| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 00:02 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 00:11 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 00:19 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 00:22 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 00:27 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 00:45 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 01:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 01:16 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 02:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 02:16 | |
| * ricolin just finish his coffee and the reading to grandpa mordred' | 02:36 | |
| ricolin | 's story :D | 02:36 |
|---|---|---|
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 03:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 03:16 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc | 04:09 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jay Bryant proposed openstack/governance master: Analysis of 2019 User Survey Feedback https://review.opendev.org/698582 | 04:09 |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 04:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 04:16 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 05:11 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 05:35 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 05:35 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 05:38 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 06:51 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 06:52 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 06:52 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 07:19 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 07:44 | |
| *** iurygregory has joined #openstack-tc | 07:56 | |
| evrardjp | never heard of burrow before | 08:06 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 08:17 | |
| *** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau | 08:46 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 08:55 | |
| *** njohnston has quit IRC | 09:07 | |
| *** mwhahaha has quit IRC | 09:07 | |
| *** gagehugo has quit IRC | 09:07 | |
| *** dhellmann has quit IRC | 09:08 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 09:16 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 09:25 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 09:29 | |
| evrardjp | tc-members: is there someone that wants to lead the meeting today? | 09:29 |
| tosky | not sure whether to report this, but while trying to work on the PTL doc goal, I noticed a few things that could get a fix: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/711407/ | 09:33 |
| *** njohnston has joined #openstack-tc | 09:43 | |
| *** mwhahaha has joined #openstack-tc | 09:43 | |
| *** gagehugo has joined #openstack-tc | 09:43 | |
| *** dhellmann has joined #openstack-tc | 09:43 | |
| *** openstackstatus has quit IRC | 09:45 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 09:45 | |
| ricolin | evrardjp, I can help if you're not available | 10:10 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:45 | |
| evrardjp | I am available, I just want to introduce a rotation, as I did it last time | 10:48 |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 11:18 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|bbl | 11:27 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 12:03 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 12:06 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 12:18 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 12:30 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 12:34 | |
| evrardjp | tc-members: meeting in an hour | 13:02 |
| evrardjp | mmm I might need ntp, as it seems my computer is lagging 3 minutes behind :p | 13:02 |
| smcginnis | evrardjp: https://docs.openstack.org/install-guide/environment-ntp-controller.html | 13:07 |
| smcginnis | :P | 13:07 |
| evrardjp | yeah chrony is da best! | 13:08 |
| evrardjp | thanks for the instructions, but it doesn't apply for my distro ! :p | 13:08 |
| evrardjp | with only ttx in the absent ppl in the meeting, that's gonna be a meeting with tons of folks! | 13:09 |
| smcginnis | There's SUSE instructions. What else would a SUSE employee be running? | 13:09 |
| * evrardjp hides | 13:09 | |
| smcginnis | :) | 13:09 |
| evrardjp | my opensuse/SLE machines have ntp. | 13:09 |
| evrardjp | wow I am stupid, I should totally have said that I didn't see SUSE instructions. | 13:10 |
| smcginnis | Hah! | 13:10 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance-sigs master: Clarify scope to explain ownership of openstack ns in galaxy https://review.opendev.org/710045 | 13:10 |
| openstackgerrit | Rico Lin proposed openstack/governance master: Update example for zuulv3 goal https://review.opendev.org/711453 | 13:18 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 13:20 | |
| mnaser | I’m not going to be able to make it to today. I apologize in advance. | 13:30 |
| smcginnis | Hey, maybe there shouldn't be a meeting and knowledge sharing and discussions can just happen async on the ML. | 13:33 |
| smcginnis | :P | 13:33 |
| evrardjp | smcginnis: technically this is just an official report from tc members, it's not really a meeting , like a meeting | 13:36 |
| evrardjp | we chat about interesting things during office hours! | 13:37 |
| smcginnis | You know what's great for reporting things? The ML. | 13:37 |
| evrardjp | exactly! | 13:37 |
| smcginnis | https://tenor.com/4xEO.gif | 13:37 |
| evrardjp | most of my links are basically pointing to ML or reviews | 13:37 |
| evrardjp | haha | 13:38 |
| fungi | when we stopped having meetings, some folks who don't follow ml posts said they missed the tc meeting minutes because that's how they kept up with what the tc was doing | 13:38 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 13:38 | |
| evrardjp | which is exactly why I am doing those meetings | 13:38 |
| fungi | which is why when we reintroduced meetings we said they're just be a recap of what we've been discussing in more appropriate places, yeah | 13:38 |
| evrardjp | there are meeting minutes pointing to nice links | 13:38 |
| smcginnis | "#startmeeting #link [link to report on ml] #endmeeting" | 13:39 |
| smcginnis | OK, I'll shut up now. :) | 13:39 |
| evrardjp | though I would say that there are things we should also _start_ by grouping folks together | 13:39 |
| ricolin | I take meeting as a nice way to push thing forward:) | 13:39 |
| gmann | o/ | 13:39 |
| evrardjp | and I would say that we haven't been the best at that | 13:39 |
| fungi | well, to be fair, the main reason we reinstated meetings was that at the time the osf bylaws required the tc "meet" with greater frequency than our in-person events sometimes allowed | 13:39 |
| evrardjp | smcginnis: imagine if those links would be prepared in the agenda, that would be like... Just a copy and paste in an email without official meeting | 13:40 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 13:40 | |
| fungi | (that has since been relaxed with the last update to the bylaws at least) | 13:40 |
| evrardjp | fungi: Oh I thought this was still there | 13:40 |
| evrardjp | yay, let's stop those meetings! | 13:40 |
| evrardjp | ricolin: I take our meetings as a nice way to remember folks to push things forward, but I would also say that 1 time per month is sadly not enough for that. | 13:41 |
| *** cgoncalves has quit IRC | 13:41 | |
| evrardjp | though there are some updates that are hanging for 3 months. | 13:41 |
| evrardjp | meh | 13:41 |
| evrardjp | I am trying to do my best | 13:41 |
| evrardjp | and hello gmann :) | 13:42 |
| gmann | morning :) | 13:42 |
| fungi | evrardjp: it now says "4. Meetings of Technical Committee. The Technical Committee shall meet at least twice per calendar year." https://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/ | 13:42 |
| evrardjp | smcginnis: you don't need to shut up, you're right in this case :) | 13:42 |
| evrardjp | but yeah, please ! :p | 13:42 |
| fungi | (since that last rewrite) | 13:42 |
| evrardjp | fungi: oh good, I don't know why I remembered only the old ways | 13:43 |
| gmann | twice in a month ? | 13:43 |
| evrardjp | gmann: too move things forward that would do, but I am not sure we'll get that much attention from tc members. I like the informal office hours to push things through | 13:43 |
| evrardjp | fungi: too bad we didn't remove a mention of a frequency at all | 13:44 |
| gmann | office hour are not much success for pushing things for any reason | 13:44 |
| gmann | but meeting can also be :) | 13:45 |
| evrardjp | I don't expect any other format of meeting could change that | 13:45 |
| *** cgoncalves has joined #openstack-tc | 13:45 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 13:45 | |
| evrardjp | haha | 13:45 |
| evrardjp | yeah | 13:45 |
| *** rpittau|bbl is now known as rpittau | 13:45 | |
| evrardjp | tbh I tried to wrap my head around our meetings to see if there is something to change to increase our productivity. And I don't think there is a silver bullet. | 13:46 |
| gmann | my best take is to have a time deadline for items (at least for priority one), we do within or before xyz time else drop. | 13:46 |
| evrardjp | some cases we might want to have ad-hoc meetings, and some cases we should just deal with the ML | 13:46 |
| evrardjp | gmann: yeah that's valid | 13:47 |
| evrardjp | but I think at some point we'll drop everything. because E_NOTIME | 13:47 |
| gmann | that means we do not need those things to be done then :) | 13:48 |
| gmann | those or all :) | 13:49 |
| evrardjp | or that we need but can't insure we'll do them on time, which basically limits us on only non-risky topics | 13:49 |
| evrardjp | but that's maybe me having wishful thinking that we'll do non-risky topics anyway | 13:50 |
| evrardjp | haha | 13:50 |
| evrardjp | I also have the impression that setting deadlines will trigger a question of whether the deadline is relevant, and bikeshedding over dates :/ | 13:51 |
| evrardjp | all of this could be fine on some topics | 13:51 |
| evrardjp | less fine on others | 13:51 |
| gmann | deadline as per topic/assignee/cycle priority etc. | 13:52 |
| ricolin | check points before deadline is helpful (IMO) | 13:52 |
| evrardjp | what I thought would be a community driven roadmap, which basically means a time based backlog | 13:53 |
| ricolin | *are | 13:53 |
| evrardjp | but I got many ppl concerned about this approach | 13:53 |
| evrardjp | heard* | 13:53 |
| gmann | at least when we start new cycle, we can say we are going to try these new things and check possibility of their doable from what we left form previous cycle work. | 13:53 |
| gmann | if pending items go to backlogs and if anyone pick those or show interest then we can say 'are you sure, you can finish this within this timeframe because it was a unfinished items for xyz reason ' | 13:54 |
| fungi | evrardjp: we discussed removing the meeting frequency from the bylaws, but legal counsel weighed in that doing so may not meet the requirements (in delaware, where the osf is officially filed as a foundation) for a governing body | 13:55 |
| fungi | basically if it's not required to meet in some fashion with some defined minimum frequency (probably at least annually) it could be claimed that it doesn't really assemble as a "body" | 13:56 |
| fungi | without some required regular assembly, you can't know when it's ceased to exist | 13:57 |
| fungi | so we kept in a minimum which shouldn't be hard to satisfy | 13:58 |
| evrardjp | but isn't the foundation taking care of that? I mean I am not sure this can be applied to the TC directly, but I am not a lawyer ofc | 13:58 |
| fungi | it's about the tc specifically | 13:58 |
| fungi | because the tc is defined as a governing body in the bylaws | 13:59 |
| evrardjp | I see | 13:59 |
| fungi | though similar requirements would apply to the board and the uc for the same reason | 13:59 |
| evrardjp | let's get the ball rolling! | 14:00 |
| evrardjp | #startmeeting tc | 14:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Mar 5 14:00:08 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is evrardjp. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:00 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 14:00 |
| evrardjp | #topic rollcall | 14:00 |
| njohnston | o/ | 14:00 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | o/ | 14:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "rollcall (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:00 | |
| evrardjp | o/ | 14:00 |
| evrardjp | that makes us 3, mnaser and ttx won't be there | 14:00 |
| evrardjp | 8 missing. | 14:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 14:00 |
| ricolin | o/ | 14:00 |
| evrardjp | two more for quorum | 14:01 |
| evrardjp | jroll: asettle jungleboyj cloudnull maybe? | 14:01 |
| asettle | o/ hallo | 14:01 |
| evrardjp | woot! | 14:01 |
| evrardjp | one more, one more! | 14:02 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 14:02 |
| evrardjp | wooot! | 14:02 |
| jungleboyj | I am here. :-) | 14:02 |
| evrardjp | we can go ahead | 14:02 |
| evrardjp | #topic a little message from evrardjp | 14:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "a little message from evrardjp (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:02 | |
| evrardjp | as this might be my last meeting as TC chair, I would like to say a few words before starting our official meeting... | 14:02 |
| evrardjp | it's been a pleasure working with all of you. we had a good team! Thank you for your support and your leadership. | 14:02 |
| evrardjp | I would like to highlight that some of us were more discreet than others. Those shouldn't hesitate to share their opinions, or propose new topics that motivate them! at the opposite, those who are more vocal (like me or mnaser) should always remember to let the opportunity for the less vocal ones to speak. | 14:03 |
| ricolin | https://gph.is/1rKtPXj | 14:03 |
| evrardjp | ricolin: haha :) | 14:03 |
| evrardjp | It would be nice if we could all reflect on what was achieved this last 6 months, and think about how we can improve further forward. | 14:03 |
| evrardjp | We should discuss this in our next real life event, or, if the next event is cancelled, do it in a side meeting. | 14:03 |
| evrardjp | I don't want to leave the TC with the skeletons in the closet, or the elephant(s) in the room, whatever applies in your language :) | 14:04 |
| evrardjp | So, I propose we discuss all the big things like glance cli or nova ptl after this official meeting, in the office hours. | 14:04 |
| njohnston | +1 | 14:04 |
| evrardjp | I am glad we introduced the ideas concept, and I am glad a few ideas were already proposed. Thanks zaneb for example. | 14:04 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 14:04 |
| evrardjp | Let's leverage this framework for ambitious changes that might not fit into a simple change in the governance repo. | 14:04 |
| evrardjp | last, I want to especially thank gmann, who has done a tremendous work on the difficult community goals. | 14:04 |
| evrardjp | now, let's get the ball rolling by reporting what happened last month. | 14:04 |
| evrardjp | #topic Report on tc/uc merge | 14:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Report on tc/uc merge (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:05 | |
| evrardjp | there is nothing to report, everything is on the ML | 14:05 |
| evrardjp | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012806.html | 14:05 |
| evrardjp | #topic report on survey analysis: jungleboyj | 14:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "report on survey analysis: jungleboyj (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:05 | |
| evrardjp | I saw this was updated today/yesterday, is there anything else to say than checking the review? | 14:05 |
| evrardjp | #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/698582/ | 14:05 |
| jungleboyj | No, I don't think so other than if people want to provide other thoughts on the % participation. | 14:06 |
| gmann | I think UC meeting to discuss the same is after half an hour if I remember | 14:06 |
| evrardjp | good feedback gmann | 14:06 |
| gmann | oh, for uc/tc merge things not survey | 14:06 |
| jungleboyj | Sorry I didn't get an update in sooner. Month went quickly. | 14:07 |
| njohnston | I joined the UC meeting that just happened BTW, they have clarified what responsibilities they have. I think the two main remaining points are agreeing on a mechanism for the join and how to make operators/users feel represented. | 14:07 |
| evrardjp | oh I thought you meant they analysed the results too :p | 14:07 |
| evrardjp | njohnston: can this be done on the MLs? | 14:07 |
| evrardjp | jungleboyj: no worries :) | 14:07 |
| njohnston | evrardjp: Yep, I just wanted to note it. | 14:07 |
| cloudnull | o/ | 14:07 |
| evrardjp | ok cool | 14:07 |
| * cloudnull late to the party | 14:08 | |
| jungleboyj | Rather than making a statement about being concerned about the amount of participation thought it would just be good to note that I would like to see what the trend is. | 14:08 |
| evrardjp | jungleboyj: I think that was the point of doing the exercise to its fullest, and re-iterate the experience in 2020 | 14:08 |
| ricolin | jungleboyj, I think the latest patch set provide great information already | 14:09 |
| evrardjp | but it's indeed worth noting in the review | 14:09 |
| evrardjp | or in another one | 14:09 |
| evrardjp | I will keep that in mind when reviewing | 14:09 |
| evrardjp | anything else? | 14:09 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:09 | |
| jungleboyj | Ok. Everyone take a look. I will prioritize responding so we can get it merged. | 14:09 |
| evrardjp | :D | 14:09 |
| jungleboyj | Thank you to aprice for getting me the data I needed. | 14:09 |
| evrardjp | thank you for handling that new kind of effort jungleboyj! | 14:10 |
| jungleboyj | No problem. | 14:10 |
| evrardjp | establishing long term trends is good to have data about our community :) | 14:10 |
| evrardjp | until we have other tools to do that ofc :) | 14:10 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 14:11 |
| evrardjp | s/until we have/in addition to the future/ | 14:11 |
| evrardjp | ok moving on | 14:11 |
| evrardjp | #topic telemetry | 14:11 |
| evrardjp | nothing to report | 14:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "telemetry (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:11 | |
| evrardjp | #topic stable branch policy | 14:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "stable branch policy (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:11 | |
| jroll | \o sorry I'm late, got distracted by a baby :) | 14:11 |
| evrardjp | #action mnaser still write the summary of what's going on in terms of stable branch policy | 14:12 |
| evrardjp | jroll: no worries :) | 14:12 |
| evrardjp | #topic report on goal contribution guide: diablo_rojo | 14:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "report on goal contribution guide: diablo_rojo (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:12 | |
| evrardjp | diablo_rojo: is the situation clear nowadays? | 14:12 |
| ricolin | diablo_rojo_phon, | 14:12 |
| evrardjp | should I say "state" instead of "situation" ? | 14:12 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | Yes I would say so | 14:12 |
| evrardjp | ok | 14:13 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | A consensus has been reaches | 14:13 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | Reached | 14:13 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | And I updated the ML yesterday | 14:13 |
| evrardjp | cool, then I guess people can just comment on reviews and start helping on the goal then | 14:13 |
| evrardjp | oh awesome | 14:13 |
| tosky | I... sent an small update for cookiecutter | 14:13 |
| tosky | just formatting | 14:13 |
| evrardjp | tosky: I saw that, thanks! | 14:13 |
| tosky | just in case: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/711407/ | 14:13 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | tosky: I saw that this morning, will review today :) | 14:13 |
| *** witek has joined #openstack-tc | 14:14 | |
| evrardjp | ok let's move on | 14:14 |
| evrardjp | #topic report on other community goals: gmann njohnston ricolin | 14:14 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "report on other community goals: gmann njohnston ricolin (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:14 | |
| gmann | U goals: | 14:14 |
| gmann | 1. py2 drop I will cover later | 14:14 |
| gmann | 2. contributor guide: | 14:14 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo_phon sent the updates on ML | 14:14 |
| gmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-March/013003.html | 14:15 |
| gmann | goal doc update patch is also merged | 14:15 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | Coolio. Full steam ahead then. | 14:15 |
| gmann | we need to merge the tosky fix also#link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/711407/ | 14:15 |
| tosky | there is also a fix from zaneb | 14:15 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 14:15 | |
| evrardjp | tosky: indeed | 14:16 |
| gmann | ok, we have separate core on that repo so we need to ping them to get them merge soon | 14:16 |
| gmann | V cycle goal: | 14:16 |
| evrardjp | you should review the jinja to see if I am not too rusty in my comments btw | 14:16 |
| gmann | ML: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012866.html | 14:16 |
| evrardjp | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012866.html | 14:16 |
| gmann | zuulv3 goal is selected for V and grenade base job are in good shape and close to merge | 14:17 |
| gmann | thanks tosky again for working hard on those | 14:17 |
| evrardjp | that's awesome | 14:17 |
| tosky | yep, I need a few final fixes | 14:17 |
| gmann | njohnston sent the request for V cycle goal proposal to a few individuals also. | 14:17 |
| gmann | I replied on OSC thread also if anyone interesting to drive the OSC as a community goal or pop-up team. | 14:17 |
| gmann | but no new proposal or volunteer | 14:17 |
| njohnston | Yes, so far the main thing that has come up has been the OSC matter that we'll discuss later | 14:17 |
| evrardjp | if we do this, we really need to pay attention to not fail like last time :p | 14:17 |
| gmann | yeah, key things is we need more than one volunteer for this and it can be multi cycle goal | 14:18 |
| gmann | other idea is - njohnston and I are going to check the backlogs and start pushing on ML for a volunteer to drive those. | 14:18 |
| gmann | Any feedback/ideas are welcome here. | 14:18 |
| evrardjp | and that all projects help, some shouldn't say "no to this" | 14:18 |
| evrardjp | gmann: sadly I don't have another idea than this | 14:19 |
| * gmann wait for tc members to take one of the goal :) | 14:19 | |
| evrardjp | except if you have someone in your company or a tc member that can take those | 14:19 |
| * evrardjp sees what gmann has done there ;) | 14:19 | |
| gmann | yeah project motivation is much required as this is for their user benefits | 14:19 |
| gmann | py2 drop: | 14:20 |
| ricolin | I think we can start a ML for OSC and ask if anyone not in favor of that one and also ask for volunteers too | 14:20 |
| gmann | Latest Updates on ML: #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-March/012953.html | 14:20 |
| gmann | Few tempest plugins are failing and fixes are in progress. I started doing updates required on deployment projects. | 14:20 |
| gmann | phase-2 should be finished by now but it is not. Let's see how fast we can complete that and start phase-3 which is audit and requirement drop py2. | 14:20 |
| gmann | Not so much failure nowadays, which shows we might have fixed the big issues and going towards stabilizing this migration. | 14:21 |
| gmann | I will continue working on this on priority and try to finish as soon as possible. | 14:21 |
| gmann | that's all from my side, any question/feedback? | 14:21 |
| evrardjp | I have no question, that's crystal clear | 14:22 |
| ricolin | gmann, all grenade issue with py2 drop fixed, right? | 14:22 |
| gmann | yeah. | 14:22 |
| gmann | zuulv3 jobs for grenade are also very close to nerge | 14:22 |
| gmann | merge | 14:22 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: Thanks for all the work there. | 14:23 |
| ricolin | From a project team point of view, it will definitely helpful if other teams can help to collect examples together and provide some brief about what this patch is special about. | 14:23 |
| ricolin | like `how other teams migrate grenade to v3` | 14:24 |
| gmann | ricolin: +1. | 14:24 |
| gmann | once it is ready, tosky or i can add | 14:24 |
| ricolin | Also most of zuul v3 patches didn't follow the goal defined Garrit topic | 14:24 |
| ricolin | Are we still plan to use that? | 14:25 |
| tosky | there were no many patches so far after the goal was merged | 14:25 |
| ricolin | tosky, totally agree | 14:25 |
| tosky | and I changed the topic of the patches that I uploaded after the goal was merged | 14:25 |
| gmann | yeah, now onwards or when tosky start the goal then we can ask them to use | 14:25 |
| ricolin | that's why I think collect patch from team might works too:) | 14:26 |
| ricolin | gmann, +1 | 14:26 |
| evrardjp | anything else ricolin gmann or tosky? | 14:26 |
| ricolin | nope:) | 14:27 |
| gmann | nothing from my side | 14:27 |
| evrardjp | ok let's move on then | 14:27 |
| evrardjp | #topic report on release naming | 14:27 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "report on release naming (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:27 | |
| evrardjp | I think we are all good now, is there anything else to report or do mugsie/smcginnis? | 14:27 |
| jungleboyj | Yay for Wallaby! | 14:28 |
| mugsie | we are good afaik | 14:28 |
| jungleboyj | It comes with a cute built-in mascot. :-) | 14:28 |
| evrardjp | :) | 14:28 |
| evrardjp | ok | 14:28 |
| evrardjp | #topic report on the ideas repo | 14:28 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "report on the ideas repo (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:28 | |
| evrardjp | this is started. thanks to those putting ideas there, like zaneb or hberaud | 14:28 |
| evrardjp | I have a few ones pending, but I am waiting for the nova conversation to be distilled, because it was kinda linked | 14:29 |
| evrardjp | anyway | 14:29 |
| ricolin | Teapot in review | 14:29 |
| evrardjp | indeed | 14:29 |
| smcginnis | Sorry - nope, we are all good on release naming. | 14:29 |
| evrardjp | if you haven't read it, you should | 14:29 |
| smcginnis | I think it went well. Thanks everyone. | 14:29 |
| evrardjp | smcginnis: thank you for handling this | 14:29 |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis: ++ | 14:29 |
| evrardjp | ok next topic | 14:30 |
| gmann | just updates from nova meeting. eric message: "A couple of folks have talked to me privately about taking over the PTL role. But nothing has solidified as yet." | 14:30 |
| evrardjp | #topic report on volunteers to represent OpenStack at the OpenDev advisory board | 14:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "report on volunteers to represent OpenStack at the OpenDev advisory board (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:30 | |
| ricolin | are we plan to start X release naming shortly? | 14:30 |
| smcginnis | No problem. Pretty easy now. | 14:30 |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis: Did you get any feedback from the community? | 14:30 |
| smcginnis | Surprisingly no. | 14:30 |
| evrardjp | apparently I went too fast | 14:30 |
| jungleboyj | Ok. Guess that is good. | 14:30 |
| jungleboyj | evrardjp: Sorry, I was too slow in thinking. | 14:30 |
| jungleboyj | We can move on. | 14:30 |
| smcginnis | evrardjp: Nothing to see here, move along. :) | 14:30 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 14:30 |
| evrardjp | I guess the question of ricolin could deserve some answering though :p | 14:31 |
| evrardjp | but that can be done later if necessary | 14:31 |
| jungleboyj | https://gph.is/2a6mXOM | 14:31 |
| evrardjp | ok so...! | 14:31 |
| ricolin | just curious:) | 14:31 |
| evrardjp | #topic report on volunteers to represent OpenStack at the OpenDev advisory board | 14:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "report on volunteers to represent OpenStack at the OpenDev advisory board (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:31 | |
| evrardjp | nothing to report, we'll wait for the creation of the advisory board first :p | 14:31 |
| evrardjp | #topic report on OSF board initiatives | 14:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "report on OSF board initiatives (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:32 | |
| evrardjp | nothing to report on my side, mnaser had a last minute thing which prevent him to be in this meeting, so maybe he can report next time if there is something to report | 14:32 |
| evrardjp | #action mnaser (if anything to report), report on OSF board initiatives | 14:32 |
| evrardjp | I guess we now https://gph.is/2a6mXOM | 14:33 |
| evrardjp | (thanks for the gif jungleboyj :p ) | 14:33 |
| evrardjp | #topic report on dropping projects | 14:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "report on dropping projects (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:33 | |
| evrardjp | #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/707421/ | 14:33 |
| evrardjp | this merged, so nothing to report. We only have to apply now. | 14:33 |
| evrardjp | #topic elections | 14:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "elections (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:33 | |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 14:34 |
| evrardjp | #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/708470/ | 14:34 |
| evrardjp | with this merge, I guess the only thing to report is that we'll have elections soon, and therefore tc elections soon. | 14:34 |
| ricolin | also we should encourage people to join that election too | 14:34 |
| jungleboyj | ricolin: ++ | 14:34 |
| evrardjp | FYI I won't apply to be chair next time | 14:34 |
| gmann | +1 | 14:34 |
| ricolin | PTL and TC | 14:34 |
| evrardjp | yes indeed! | 14:35 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:35 | |
| jungleboyj | Wonder what we can do to socialize things and drum up more interest. | 14:35 |
| gmann | we should write up some motivational message for people to take leadership | 14:35 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 14:35 |
| ricolin | jungleboyj, +1 | 14:35 |
| evrardjp | I think it would be nice for those leaving the tc and know that they won't run another time to make it public, and try to gather interest in the community | 14:35 |
| * gmann wait for ttx :) | 14:35 | |
| jungleboyj | evrardjp: ++ | 14:36 |
| gmann | ttx motivation is great, some ML message from him can help. | 14:36 |
| zaneb | o/ | 14:36 |
| ricolin | we can put some words in ML, foundation news letter, and Super user magz | 14:36 |
| ricolin | *magazine | 14:37 |
| jungleboyj | ricolin: ++ | 14:37 |
| ricolin | Anyone here good at motivation?:) | 14:37 |
| evrardjp | zaneb: | 14:37 |
| evrardjp | :D | 14:37 |
| ricolin | sold! | 14:37 |
| evrardjp | haha | 14:38 |
| evrardjp | ok | 14:38 |
| evrardjp | well | 14:38 |
| gmann | +1 | 14:38 |
| evrardjp | that's all we had today to report | 14:38 |
| * zaneb reads scrollback to figure out what he was just volunteered for | 14:38 | |
| evrardjp | I will close this one up, and we can talk about other things then | 14:38 |
| gmann | can we have action item for that ? we need to do something so that more people show up for those elections | 14:38 |
| ricolin | +1 | 14:38 |
| evrardjp | isn't that what everyone should do though? | 14:39 |
| evrardjp | I am fine with defining action items | 14:39 |
| zaneb | actually that was on my list anyway | 14:39 |
| *** cgoncalves has quit IRC | 14:39 | |
| ricolin | :) | 14:39 |
| gmann | everyone can do by taking to people they thing should come up but a ML message from motivational people like ttx zaneb can help | 14:39 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: ++ | 14:39 |
| jungleboyj | I also thought about reaching out to people who might be interested. | 14:40 |
| gmann | +1. thank jungleboyj | 14:40 |
| zaneb | it occurred to me that it would be helpful if everyone posted a retrospective of what they actually did on the TC | 14:40 |
| *** cgoncalves has joined #openstack-tc | 14:40 | |
| evrardjp | #action asettle mugsie jroll mnaser ricolin ttx zaneb post a message on the ML if not running again in the next tc elections, and encourage people to run | 14:40 |
| zaneb | because the most common question is "what does the TC actually do?" | 14:40 |
| asettle | evrardjp, aye aye captain | 14:41 |
| evrardjp | zaneb: I actually said that in the first few words of the meeting | 14:41 |
| ricolin | zaneb, yeah, evrardjp mentioned that part earlier, and indeed will be great if we put this two things together | 14:41 |
| gmann | in separate email or a collective one ? | 14:41 |
| *** ccamel has joined #openstack-tc | 14:41 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 14:41 | |
| jroll | evrardjp: will do | 14:41 |
| * ricolin slow typer:) | 14:41 | |
| evrardjp | gmann: I think it's better to have a separate email :) | 14:41 |
| gmann | ok. | 14:41 |
| evrardjp | People might have different reasons | 14:41 |
| evrardjp | but this can be in a thread :) | 14:41 |
| zaneb | yeah, separately | 14:42 |
| ricolin | separate but link to another one | 14:42 |
| *** camelCaser has quit IRC | 14:42 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:42 | |
| gmann | ok, replying separately on single thread will be helpful. | 14:42 |
| evrardjp | #action all tc members, encourage folks to take a leadership role in the next elections | 14:42 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 14:43 |
| evrardjp | #action tc-members: reflect on achievements done in this cycle (see also beginning of this meeting) | 14:44 |
| evrardjp | probably a terrible wording, sorry for that ^ | 14:44 |
| evrardjp | but I suppose you get the idea | 14:44 |
| evrardjp | ok let's wrap this up, and talk about other things, like nova or glance! :P | 14:45 |
| evrardjp | #endmeeting | 14:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Technical Committee office hours: Tuesdays at 09:00 UTC, Wednesdays at 01:00 UTC, and Thursdays at 15:00 UTC | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/ | channel logs http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/" | 14:45 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Mar 5 14:45:16 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 14:45 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2020/tc.2020-03-05-14.00.html | 14:45 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2020/tc.2020-03-05-14.00.txt | 14:45 |
| evrardjp | thanks everyone | 14:45 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2020/tc.2020-03-05-14.00.log.html | 14:45 |
| gmann | thanks evrardjp for chair | 14:45 |
| jungleboyj | Thanks evrardjp | 14:45 |
| ricolin | thanks evrardjp ! | 14:45 |
| njohnston | thanks evrardjp! | 14:45 |
| diablo_rojo_phon | Thank you! | 14:45 |
| evrardjp | my pleasure | 14:46 |
| zaneb | thanks evrardjp | 14:46 |
| ricolin | evrardjp, and now, you can have you beer! | 14:46 |
| gmann | on Nova thing: if you missed my msg earlier. | 14:46 |
| gmann | updates from nova meeting happening in parallel . eric message: "A couple of folks have talked to me privately about taking over the PTL role. But nothing has solidified as yet." | 14:46 |
| evrardjp | I saw that | 14:46 |
| gmann | i hope we will get someone to fill the space | 14:47 |
| evrardjp | it's important | 14:47 |
| evrardjp | yeah I sure hope | 14:47 |
| jungleboyj | Well, that is positive news at least. | 14:47 |
| evrardjp | did anyone reply on the current ML thread on the possible PTL changes? | 14:47 |
| gmann | ? the one mnaser started ? | 14:48 |
| evrardjp | yes | 14:48 |
| jungleboyj | evrardjp: Yes. | 14:48 |
| ricolin | replied | 14:48 |
| gmann | yeah | 14:48 |
| njohnston | 16 replies so far I think | 14:48 |
| jungleboyj | I appreciate mnaser 's concerns but I don't know that we can do away with the role. | 14:48 |
| evrardjp | I have the impression it's a very mixed signal, but the idea would be to decrease PTL pressure, not necessarily have a change. And maybe allow the teams to be organised differently. Did I summarize this wrong? | 14:48 |
| ricolin | I always support co-PTL stuff | 14:48 |
| jungleboyj | With no lead people are likely to just assume someone else will deal with it. | 14:48 |
| jungleboyj | evrardjp: Yeah. | 14:49 |
| evrardjp | ricolin: I like the shadowing for learning exercise, and stepping people up. | 14:49 |
| gmann | +1. co-PTL can be helpful here. like what asettle proposed in last cycle for doc for same reason. | 14:49 |
| evrardjp | and I have the same concern of jroll | 14:49 |
| evrardjp | jungleboyj sorry | 14:49 |
| jungleboyj | For some time that is how we have done it in Cinder. Have someone shadow. Have people who are more technical and leading that. People who do the paperwork, etc. | 14:50 |
| jungleboyj | evrardjp: Sorry for what? | 14:50 |
| njohnston | I am surprised that there has not been as much discussion about the mechanism for selecting PTLs, that most of these proposals would mean dropping the PTL election process. | 14:50 |
| njohnston | jungleboyj: same for Neutron | 14:50 |
| evrardjp | jungleboyj: I meant I have the same concern as you, but pinged jroll instead. So I was sorry. | 14:50 |
| jungleboyj | evrardjp: Ah, gotcha. | 14:50 |
| jroll | do we really think core teams are so loosely connected that they won't talk amongst themselves to make sure something is dealt with? | 14:51 |
| jungleboyj | njohnston: I don't think it has to mean that. We want to leave the possibility to have elections if a team wants, otherwise, it is just uncontested. | 14:51 |
| evrardjp | jroll: I raised the fact that self-organising teams sometimes work :p | 14:51 |
| jroll | and does having a PTL actually ensure things get done? I remember lots of grumping that PTLs weren't responding to emails in the past | 14:51 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 14:51 |
| evrardjp | I don't think it's that way I see it | 14:52 |
| njohnston | jungleboyj: But if you have PTL-of-the-week, I think elections are too much. | 14:52 |
| evrardjp | but the way the community is most likely shrinking make it possible to have a more distributed communication | 14:52 |
| gmann | yeah | 14:52 |
| jungleboyj | https://gph.is/g/4bvjLwL | 14:52 |
| evrardjp | so instead of talking to 1 person for a group of people, we can maybe indeed target the group directly | 14:52 |
| jungleboyj | njohnston: Oh, with that approach you are right. I don't think that the time frame can be that short but maybe the intention could work. | 14:53 |
| ricolin | IMO one person just sometimes to easy to be affected when company role changing. | 14:53 |
| jungleboyj | Unfortunately that is much more of an issue now. | 14:54 |
| evrardjp | ricolin: haha I agree. | 14:54 |
| gmann | true. nobody knows about those kind of changes. | 14:54 |
| evrardjp | tbh I think that nowadays the TC liaisons for project and the PTL are kinda redundant, and inefficient | 14:56 |
| gmann | one way is to wait for this election and see how many vacancy in current situation and what solution can fit best | 14:56 |
| evrardjp | I believe we should drop one of those, and the one to drop is probably not the PTL | 14:57 |
| evrardjp | gmann: that's fair | 14:57 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: Yeah, I think seeing what the landscape looks like after this cycle is a good idea. | 14:57 |
| njohnston | Do you think that standardization of the team governance model is a feature or a bug? We could allow teams to experiment with different governance structures as long as they meet minimum requirements (documentation, conflict resolution mechanism, etc.) | 14:57 |
| gmann | for example: if it is >50% PTL-less projects then surly we should change the concept of PTL to anything which can work. | 14:57 |
| jungleboyj | See if we have an issue and how much of one. | 14:57 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 14:58 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:58 | |
| evrardjp | njohnston: I think what matters is empowering the teams, and decreasing the pressure on individuals (like ptl) | 14:58 |
| evrardjp | so if the rigid structure we have doesn't work, we need to change it indeed | 14:59 |
| jungleboyj | Yeah. | 14:59 |
| zaneb | as I said on the mailing list, requiring a particular PTL election process reduces variance (both in the literal and statistical senses) | 14:59 |
| zaneb | I do think it's a valid question to ask: will the success of OpenStack be determined by our healthiest projects, or our least healthy projects? | 14:59 |
| zaneb | if the former then we should allow teams to be more flexible | 15:00 |
| zaneb | if the latter we should continue to try to keep the floor high and other teams will have to deal with it | 15:00 |
| evrardjp | I don't agree with the question, but I can understand it | 15:00 |
| gmann | it is difficult to answer actually. | 15:01 |
| fungi | having mulled it over a while now (i have a reply i've been sitting on still), i think most of the desire to get rid of ptls and liaisons and other positions of responsibility is really a desire for teams to not need to be responsible to the community any longer. some don't want to participate in coordinated releases (or even bother having releases at all), some don't want to be required to participate | 15:01 |
| fungi | in cycle goals, some don't want to feel compelled to follow community consensus positions | 15:01 |
| njohnston | zaneb: by the health of the projects our users depend on regardless of size or strength | 15:01 |
| evrardjp | fungi: that would be a net loss | 15:01 |
| evrardjp | and your cycle goal comment is definitely a concern for me | 15:02 |
| fungi | i'm not judging whether it's a gain or a loss at this point, just trying to understand the underlying concerns | 15:02 |
| fungi | rearranging governance because "it might help" seems like the wrong end to start from | 15:02 |
| gmann | fungi: which is issue and if that happens openstack become more harder to use/consistent etc | 15:02 |
| zaneb | njohnston: 'healthy' in this sense meaning effective at ensuring tasks are assigned to someone | 15:02 |
| fungi | i get the impression there are teams who don't want (or feel that they lack the bandwidth to take on) any "tasks" | 15:03 |
| zaneb | gmann: I agree that there's no easy answer. tbh even the question doesn't sit well with my personal politics, which is why I didn't mention it on the list | 15:03 |
| jungleboyj | I just have a hard time seeing benefit for OpenStack as a whole coming out of saying 'hey teams, run yourself however you want.' | 15:05 |
| evrardjp | for me the problem is pressure on individuals, not the team organisation. Team can already be self-organised now. | 15:05 |
| fungi | it's mostly coming up now because we may end up in a position of having no ptl for nova. does nova need a ptl? how will the tc solve the lack of a nova ptl if there are no volunteers? and how will the nova team as a whole deal with an appointed ptl who has no history with the nova team (if that winds up being the solution)? | 15:06 |
| fungi | the nova teams seems to not want as ptl. can the tc really effectively require them to have one? | 15:07 |
| * jungleboyj doesn't want to think about that. ;-) | 15:07 | |
| fungi | i hit s way too many times in that last line | 15:08 |
| zaneb | lol | 15:08 |
| evrardjp | multiplying teams like breads | 15:08 |
| fungi | maybe that's the solution. alternate nova timelines, one with a ptl and one without ;) | 15:09 |
| fungi | cern could be able to help us with measuring that | 15:09 |
| jungleboyj | *Laughing* | 15:09 |
| njohnston | LOL | 15:10 |
| jungleboyj | I have friends working on Quantum Computing at IBM. ;-) | 15:11 |
| fungi | but in seriousness, the current options to satisfy our governance are: A. someone in the nova team volunteers to be ptl, B. someone outside the nova team volunteers to be ptl and the tc appoints them to lead nova, C. the tc declares the nova team defunct and removes nova from openstack (which will take cycles since it's in the interop requirements and the trademarked services set) | 15:11 |
| fungi | which brings us to aletrnative D. we rewrite the governance around project teams | 15:12 |
| zaneb | or E. we all quit and go work on Project Teapot ;) | 15:12 |
| fungi | s/work on project teapot/take up goat farming/ | 15:12 |
| jungleboyj | *SMH* | 15:12 |
| evrardjp | zaneb: :) | 15:14 |
| fungi | project teapot is a thing which will replace nova by being able to schedule virtual machines, or project teapot is a thing which makes virtual machines unnecessary because containers magically solve all the same problems virtualization does? | 15:14 |
| fungi | i haven't looked too closely at the proposals | 15:14 |
| zaneb | fungi: project teapot is a baremetal-only cloud | 15:14 |
| njohnston | I see two main threads here: 1.) projects where noone has the ability to make the commitment to be the PTL because that means being the one person who commits to not passing the buck when noone wants to handle a super-unpleasant but necessary to fix problem. | 15:15 |
| fungi | ahh, okay, so would still need opennebula or something | 15:15 |
| njohnston | 2.) Teams that as they shrink or lose capacity revert to older, recidivist tendencies because they are known patterns (telemetry, glance) | 15:15 |
| zaneb | fungi: you could use KubeVirt or run OpenStack on top | 15:16 |
| * jungleboyj needs to read the TeaPot doc. | 15:16 | |
| fungi | zaneb: i heard kubevirt was vaporware with an empty git repo | 15:16 |
| zaneb | https://9ade9145f6548dc9bbda-55b0c2ba5371c8fe68fb316789a202d6.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/710173/4/check/openstack-tox-docs/cfa8ab3/docs/ideas/teapot/index.html | 15:17 |
| zaneb | fungi: maybe 2-3 years ago? | 15:17 |
| fungi | got it, so people are using kubevirt now? cool | 15:17 |
| zaneb | it's actually very cool. e.g. you put a node into maintenance mode and it automagically live migrates all of the VMs off it | 15:18 |
| zaneb | people are using it, but not as many as would be if there were better options for running k8s on baremetal | 15:19 |
| fungi | yeah, found their issues list. the fact that there are users posting operational bugs indicates it's seeing use for sure | 15:20 |
| fungi | looks nifty | 15:20 |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 15:20 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 15:22 | |
| fungi | couldn't kubevirt be used to manage virtual machines which contain kubernetes pods which then use kubevirt to manage other virtual machines? | 15:23 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 15:23 | |
| fungi | but you still need something to deploy the operating system/hypervisor on the physical servers still i guess | 15:24 |
| mugsie | fungi: everything is turtles, all the way down | 15:24 |
| fungi | just don't necessarily need kubernetes pods running directly on bare metal | 15:24 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 15:24 | |
| fungi | and then something like metal3 to orchestrate deployment and lifecycle for the physical servers | 15:25 |
| jungleboyj | I like turtles | 15:25 |
| fungi | i donate to the sea turtle rescue and rehab operation here | 15:26 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 15:27 | |
| jungleboyj | Nice. | 15:27 |
| fungi | they get overrun with cold-stunned turtles who accidentally wander into the labrador current every winter | 15:27 |
| fungi | they were rehabilitating something like 150 sea turtles last month | 15:28 |
| fungi | (and those things aren't small either) | 15:28 |
| jungleboyj | No they aren't. We support sea turtle efforts on St. George Island where we have a house. | 15:29 |
| jungleboyj | We have been talking about adopting a nest. | 15:29 |
| fungi | they wind up filling all the outdoor bathrooms at the aquarium with kiddie pools to handle the extra | 15:29 |
| jungleboyj | Anyway. So, have we reached any decision about what we might do for Nova or are we just going to wait and see. | 15:31 |
| fungi | i don't see the tc rewriting team governance between now and the upcoming election | 15:31 |
| fungi | that's something which will probably take a whole cycle to reason through | 15:32 |
| njohnston | gmann, do you want to check with efried about who he has talked to before he disappears? Perhaps the personal calculus will change if the alternative is a TC appointee. | 15:33 |
| jungleboyj | njohnston: ++ | 15:33 |
| gmann | njohnston: sure. he is going on vacation soon. | 15:33 |
| jungleboyj | Tell them I am on my way to help and watch them panic. | 15:33 |
| jungleboyj | Wonder if we can get smcginnis to go whip them into shape? | 15:34 |
| fungi | to play devil's advocate, what if the tc just ignores the fact that there is no nova ptl, like as an experiment/example to find out where everything will end up going wrong? | 15:34 |
| gmann | njohnston: also on V cycle goal trigger of backlogs. how about discussing it tomorrow ? as per your TZ comfort. Today i am doing nova whole day. | 15:34 |
| fungi | setting aside for the moment that it may not be possible for the tc to willfully ignore its own founding document/charter | 15:35 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: It is an interesting exercise. | 15:36 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 15:36 | |
| njohnston | gmann: Sure thing. I don't know what TZ you are in, but would 1600 UTC/ 1100 EST/0800 PST work for you? | 15:36 |
| gmann | njohnston: i am in CST. 1600 UTC is perfect. | 15:38 |
| fungi | basically just let everyone who needs to interface with the nova team (to get someone to fill out a ptg space request or urge them to request a release candidate for victoria) try to find someone who is willing to temporarily serve as a nova representative. and if/when nobody can be found or offers, just not include nova in things like ptgs and coordinated releases | 15:39 |
| gmann | PTG are ok i think. last ptg was successful without PTL also. i am not sure release things can be excluded. | 15:41 |
| fungi | understanding that we also shouldn't expect the ptg organizers nor release team members to go out of their way to hunt people down, so they'll effectively just end up leaving the nova team/project out of openstack even if the tc doesn't officially declare nova no longer part of openstack | 15:41 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 15:45 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 15:45 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 15:45 | |
| njohnston | according to https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/branch/master/data/release_liaisons.yaml the nova release liaisons are bauzas and mriedem; if that info is current then PTL-lessness would not block releases. | 15:49 |
| fungi | assuming they still want to serve as liaisons, yes | 15:50 |
| njohnston | right | 15:50 |
| gmann | mriedem might not be. | 15:50 |
| jungleboyj | mriedem is no longer working on OpenStack. Not sure how involved he is. | 15:50 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:50 |
| fungi | if they don't want to serve as liaisons, there's no fallback to a ptl with no longer having a ptl | 15:50 |
| jungleboyj | Refer back to my Quantum computing joke earlier. ;-) | 15:51 |
| njohnston | jungleboyj: That joke is funnier given Neutron's project history ;-) | 15:51 |
| jungleboyj | njohnston: OMG, I forgot about that. | 15:51 |
| fungi | it'll be similar for the vmt. if we get vulnerability reports for nova we'll subscribe the nova-coresec group to them. if there's no response form them and no ptl to reach out to, we'll likely just let them sit indefinitely | 15:52 |
| jungleboyj | I was working on Quantum at the time and did all kinds of Quantum Leap themed presentations. | 15:52 |
| njohnston | niiiice | 15:52 |
| fungi | er, well, let them sit for 3 months and then switch them to public and let them sit indefinitely | 15:52 |
| njohnston | fungi: I just wanted to say thanks - you always have really insightful analysis, and I always appreciate what you bring to the conversation. As I am still learning the TC ropes I have learned a lot from you. Thanks! | 15:59 |
| fungi | you're welcome, but keep in mind i'm not on the tc ;) | 16:00 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: So, we are looking for a f ew good people ... | 16:00 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 16:00 |
| fungi | but yeah, if the roster of liaisons is filled out by active folks on the team then not having a ptl could work (we might need additional liaison definitions for some stuff that currently isn't quite so formalized) | 16:01 |
| fungi | on the other hand, TheJulia was advocating for getting rid of liaisons | 16:02 |
| fungi | which is a different scenario to explore | 16:02 |
| *** KeithMnemonic1 has joined #openstack-tc | 16:19 | |
| *** KeithMnemonic has quit IRC | 16:23 | |
| jungleboyj | gmann: As far as a link is concerned. https://www.openstack.org/analytics | 16:35 |
| jungleboyj | Is that what you guys were thinking? | 16:35 |
| jungleboyj | ricolin: ^^^ For the user survey? | 16:36 |
| gmann | jungleboyj: that will be awesome. you mean to show data (TC user survey ) in same site ? I think contributors vs user data is good to show there | 16:39 |
| jungleboyj | Well, there was a previous comment that we should include a link to the survey results by you. The only thing I know of that is available online is the link above. | 16:41 |
| jungleboyj | The detailed information we got is internal only. | 16:41 |
| gmann | oh, sorry i forgot about that comment. checking... | 16:41 |
| jungleboyj | I will add that link if it was what you were thinking of. Regardless, I don't think it is a bad addition. | 16:42 |
| gmann | i remember now. i was thinking of link of TC survey results from where you composed the summary data | 16:42 |
| clarkb | I've always sort of seen one of the big roles of being PTL as being something like a project manager. Basically I'm trying to ensure that the contributors around me are about to get necessary work done (and steer effort in the right direction if its maybe showing up pointed the wrong way). You don't necessarily need a PTL to do that, nor a single individual, but I do think it helps the overall team be a | 16:43 |
| clarkb | lot more effective in getting work done and that doesn't seem to have been covered in previous discussions | 16:43 |
| jungleboyj | clarkb: ++ | 16:44 |
| clarkb | for me this means I spend a lot of time reviewing all 5-10 of the different things we have in the fire | 16:44 |
| clarkb | ensuring that each one is getting enough movement to make forward progress and not stall out | 16:44 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: Oh, I don't think that is intended to be public. It is that ugly spreadsheet with all the answers. | 16:44 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: Most of the notes from my etherpad are already there. | 16:45 |
| clarkb | I think the nova PTL has done a lot of similar work historically through the management of specs and getting things in prior to feature freeze, etc | 16:45 |
| clarkb | basically setting realistic expectations then pushing the team to meet them | 16:46 |
| * asettle has stood down on the ML | 16:46 | |
| evrardjp | thanks asettle | 16:46 |
| asettle | Thank you <3 | 16:47 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:53 | |
| gmann | jungleboyj: this one. link to this ML- http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-September/009501.html | 16:53 |
| gmann | this does not have any actual users/deployment info | 16:54 |
| jungleboyj | Oh, I can add that link. I forgot that that was public. | 17:05 |
| openstackgerrit | Jay Bryant proposed openstack/governance master: Analysis of 2019 User Survey Feedback https://review.opendev.org/698582 | 17:17 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: ricolin ^^^ | 17:17 |
| gmann | jungleboyj: thanks. I will check | 17:19 |
| jungleboyj | Cool. Thanks. | 17:19 |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has joined #openstack-tc | 17:21 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 17:24 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk | 17:25 | |
| *** witek has quit IRC | 17:32 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 17:35 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 17:35 | |
| zaneb | clarkb: I think that's part of the problem. very few people in the technical community want to become a full-time project manager, and in Nova especially it's perceived (correctly) that you basically have to | 18:10 |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has quit IRC | 18:10 | |
| clarkb | zaneb: right, I wanted to call that out because I think that hadn't been said | 18:11 |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 18:11 | |
| clarkb | for me its less the expectation of being a tie breaker vote and more that you actually have to invest quite a bit of time to help everyone else and get little time for your own itches | 18:11 |
| clarkb | but at the same time that role is incredibly valuable. I would argue that any change should try to address the need for the role while making it easier on the umans | 18:12 |
| clarkb | *humans | 18:12 |
| clarkb | and right now I think we are punting on the role entirely | 18:12 |
| clarkb | (at least with the proposals) | 18:12 |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 18:40 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 18:42 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 18:47 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 18:59 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 19:04 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 19:08 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 20:48 | |
| *** cgoncalves has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| *** cgoncalves has joined #openstack-tc | 20:56 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 20:59 | |
| *** cgoncalves has quit IRC | 21:10 | |
| *** cgoncalves has joined #openstack-tc | 21:11 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:18 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 21:27 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:33 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 21:35 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** iurygregory has quit IRC | 22:18 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:14 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 23:20 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:32 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!
