| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 02:36 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 04:35 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 04:35 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 05:05 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 06:53 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 07:16 | |
| *** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau | 07:34 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:36 | |
| *** ricolin_ has joined #openstack-tc | 07:37 | |
| *** ricolin_ has quit IRC | 07:37 | |
| *** ricolin_ has joined #openstack-tc | 07:38 | |
| *** ricolin_ has quit IRC | 07:43 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 07:45 | |
| *** njohnston has quit IRC | 07:56 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 08:00 | |
| *** diablo_rojo_phon has joined #openstack-tc | 08:00 | |
| *** Blinkiz has left #openstack-tc | 08:19 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: Zuul is currently failing testing, please refrain from recheck and submitting of new changes until this is solved. | 09:05 | |
| *** ChanServ changes topic to "Zuul is currently failing testing, please refrain from recheck and submitting of new changes until this is solved." | 09:05 | |
| ttx | o/ | 09:06 |
|---|---|---|
| ricolin | o/ | 09:16 |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: Zuul is currently failing all testing, please refrain from approving, rechecking or submitting of new changes until this is solved. | 09:16 | |
| *** ChanServ changes topic to "Zuul is currently failing all testing, please refrain from approving, rechecking or submitting of new changes until this is solved." | 09:16 | |
| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 09:54 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|bbl | 10:10 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 10:30 | |
| *** njohnston_ has joined #openstack-tc | 11:02 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 11:23 | |
| *** iurygregory has quit IRC | 11:26 | |
| *** iurygregory has joined #openstack-tc | 11:26 | |
| *** tkajinam has joined #openstack-tc | 11:34 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 11:54 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 11:58 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 12:00 | |
| *** rpittau|bbl is now known as rpittau | 12:08 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 12:14 | |
| *** ChanServ 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/" | 12:28 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: Zuul has been restarted, all events are lost, recheck or re-approve any changes submitted since 9:50 UTC. | 12:28 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 13:02 | |
| gmann | o/ | 13:36 |
| ricolin | o/ | 13:37 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 13:37 |
| ricolin | ttx, do you think we should arrange any time for meta SIG in Virutal PTG? | 13:37 |
| ttx | ricolin: I don't think that's needed, unless there are specific topics to discuss? | 13:39 |
| ttx | If the only topic is getting a clear view on the status of each SIG, it would better be done asynchronously imho | 13:39 |
| fungi | or by joining the sessions for those sigs (if any) and asking | 13:40 |
| ttx | yeah | 13:40 |
| ricolin | ttx nope from me this time, and agree asynchronously will work better for SIG | 13:40 |
| ricolin | fungi, that's good idea | 13:40 |
| ttx | we could split the reachout between volunteers | 13:41 |
| ttx | so that nobody ends up having to attend 12 meetings | 13:41 |
| ricolin | it's virtually, so at least we all sit where you are:) | 13:42 |
| ricolin | *you all sit at | 13:42 |
| fungi | could also just politely ask that any sigs holding a ptg session produce a brief (maybe just a few sentences) report of their activity | 13:44 |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|brb | 14:32 | |
| *** bauzas has quit IRC | 14:43 | |
| *** bauzas has joined #openstack-tc | 14:43 | |
| *** bauzas has quit IRC | 14:47 | |
| *** bauzas has joined #openstack-tc | 14:48 | |
| *** rpittau|brb is now known as rpittau | 14:57 | |
| knikolla | o/ | 14:59 |
| *** timburke has quit IRC | 15:04 | |
| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 15:17 | |
| gmann | tc-members: We are almost ready to start the Victoria cyle and need to select the second goal soon.Projects are waiting from TC side to finalize the goals so that they can plan accordingly. | 15:19 |
| gmann | we have three proposal up, please review them https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718177/ https://review.opendev.org/#/c/722924/ https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720107/ | 15:20 |
| njohnston_ | The third of those - the container images discussion - seems to be under some evolution still based on the negative feedback to the proposal. | 15:24 |
| gmann | yeah, one from first two are good one to target | 15:26 |
| njohnston_ | Of those two, the mock proposal seems like it has a shot at being a scriptable replacement, although I don't claim to have deep knowledge about the differences between mocks. | 15:28 |
| njohnston_ | The privsep proposal will definitely require real engagement and potentially rethinking the way the code works. | 15:28 |
| njohnston_ | I wonder if we should talk about it in the Thursday office hours | 15:35 |
| njohnston_ | :q | 15:35 |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 15:40 | |
| knikolla | with regards to privsep, a lot of the projects won't have to do anything since they don't need to execute code as sudo. | 15:52 |
| knikolla | the unittest.mock goal seems pretty easy to achieve and scriptable | 15:54 |
| knikolla | with regards to containers, i think we need to start showing some results before people buy into that | 15:56 |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 15:59 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk | 16:18 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 16:35 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 16:35 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:40 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 16:41 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 16:41 | |
| njohnston_ | gmann: Is there any reason (aside from votes) we couldn't merge both the proposed goals without -1s into the proposed directory? Since the move from proposed to selected is a separate step, I hope people are not thinking that they need to wait to vote until we decide which to select. | 16:44 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:48 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 16:51 | |
| fungi | also the upshot from the discussion of reworking the goals process was that it would be merged if the idea was sound, and then subsequent patches would be used to iron out implementation details with less strict voting requirements | 16:58 |
| fungi | and the change to move it from proposed to selected is where a larger quorum was required | 16:59 |
| njohnston_ | fungi: OK so the goal proposals should not be formal-vote, only the move from proposed to selected? | 17:04 |
| fungi | that's my recollection of what we talked about, but i'll check whether that's properly documented nowadays | 17:07 |
| fungi | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html#process-details | 17:08 |
| njohnston_ | yeah, I don't see anything about voting requirements for proposed goals. I may propose a change to the house-rules page. | 17:10 |
| fungi | first mention of "the tc" is in step 3, "The TC will consider proposed goals from the /goals/proposed/ directory and select a set of OpenStack-wide goals for each cycle in time to allow planning and other discussion at the PTG event at the start of the cycle." | 17:10 |
| fungi | i believe the plan was to treat changes for goals process steps 1 and 2 as "documentation changes" per house rules | 17:12 |
| gmann | njohnston_: we can do once we reach the formal-vote majority and proposed goal can always be modified with more implementation details before they get selceted | 17:14 |
| fungi | proposing goals doesn't need formal-vote majority though, right? just selecting them | 17:15 |
| gmann | i think it is formal-vote to check whether it actually falls under goal or not. | 17:16 |
| fungi | the review criteria for being a goal proposal is just "does this describe an effort which fits with the goals process?" | 17:16 |
| gmann | true, that need formal-vote. | 17:16 |
| gmann | selection is more, what goal to do in which cycle | 17:16 |
| fungi | can you explain why making that evaluation needs a formal vote? it isn't enacting any official policy by being merged | 17:17 |
| fungi | the proposed goal isn't even expected to be actionable at step 1 | 17:17 |
| gmann | not evaluation, i am talking about adding new goal proposal | 17:17 |
| fungi | because step 2 is where you iterate on implementation details | 17:17 |
| fungi | yes, i'm asking, why does the evaluation of "does this describe an effort which fits with the goals process?" require a majority vote of the tc? | 17:18 |
| fungi | merging a goal proposal to the proposed section doesn't enact any official policy | 17:19 |
| fungi | it's just an in-progress proposal of a goal for eventual selection from the backlog | 17:20 |
| gmann | in that case we would not be able to see what is ready for selection and end up half baked goal in /proposed dir | 17:21 |
| gmann | i assume step2 have a good evaluation by TC and community before it merge and later it can be improved on documentation, implementation etc | 17:21 |
| fungi | i assume step 3 simply wouldn't select proposed goals which are in bad shape | 17:24 |
| fungi | but to assume that approval without review by a majority of tc members would result in "half baked goals" is an unfortunate assessment of your fellow tc members | 17:26 |
| fungi | anyway, the underlying issue, i think, is that setting goal proposals as formal-vote leads the tc members to think they're reviewing whether the goal is suitable for implementation in the immediate future, rather than what was intended by the new incremental process, to allow incomplete goal proposals to merge and then get iterated on by subsequent changes until they're ready to consider for selection | 17:28 |
| fungi | requiring input from a majority of the tc to even start a proposal for a goal leads to a cumbersome and fruitless design-by-committee mess | 17:29 |
| fungi | i thought the hope was that by allowing goal proposals to merge easily and quickly in an incomplete state, more people would be willing to explore and propose goals, and then improve on them until they're suitable for eventual selection | 17:32 |
| fungi | anyway, nothing in the step described at https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/index.html#defining-goals seems like it should require a majority vote of the tc. it's a checklist of: champions have volunteered, proposal is consistent with the provided template, discussed on ml to confirm the description is clear | 17:38 |
| *** AJaeger has joined #openstack-tc | 17:38 | |
| AJaeger | who from the TC is reviewing project-navigator-data? Please have a look at https://review.opendev.org/719181 | 17:38 |
| knikolla | thanks for the clarification fungi :) | 17:45 |
| gmann | it is clearly state there "and consensus on whether they have been completely and clearly described.' it is via ML which is input for TC to accept that in goal proposed. | 17:45 |
| gmann | i do not think accepting anything proposed without formal-vote is good idea. at least formal-vote make sure it is well enough ready. | 17:46 |
| fungi | it's probably good that njohnston_ proposes clarification of the voting requirements for goals proposals to the house rules set in that case, so the current tc members can reach some consensus decision on what the voting model for those should be | 17:47 |
| fungi | i just remember that the whole point of the revised goals process was to no longer require that a goal be "well enough ready" while it's still in the process of being proposed (that's left for the selection step) | 17:48 |
| gmann | its always been formal-vote starting from /proposed dir. 1. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/691278/ 2. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/691737/ 3. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/691178/ | 17:50 |
| fungi | i'm aware, i'm just pointing out that i don't think it should be necessary. but ultimately it's not for me to decide, it's up to the tc members collectively to determine how much time they want to spend and how much of a barrier they want to present to community members proposing goals | 17:53 |
| fungi | there's also been a bit of a lag (7 months) between when the new process was put into place by https://review.opendev.org/667932 and the first new proposal goal was added with https://review.opendev.org/691278 so putting the new process into practice is comparatively new | 17:57 |
| fungi | (first goal proposal approved under the new process just merged month before last) | 17:58 |
| fungi | this is the time for the tc to finish working out what their voting model should be like for it | 17:59 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:50 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| gmann | AJaeger: done | 19:22 |
| openstackgerrit | Nate Johnston proposed openstack/governance master: Loosen voting for community goal proposals https://review.opendev.org/724142 | 19:48 |
| njohnston_ | ^^ gmann fungi | 19:49 |
| openstackgerrit | Nate Johnston proposed openstack/governance master: Loosen voting for community goal proposals https://review.opendev.org/724142 | 19:50 |
| fungi | thanks for moving the discussion forward, njohnston_! | 19:52 |
| njohnston_ | My pleasure! :-) | 19:52 |
| gmann | njohnston_: thanks. | 20:19 |
| gmann | njohnston_: we need to define deadline to define the V cycle goal and freeze to avoid later addition and end up with not-completing the goal in that cycle. | 20:20 |
| njohnston_ | gmann: I agree. What did you have in mind? | 20:20 |
| gmann | njohnston_: i will say 15th May, the ussuri release date | 20:21 |
| njohnston_ | gmann: I think that makes sense. | 20:21 |
| gmann | let's propose it in Thursday office hour. | 20:22 |
| njohnston_ | +1 | 20:24 |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 20:39 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 20:42 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:41 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 21:47 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:51 | |
| adriant | gmann, merging last two adjutant patches for py2 drop | 22:22 |
| gmann | adriant: nice.thanks for quick response. | 22:22 |
| adriant | gmann, np, just missed one of those patches, and forgot to deal with a conflict on the other :( | 22:23 |
| gmann | i see. | 22:23 |
| fungi | adriant: there was a nice adjutant shout-out from oilabs in the scientific sig meeting just now: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/scientific_sig/2020/scientific_sig.2020-04-28-21.00.log.html#l-135 | 22:26 |
| adriant | fungi, nice :) | 22:27 |
| fungi | seems you have some users in new england | 22:28 |
| adriant | yeah, and Sweden | 22:29 |
| adriant | a few are using Adjutant, just not many getting back to me :( | 22:29 |
| fungi | the moc folks are likely to be cooperative an open, just a bit busy is all | 22:30 |
| adriant | hah, "just a bit busy" is my life too :P | 22:31 |
| fungi | pretty sure we can all relate | 22:31 |
| * adriant nods | 22:31 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 22:42 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 22:58 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 22:58 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!