hours" is widely used. There are discussions in the other two, but usually short ones (and the 01:00 UTC one is often especially quiet) | 15:22 |
| dhellmann | we could choose to use one of the office hour slots each month as that meeting, or we could pick a different time | 15:22 |
| cdent | dhellmann++ | 15:22 |
| dhellmann | gmann : it's for whatever we put on the agenda, but that's likely to be what we would do, yes | 15:22 |
| devananda | ++ to monthly official meetings | 15:22 |
| gmann | k | 15:23 |
| persia | +1 on rotating over existing office hour slots for official monthly meetings | 15:23 |
| fungi | i think as long as we make sure whatever we do doesn't cause people to save up discussion for the scheduled meeting, doesn't require them to know what they need to talk about days in advance, and doesn't discourage continued discussion after some predetermined time limit, i'm good with having a "meeting" | 15:23 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yes, I think if we focus on status updates and reviewing our backlog we can probably accomplish that | 15:23 |
| dhellmann | the alternative is to try to have the bylaws changed to remove that requirement | 15:23 |
| persia | fungi: For something on a monthly cadence, I think expecting folk to know what they need to talk about days in advance is a positive thing, so long as the other informal discussion mechanisms continue. There are some topics that are best discussed informed. | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | does someone want to pursue that? | 15:24 |
| fungi | so treat normal office hours as the time for community input and ad-hoc topics, and make meetings more of a standing review without additional agenda items | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | fungi : I'm not sure about 'without additional agenda items' but yeah | 15:24 |
| persia | I'd hope that meetings could also allow for submitted agenda items where there was general consensus from office hours that it needed dedicated discussion. | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | for example, if we were going to have a meeting this week I would put an item on the agenda to talk about the vice chair role | 15:25 |
| fungi | additional agenda items should be discussed in irc during office hours or on the mailing list and governance reviews, in my opinion | 15:25 |
| * smcginnis was waiting for this to end to bring that up. | 15:25 | |
| persia | I think requiring all potential agenda items first be reviewed in office hours is sensible, but not everything is amenable to casual discussion. | 15:25 |
| dhellmann | we might emphasize "internal" issues for the agenda to avoid waiting to have other discussions that need to happen in a more timely manner | 15:25 |
| fungi | if we let people schedule ad hoc (non-recurring) topics during the formal meeting, then they'll have a tendency to save up discussion which could instead happen sooner | 15:25 |
| persia | fungi: That works for me, so long as the result of that discussion might include "this needs to be formally added to the agenda" | 15:25 |
| ttx | monthly or every two weeks? | 15:26 |
| dhellmann | and if we were not going to meet for 3+ weeks from now we would sort out the vice chair thing and then report on it at the meeting | 15:26 |
| persia | ttx: Monthly, I think. Two weeks is often enough people might not use the informal mechanisms. | 15:26 |
| smcginnis | I would say monthly or quarterly, not bi-weekly. Unless we find these are useful and there is a need for more frequent official meetings. | 15:26 |
| dhellmann | ttx: do you have a strong preference for meeting more often than monthly? | 15:27 |
| evrardjp | smcginnis: +1 | 15:27 |
| fungi | i'd much prefer that if we have an official "meeting" to meet the requirements set forth in the bylaws, we restrict it to some recurring set of topics (such as backlog review or health checks or whatever) and stick to that | 15:27 |
| evrardjp | fungi: +1 | 15:27 |
| fungi | "interesting" discussions ought to be avoided in those meetings | 15:27 |
| dhellmann | I don't like arbitrary restrictions. | 15:27 |
| smcginnis | fungi: That may be a good way to discourage them being seen as the only time someone from the community can approach the TC on something. +1 | 15:28 |
| dhellmann | I'm certainly in favor of not encouraging those discussions, but I wouldn't want to make that a "rule" | 15:28 |
| smcginnis | But "internal" business focused at least. | 15:28 |
| fungi | i would like them to be seen as not at all the way someone from the community should even consider approaching the tc with useful topics of discussion | 15:28 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: I am not sure there is restriction here: recurring set of topic can have a "news" item in the agenda :p | 15:28 |
| evrardjp | or "reporting from x" | 15:28 |
| ttx | dhellmann: was thinking about the biweekly communications sync, but we could handle that using a separate async machanism | 15:29 |
| fungi | no matter how much we might discourage people saving up discussion for the formal meeting, there will be an interest in doing that to make it seem like a more formal treatment of the topic | 15:29 |
| evrardjp | not sure if my intent is clear there. | 15:29 |
| dhellmann | fungi : how about if the process for adding things to the agenda includes the chair/vice chair and those people are tasked with ensuring that doesn't happen | 15:29 |
| persia | fungi: Would "additional agenda items at the discretion of the TC chair" be sufficient limit for you? Do we trust the chair to say "no" most of the time? | 15:30 |
| fungi | dhellmann: sure, curation of the agenda is one way to go about that | 15:30 |
| ttx | we could also do ad-hoc. You pile up topics until you have enough for a formal meeting | 15:30 |
| * persia defers to dhellmann who seems to be thinking all the same things and writing them better | 15:30 | |
| smcginnis | "Curation" works for me. | 15:30 |
| dims_ | o/ | 15:30 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I like that | 15:30 |
| fungi | i feel like piling up topics for discussion was a bad idea | 15:30 |
| * dims_ reads back scroll | 15:30 | |
| persia | I worry that there might not be enougbh items within 13 weeks, which could be bad. | 15:31 |
| ttx | dhellmann: Sometimes we'll need an urgent discussion, and "next meeting is in 3 weeks" worries me | 15:31 |
| fungi | and one of the reasons getting rid of the regular meetings was an miprovement | 15:31 |
| dhellmann | ttx: do you have an example of something that was that urgent? | 15:32 |
| fungi | i think we've done a good job of asynchronous and more inclusive discussion since dropping the formal meetings | 15:32 |
| devananda | suggestion for some topics: chair presents reports on overall organization things, like contributor engagement, contributor diversity, health of our infrastructure. things we would normally be talking about but not necessarily at that level, that would benefit from increased visibility. | 15:32 |
| dhellmann | s/chair/someone/ | 15:32 |
| devananda | use the official meeting not as a discussion forum, but as a status check the big things and, potentially, draw attention. (yes, I'm assuming others will read them) | 15:33 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: you're not getting out of it that easy ;) | 15:33 |
| dhellmann | do we want to replace an office hour with this, or do we want to schedule a different time? | 15:33 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : I am *aggressively* lazy. | 15:33 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I guess we can use channel in case we need a discussion today | 15:34 |
| dhellmann | like maybe the 1st thursday office hour of each month? | 15:34 |
| smcginnis | We can either designate one office hour a month as the meeting, or have an additional timeslot. | 15:34 |
| smcginnis | dhellmann: That sounds good to me. | 15:34 |
| dims_ | i like that dhellmann | 15:34 |
| evrardjp | I'd rather keep dhellmann 's proposition than opening a new slot. | 15:35 |
| ttx | That definitely soudns like the most attended hour | 15:35 |
| smcginnis | It's already the most well attended time. | 15:35 |
| dims_ | right | 15:35 |
| dhellmann | ok | 15:35 |
| ttx | jinx | 15:35 |
| devananda | dhellmann: ++ 1st thursday | 15:35 |
| smcginnis | ttx: ;) | 15:35 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : watch this | 15:35 |
| dhellmann | who wants to write up this rule change for our charter? | 15:35 |
| dims_ | dhellmann i can :) | 15:35 |
| gmann | its mid night for me :) but should be ok if that is most suitable time for most | 15:35 |
| dhellmann | we could also talk about moving this slot a little earlier | 15:36 |
| dims_ | gmann : we said thu, we can still pick a time | 15:36 |
| smcginnis | Can we ship some coffee to gmann? | 15:36 |
| gmann | ok | 15:36 |
| gmann | smcginnis: :) | 15:36 |
| smcginnis | Earlier would be OK for me too, especially if it makes it easier for others. | 15:36 |
| dims_ | charter does not specify time i presume :) | 15:37 |
| evrardjp | should we organise a framadate for finding the best timeslot? | 15:37 |
| dhellmann | what would 2 hrs earlier be like? the DST change is coming up, isn't it? | 15:37 |
| evrardjp | framdate/doodle | 15:37 |
| zaneb | earlier would be fine for me, but I'm not sure about TheJulia or anybody else who lives further west of here | 15:37 |
| dhellmann | hmm, yes | 15:38 |
| dhellmann | perhaps before we have a patch to the charter we should have a ML conversation | 15:38 |
| evrardjp | sounds good, we'll have TheJulia 's feedback that way. | 15:38 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:39 |
| dims_ | +2 | 15:39 |
| dhellmann | ok, I will start that | 15:39 |
| dhellmann | does anyone have anything else to say about meetings? | 15:39 |
| devananda | I suggest not putting the meeting time or day of the month in the charter update | 15:40 |
| dhellmann | yeah, that will just go to the eavesdrop site | 15:40 |
| devananda | ++ | 15:40 |
| dims_ | right devananda | 15:40 |
| evrardjp | agreed once again | 15:40 |
| dhellmann | I have some vacation coming up, and I would like to have someone installed as vice chair before that happens. That means we need to at least approve someone tentatively soon so the comment period can happen | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | that period is 4 days after we reach majority voting, so we need enough votes on the appointment by 9 Oct | 15:43 |
| dhellmann | I know some folks have expressed interest in rotating in different ways | 15:43 |
| fungi | do you have any volunteers yet? | 15:44 |
| smcginnis | I'm fine continuing with the current patch for vice chair, but there was some idea brought up of having a rotation that I think is worth discussing. | 15:44 |
| dhellmann | I'd be happy to give someone else an opportunity at it, and I asked mnaser again because he really only got a 1/2 term last time | 15:44 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yes, mnaser : https://review.openstack.org/607616 | 15:44 |
| fungi | aha, mnaser volunteered again. thanks mnaser! | 15:44 |
| smcginnis | It would be a great way to expose more folks to the work needed there so we build up experience. | 15:44 |
| fungi | yep, just found that | 15:44 |
| dhellmann | how often do folks think we should rotate that position? | 15:44 |
| smcginnis | It's also good training to be ready to step into the chair role if/when we want that to change or when the current chair moves on. | 15:45 |
| dhellmann | ++ | 15:45 |
| ttx | the more people can apply the approval rules the better I'd say | 15:45 |
| fungi | i think, like the chair, we shouldn't have a formal rule about rotating. if there are multiple volunteers then let the chair pick or propose all the volunteers and let the rest of the tc vote | 15:45 |
| smcginnis | I think ideally it would be twice yearly, and probably from the group of elected TC members opposite of the chair's term so if the chair were not to continue, there's someone with experience with current activities that could step into the role. | 15:46 |
| mnaser | i haven't had to do "vice chair" duties much, i did have to get comfortable with all the tooling and all the details of how things get added | 15:46 |
| dhellmann | now that I've done it once, I intend to spend some time writing down some of the responsibilities | 15:47 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 15:47 | |
| mnaser | i don't want to feel like i'm holding the position away from others should they want to go at it, but it's more of a housekeeping role | 15:47 |
| dhellmann | probably not in as much details as I did for the release team, but at least trying to avoid some of the surprises | 15:47 |
| zaneb | I think the answer will depend on whether we see it as a (potentially long-running) role in itself (like the chair); as the chair-in-waiting; or as just a thing that as many people as possible should have a turn at | 15:48 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : so for "twice yearly" I think that means someone would not serve consecutive terms? | 15:48 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : I do not see it as "chair in waiting" per se, but do see it as a chance at learning about the chair role | 15:49 |
| mnaser | also: i think that not everyone has the time of day to fulfill the roles and duties of a chair (there is a lot) | 15:49 |
| dhellmann | yeah, it's a bit more than I anticipated, frankly | 15:49 |
| dhellmann | at least at times | 15:50 |
| mnaser | forcing a rotation means we might have people avoiding being on the tc because they don't want to end up being signed up for it | 15:50 |
| mnaser | you need to work/report with the board, run the meetings at the ptg, oversee everything | 15:50 |
| mnaser | i'm actaully happy that doug has the time to actually do it, because it's a lot of work once i started seeing some visiblity to what it involves | 15:50 |
| smcginnis | I would prefer it not being consecutive I think, but if it ends up someone is that interested to continue and no one else is stepping up, then I would not want to explicitly deny the possiblity of doing that. | 15:50 |
| fungi | from the perspective of the current charter, the vice-chair is simply a delegate of the chair so has no actual authority once the chair who appointed them is replaced, right? | 15:51 |
| smcginnis | mnaser: We're just talking about the vice chair role right now. | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | there's no particular reason we couldn't have more folks doing some of the things the vice chair role is described as doing, too. for example, ttx brought up patch approval. we could have a few folks doing that as a subcommittee | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yeah, the idea was that we would confirm the chair and vice chair each term | 15:52 |
| fungi | in that case, formally baking in rules about rotating the vice-chair role seems unnecessary | 15:52 |
| dhellmann | the main thing I'm concerned about ensuring we have exactly 1 person clearly designated to do is interact with the board in the absence of the chair | 15:52 |
| dhellmann | I've been trying to include mnaser in communications with alan and jbryce, for example (there haven't been a lot of cases; the recent election results was one example and that went to the whole tc list) | 15:53 |
| mnaser | i feel it's a bit of a conflict of interest for me to talk about this given i'm the one being put on there | 15:53 |
| dhellmann | coordinating the agenda for the joint leadership meeting is probably the other main example of where that would be important | 15:54 |
| smcginnis | I think that's OK. This would only impact future direction I think mnaser. | 15:54 |
| mnaser | but it's probably more on the side of communication and housekeeping, and not necessarily representing the tc on the board (for the most part, the tc members are all present there anyways) | 15:54 |
| dhellmann | if I end up not making it to berlin, I would expect the vice chair to step in for that meeting | 15:55 |
| *** Bhujay has quit IRC | 15:55 | |
| dhellmann | how do you all feel about the idea of a review subcommittee? | 15:57 |
| fungi | seems reasonable to me | 15:57 |
| dhellmann | does anyone want to volunteer for that? | 15:57 |
| ttx | I still have the powers so I can be on that subcommittee | 15:57 |
| mnaser | i think maybe we need to poll the tc to ask if someone wants to run for tc chair | 15:57 |
| mnaser | if someone has an interest, then we can look at the vice chair => chair "ramp up" | 15:57 |
| fungi | basically acting as the secretary role for acknowledging measures which met the rules defined for approval. doesn't specifically need to be the chair doing that | 15:58 |
| dhellmann | sure, if folks are interested in volunteering to be vice chair, contact me privately | 15:58 |
| ttx | well, someone has to be on point for doing it. Does not have to be the chair but someone needs to be signed up on a given week | 15:59 |
| dhellmann | fungi : right. we may need to amend our charter to say that we're delegating that responsibility; I don't remember if we formally documented that only the chair has such permission now or if we just left it to gerrit | 15:59 |
| fungi | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#motions | 16:00 |
| mnaser | by the way, on a *super* side note | 16:00 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I think we left the workflow details out of that | 16:00 |
| mnaser | there has been talks about cncf kubecon and the high rejection rates.. with some interesting ideas and discussions on dealing with CFPs | 16:01 |
| ttx | In other news.... hogepodge is working on a bi-weekly community bulletin that we could use to communicate important news about OpenStack (security advisories, major feature landed, threads requiring wide input...) that would be interesting to our community in a large sense | 16:01 |
| mnaser | it is a good discussion to read and maybe gather some ideas from | 16:01 |
| mnaser | https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/topic/thoughts_on_kubecon/26721236?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fsticky,,,20,2,0,26721236 | 16:01 |
| mnaser | i suggest taking sometime to read through it, it's really interesting, talks about minimizing the number of vendors and presents a few interesting arguments | 16:01 |
| ttx | We the TC would be involved in providing relevant snippets of information to be communicated through that newsletter | 16:01 |
| hogepodge | I'm in another community meeting right now, but am happy to take questions for later. | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | that's good news, thanks for picking up this work hogepodge | 16:02 |
| ttx | I think it will complement our other initiatives (including reuniting the ML as a single discuss list) pretty well | 16:02 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : thanks for that link | 16:02 |
| fungi | dhellmann: i don't see any obvious duties of the chair outlined in our charter aside from making sure meetings are held, communicating decisions taken to the bod/community, and receiving nominations for extra-atcs | 16:02 |
| ttx | We have been missing that "first-level" communication medium that would reach a larger public than the operators ML | 16:03 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yeah, this is one of those cases where a lot of info is stuck in ttx's head still :-) | 16:03 |
| mnaser | ttx: i agree | 16:03 |
| dhellmann | ttx, hogepodge : are you thinking email newsletter, blog, or something else? | 16:03 |
| mnaser | but i worry that there will be a lot of noise (i.e. someone who might be on openstack-operators just gets too tired of the emails on openstack-discuss) | 16:04 |
| fungi | what do we think about having hogepodge's openstack project community bulletin posted to the openstack-announce ml? | 16:04 |
| mnaser | but that's a whole another subject | 16:04 |
| smcginnis | Are we still going to have a separate -announce list? | 16:04 |
| fungi | yes | 16:04 |
| dhellmann | the announce list feels like a potentially good place for it | 16:04 |
| fungi | the -announce mailing list is supposed to be the very-low-volume list used for project-wide announcements and news | 16:05 |
| smcginnis | Based on the description of the planned content, that would sound appropriate. | 16:05 |
| cdent | based on experience with the tc report and the pupdates: posting both to a blog like thing and to an email list is productive | 16:05 |
| cdent | "community news" seems like a good thing for -announce | 16:05 |
| dhellmann | yeah, that's true, too | 16:05 |
| dhellmann | it's possible to have a blog feed into a mailing list, too | 16:06 |
| fungi | we don't explicitly call it out in the list description, but that's easily edited | 16:06 |
| fungi | "OpenStack-announce -- Key announcements about OpenStack & Security advisories" http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-announce | 16:06 |
| dhellmann | I was mostly curious about what was already planned, rather than trying to change those plans | 16:06 |
| ttx | dhellmann: Idea was more email | 16:06 |
| ttx | Also it will cover more than OpenStack, all OSF projects. | 16:06 |
| dhellmann | ah | 16:06 |
| dhellmann | so openstack-announce might not be the best place for it; it might be a new thing | 16:07 |
| fungi | ahh, if it's an osf-wide newsletter, that seems like less appropriate for the openstack-announce ml | 16:07 |
| ttx | hogepodge was planning to post it on the foundation ML | 16:07 |
| * zaneb sheepishly subscribes to openstack-announce | 16:07 | |
| ttx | I see it more as a steppign stone to the next level of engagement which is joining the ML and participating to discussions | 16:07 |
| smcginnis | I still think that openstack-announce might be a decent place for that. It's probably a good way to help people focused on OpenStack to be aware of other things happening within the foundation. | 16:07 |
| cmurphy | cdent: btw whenever you say pupdates I like to imagine you mean puppy related updates | 16:08 |
| fungi | but yes, the openstack-foundation ml is similarly low-volume and makes sense | 16:08 |
| smcginnis | Same | 16:08 |
| cdent | cmurphy: I think there is a tie in to jaypipes' pugs | 16:08 |
| fungi | er, i guess it's just foundation@lists.openstack.org | 16:08 |
| ttx | yeah, the fact that it covers more should not prevent it to be relevant | 16:08 |
| gmann | have we finalized to combine the openstack-tc ML also into openstack-discuss right? i see most of us agreed with dhellmann on that - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-September/134924.html | 16:08 |
| dhellmann | gmann : good question; I see 5 responses from current TC members on that thread | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | oops, 7, sorry | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | didn't read all the way to the bottom of the list | 16:10 |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 16:10 | |
| dhellmann | ok, yeah, and it looks like all of them were in favor | 16:11 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: I think I said it was a good idea in this chan -- but I can formalise this with an email. | 16:11 |
| dhellmann | evrardjp : sure, that would be a good idea | 16:11 |
| dhellmann | fungi : I think we have enough feedback to consider that an official "yes" to including the -tc list | 16:12 |
| dhellmann | we seem to be drifting away, and it's lunch time here, so I'm going to find some food | 16:13 |
| dhellmann | thanks, everyone | 16:13 |
| * cdent floats away into the sky | 16:13 | |
| * gmann going to bed. say bye to everyone | 16:14 | |
| evrardjp | gmann: bye! | 16:14 |
| fungi | dhellmann: cool, i don't think we need any separate action to move away from using the tc list other than to just close down that list and tell people to use the -discuss ml? | 16:14 |
| dhellmann | gmann : thanks for staying online late tonight :-) | 16:14 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yes, I agree | 16:14 |
| dhellmann | when the time comes I should make sure to mention it to Alan | 16:15 |
| fungi | same for the interop-wg ml hogepodge mentioned earlier | 16:15 |
| zaneb | ttx, cdent: question about the cloud vision: should we consider horizon out of scope for the doc, or should we add a GUI as an explicit design goal? | 16:15 |
| fungi | basically once the -discuss ml is open for posting in another month and change, we can feel free to shut down the -tc ml | 16:16 |
| dims_ | good night gmann | 16:16 |
| cdent | zaneb: that's a good question. as I understand the gui is important for actual humans | 16:16 |
| zaneb | yeah, I started off thinking just ignore it because it's not a cloud service, but now I'm leaning toward adding it as a goal | 16:18 |
| clarkb | it is still the best way to bootstrap networking on many clouds | 16:18 |
| ttx | zaneb: there are two way to look at it | 16:18 |
| ttx | zaneb: you can see it as a way to consume the "product", a bit like openstackSDK | 16:18 |
| ttx | zaneb: or you can see it as another service that cloud deployers have to deploy | 16:18 |
| zaneb | yeah, exactly. it's a bit of an edge case | 16:19 |
| ttx | From a "who makes the decision to install it" view (which is how the map is segmented) it belongs to the main box | 16:19 |
| ttx | The same person who decides to deploy Magnum decides to deploy Horizon basically | 16:19 |
| cdent | zaneb: if you're looking for a way to keep what you're writing fairly constrained and focused I don't think it is strictly necessary | 16:20 |
| ttx | but i can totally see the limits of that way of looking at it. | 16:20 |
| ttx | Basically the end user does not choose and deploy Horizon. It's part of the services you provide. | 16:23 |
| ttx | zaneb: so in that sense I would include it. | 16:23 |
| * ttx plants one stick in the ground and waits for the Gods challenge | 16:24 | |
| zaneb | anyone wanna be the tiebreaker? | 16:25 |
| cdent | my statement wasn't supposed to be a stick in the ground, more of a "this might help you decided, depending on what you want to write". | 16:26 |
| cdent | so tie already broken, i'd say | 16:26 |
| evrardjp | ttx: due to your statement I don't want to challenge this. But I clearly don't agree | 16:26 |
| evrardjp | but I am not sure it matters. | 16:27 |
| cdent | evrardjp: got more detail on your thoughts on that? | 16:28 |
| zaneb | the context here is that I'm trying to write an explanation to every team of how the cloud vision affects them, and it felt awkward to explain to Horizon that we didn't have anything to say about clouds needing a GUI | 16:31 |
| evrardjp | clients are clients, whether it's a CLI or a webinterface | 16:32 |
| evrardjp | clients are important | 16:32 |
| evrardjp | it's the interface with the user :) | 16:32 |
| evrardjp | if the so named vision affects CLI, then horizon should probably be part of the affected. | 16:33 |
| evrardjp | but I will fade into the background there, and see the outcome of the conversation | 16:34 |
| zaneb | evrardjp: it doesn't; we said that the scope of the vision is services and we're not going to say anything about clients | 16:34 |
| *** Bhujay has joined #openstack-tc | 16:34 | |
| ttx | but Horizon is a service providing a client :P | 16:34 |
| evrardjp | ttx: I see what you did there ;) | 16:35 |
| zaneb | hence the problem :) | 16:35 |
| zaneb | so is Heat, incidentally | 16:35 |
| cdent | hmm, heat feels different to me | 16:36 |
| evrardjp | zaneb: harder limitation there. Heat itself has its own API and server side things happening. | 16:36 |
| ttx | cdent: it's the lack of JavaScript | 16:36 |
| evrardjp | IMO, as user | 16:36 |
| evrardjp | ttx: hahah want to talk about different language support now? | 16:37 |
| zaneb | yeah, it was fairly straightforward to classify Heat as a service, but then again I'm biased | 16:37 |
| evrardjp | zaneb: let me ask a question (coming from an ignorant) -- why (and how) does this matter if heat is on one side of the fence or not? | 16:38 |
| * cdent remains confused about heat would ever be on the non-service side | 16:39 | |
| evrardjp | I don't feel this is bad or good -- there was a line that said "this is this country" "this is a foreign country", but at the end people will just cross the border should they need it? | 16:39 |
| zaneb | cdent: arguably it's a just a user interface to OpenStack | 16:39 |
| zaneb | "just" | 16:39 |
| cdent | huh. I think of it a orchestration definition actionater | 16:40 |
| zaneb | evrardjp: that's a fair question. I think the answer is that having it in scope for the vision obliges other projects to think about how they integrate with it to produce a cloud as a whole | 16:41 |
| zaneb | whereas clients job is just to talk to the service | 16:41 |
| zaneb | and again, Horizon straddles the line | 16:42 |
| cdent | zaneb: in that case I would include horizon, because it helps to define an important constraint on the apis that services produce: need to be consumable by horizon/gui/javascript | 16:42 |
| zaneb | ok, I think we're all leaning in the same direction then :) | 16:44 |
| evrardjp | One thing I learned with people coming to OSA for deploying their cloud is that there is no "cloud as a whole". Many do it differently. Forcing to produce a "whole" seems a very nice thought exercise, but I am not sure it will bring lots to the end-user. I'd rather embrace consumption of projects as standalones, and let the "integration" to an integration vendor. | 16:45 |
| cdent | evrardjp: that's the root of the discussion | 16:46 |
| evrardjp | I mean with this: We already have this, right? Swift can be standalone or integrate with keystone. I don't see a problem with that. | 16:46 |
| evrardjp | Swift is a part of openstack, because it's a project part of it :) | 16:46 |
| cdent | one posisible outcome of zaneb's doc is that someone chooses to write the alternate/counter vision that basically describes what you are saying | 16:47 |
| evrardjp | but there are clouds with swift, and clouds without ... | 16:47 |
| zaneb | evrardjp: the problem comes when things *don't* integrate and can *only* be used standalone | 16:47 |
| zaneb | evrardjp: right, we're not saying that every cloud must include every service. we're saying you must be able to build a cloud out of the parts | 16:48 |
| evrardjp | zaneb: in that case it would still be an openstack one if it's hosted by openstack -- but would you have considered it as part of (what is now defunct) refstack? | 16:48 |
| evrardjp | I think OpenStack defines itself through its usage, which comes from API. But that's my personal view. | 16:49 |
| zaneb | evrardjp: have you read https://www.zerobanana.com/archive/2018/07/17#openstack-layer-model-limitations ? | 16:50 |
| evrardjp | But sorry for that, I didn't want to derail this conversation. | 16:50 |
| evrardjp | zaneb: opening it right now :) | 16:50 |
| cdent | I don't think that was derailing, I think it is an important aspect of the discussion | 16:50 |
| zaneb | +1, the whole point of the exercise is to have these conversations and learn from them | 16:51 |
| zaneb | and then also write down what we learned so we don't have to have them again :) | 16:51 |
| * cdent admires and appreciates zaneb's optimism | 16:52 | |
| zaneb | lol | 16:52 |
| zaneb | I mean, things will change and we'll have to talk about that | 16:53 |
| zaneb | but if you don't document anything then you get to talk about *everything* again whenever something changes | 16:53 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 16:55 | |
| cdent | sure, I was being silly/snarky with regard to the fact that people often don't read | 16:57 |
| evrardjp | cdent: I learned that I needed optimism to work in IT. Apparently zaneb did too :D | 16:57 |
| evrardjp | cdent: haha :) | 16:57 |
| cdent | I'm frequently confused about the differnence between hopeful and optimistic and which I am | 16:57 |
| zaneb | optimism = a belief that the world is optimal | 16:58 |
| zaneb | although ~nobody uses it that way | 16:58 |
| evrardjp | they are synonyms according to google translate and this is good enough for me ;p | 16:58 |
| cdent | wow. yeah, in that case, /me not optimistic | 16:58 |
| evrardjp | zaneb: wouldn't that be idealist? | 16:59 |
| evrardjp | no nevermind. I will find the word. | 16:59 |
| cdent | leibniz has some 'splaining to do | 17:00 |
| zaneb | evrardjp: idealism = a belief that the world does not exist except in our minds | 17:00 |
| fungi | evrardjp: why do you say refstack is defunct? | 17:00 |
| *** Bhujay has quit IRC | 17:01 | |
| evrardjp | fungi: I thought it was renamed interop? | 17:02 |
| evrardjp | my bad | 17:02 |
| fungi | no renaming went on anywhere | 17:02 |
| evrardjp | haha just my tired brain then. | 17:02 |
| fungi | refstack is a tool used for testing deployments to see whether they conform to specifications written by the interop working group qualifying them for use of openstack trademarks | 17:03 |
| evrardjp | please accept my apologies | 17:03 |
| fungi | there was up until recently a refstack team in openstack focused on developing the tool, but once it reached feature completeness by their determination they dissolved the team | 17:04 |
| evrardjp | oh that's my confusion | 17:04 |
| evrardjp | thanks for clarifying. | 17:04 |
| fungi | and the ownership of the codebase was transferred to the control of the interop working group which is the body also responsible for the test specifications | 17:04 |
| fungi | so i can see where some confusion may arise, but refstack as a tool is certainly not defunct nor is the interoperability testing and compliance effort | 17:05 |
| evrardjp | so for me interop working group is holding the definition of "openstack" -- and that's fine for me. | 17:05 |
| fungi | the interop wg is specifically fulfilling the osf board's half of the mandate to determine which deployments qualify for use of openstack trademarks | 17:06 |
| evrardjp | fungi: mea maxima culpa for unclarity -- words matter. | 17:06 |
| scas | as undocumented as it is, chef openstack maintains several reference deployment types for 'openstack', the outcome/product | 17:06 |
| fungi | the openstack tc also has a hand in that, in that it gets to define which services are able to be considered required for those trademarks, and the manner in which they are present ("designated sections" of source code which must be used to be able to say you're actually providing the service rather than merely a similar-acting api) | 17:08 |
| evrardjp | scas: has it prevented you to do anything to have something branded as "openstack" or "not openstack"? For OSA it hasn't... | 17:08 |
| evrardjp | (I am just curious) | 17:08 |
| evrardjp | providing the tools for the deployers to have what they want, and that's what I cared. If I needed to install x or y that's not openstack to get there, we were doing it | 17:09 |
| evrardjp | Please note I am notably bad at english when it's becoming late. If I start speaking another language that's normal, do not worry. | 17:09 |
| evrardjp | I still hope my point was understood :) | 17:10 |
| fungi | evrardjp: no need to apologize for your degree of fluency, i think you're doing fine | 17:10 |
| evrardjp | s/understood/understandable/ | 17:10 |
| evrardjp | it's because it's only 7PM:D | 17:10 |
| notmyname | if you're not listening to the foundation banding survey call right now, you definitely should before you make a call on the "technical vision" for the TC | 17:18 |
| notmyname | I'm just jbryce will be able to provide links to the recording | 17:18 |
| notmyname | s/just/sure/ | 17:18 |
| notmyname | (not sure what my fingers were doing there) | 17:18 |
| dhellmann | notmyname : thanks for the pointer | 17:18 |
| * dhellmann will have to wait for the recording, unfortunately | 17:19 | |
| scas | evrardjp: not really. like osa, it's largely determined based on need | 17:20 |
| evrardjp | notmyname: thanks that would be instructive. | 17:22 |
| cdent | notmyname: ugh. if you're able to make a you're own personal report of it, I would _very_ much appreciate it | 17:24 |
| notmyname | cdent: there's a lot to take in, but the last ~10 minutes or so is a reasonably good summary and recommendations section. (well, still going on now for Q/A) | 17:25 |
| notmyname | it's only about 30-40 minutes for the presentation overall. my summary is that it's probably worth it to watch the recording | 17:26 |
| notmyname | cdent: or rather, I certainly haven't digested it enough to give a reasonable general-purpose summary :-) | 17:26 |
| cdent | notmyname: i didn't necessarily mean right now, just at some point a text-based and very subjective interpretation would be great | 17:27 |
| cdent | video/audio is a horrible medium for me, which is why I tend to not attend these meetings | 17:27 |
| fungi | i hope there will also be a copy of the report produced for community consumption | 17:28 |
| fungi | or at least a summary of the report | 17:29 |
| cdent | ++ | 17:30 |
| notmyname | "the recording and slides will be shared afterwards." | 17:30 |
| *** Bhujay has joined #openstack-tc | 17:30 | |
| notmyname | not sure about the full survey results and data | 17:30 |
| cdent | notmyname: was there a specific thing that made you say "[...] make a call on the "technical vision" for the TC" | 17:34 |
| notmyname | cdent: good question. yes. one of the focus areas for the survey was to test perceptions of mission statements of the foundation and explore the perceived benefits of an open source foundation | 17:36 |
| notmyname | those are two separate things, but findings from both (IMO) should inform how the TC presents a "technical vision" to the community and what it should be focused on | 17:36 |
| notmyname | for example, today's discussion in here mentioned zaneb's current statement more focused on openstack as a whole but others are wondering how composable projects should be within it. the survey results just presented showed some strong (but not exclusive) preference for a foundation's role being to curate projects and provide clarity | 17:38 |
| notmyname | today's conversation in here and the survey findings in that regard seem related in my mind | 17:39 |
| notmyname | for a hot-take, perhaps questions around if horizon, openstacksdk, and swift are "in" or "out" (because of who deploys it or if it's a "service" or not or "integrated" or not) don't actually matter nearly as much when most people look in from the outside with the question of "what's the best way to do 'cloud' to help be get stuff done?" | 17:42 |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 17:44 | |
| notmyname | I think that last statement may be poorly phrased (see "hot take"), but we're only one vote in what openstack is. those who consume it, those who read about it, and even those who compete against it, get a vote too | 17:44 |
| notmyname | ...and the survey results presented are a view in to what those on the outside of our community are saying about what/who we are | 17:45 |
| fungi | dims_: congrats on your election to the kubernetes sc! this is great for building community bridges | 17:52 |
| zaneb | notmyname: to be clear, the discussion wasn't whether horizon was in or out of OpenStack, but whether we should talk about it in the document | 17:59 |
| cdent | notmyname: thank you, that's helpful (got pulled away for a moment there). I think the vision thing has many purposes. I think it's role for openstack developers is much different from the role for users or deployers or contributing companies | 18:00 |
| dims_ | Thanks fungi | 18:00 |
| smcginnis | I had the branding meeting on my calendar but failed to set a reminder and completely forgot about it. Guess I'll have to watch the recording. | 18:01 |
| smcginnis | Thanks for the thoughts on it notmyname. | 18:01 |
| zaneb | where did y'all hear about this meeting? I cannot find a reference to it anywhere | 18:09 |
| smcginnis | zaneb: I think I found out about it from here - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/2018-September/000446.html | 18:11 |
| smcginnis | #TooManyMailingLists | 18:12 |
| zaneb | speaking of combining the lists, why do we need a foundation list and a foundation-board list? | 18:14 |
| zaneb | given that the foundation list is 100% about board-level stuff | 18:14 |
| clarkb | zaneb: one is for public communication and the other is private among board members iirc | 18:15 |
| clarkb | never having been a board member I don't know if that is accurate or if still used in that way | 18:15 |
| zaneb | clarkb: no, AIUI there is a third, private list for that | 18:16 |
| clarkb | ah | 18:16 |
| zaneb | foundation-board archives are public: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation-board/ | 18:16 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, these two are public I think. | 18:16 |
| cdent | yes, I somehow managed to get quoted to the private board list once upon a time | 18:17 |
| cdent | I can't remember the circumstances now | 18:17 |
| * cdent looks back at all that water under the bridge | 18:17 | |
| zaneb | cdent: you must have been very naughty ;) | 18:17 |
| *** Bhujay has quit IRC | 18:20 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 18:26 | |
| fungi | it *used* to be that there was one board ml and it was private (not counting the foundation ml), and one of the board transparency committee outcomes was that they added a public board list where all board-level communication should happen excepting that which needs to be kept private. the result though was that a lot of stuff which doesn't need to be private ends up on the private one anyway so we | 18:29 |
| fungi | never see it, and the public one could probably have been collapsed into the foundation ml | 18:29 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:31 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 18:33 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 18:33 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 18:34 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 18:39 | |
| scas | determining whether a project is 'in' or 'out' is subjective. from a steward of a deploy project, i'd have a certain opinion of services' necessity for providing a stable, repeatable outcome based on the feedback i've received from those downstream that consume the output. history has told me that most don't talk about things when times are good. either it works or it doesn't, and i tend to hear about | 18:49 |
| scas | it most when it doesn't | 18:49 |
| scas | if i picked on a specific service with history, swift, in six development cycles, i've had exactly one person mention anything about it. that was last week | 18:54 |
| scas | prior to that, it hadn't been mentioned since early 2014 or so | 18:56 |
| smcginnis | No news is good news. Most of the time. | 18:56 |
| scas | sometimes | 18:56 |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 19:15 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 19:23 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 19:24 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 19:48 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 19:52 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 19:54 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 20:08 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:14 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 20:24 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 20:25 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 20:30 | |
| *** devananda has quit IRC | 20:38 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 20:42 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 20:43 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| zaneb | no project is getting kicked out | 21:05 |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| notmyname | zaneb: sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you (or anyone else) said that in the context of the tc vision statement | 21:06 |
| *** devananda has joined #openstack-tc | 21:25 | |
| fungi | likely of interest to many, upcoming conference call presenting the strategic focus area and pilot project governance lifecycle: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-October/135441.html | 21:32 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:05 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 22:17 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 22:18 | |
| devananda | fungi: thanks. pointer appreciated. | 22:19 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:22 | |
| dims_ | fungi : thanks! | 22:28 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 22:31 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:48 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 23:04 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 23:17 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:24 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 23:38 | |
| *** edleafe has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 23:43 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:49 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 23:50 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!