| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 00:08 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 01:56 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 04:35 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 04:36 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 05:29 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 05:57 | |
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 06:37 | |
| *** zaneb has joined #openstack-tc | 06:37 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 06:51 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 06:57 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 06:58 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 06:58 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 06:58 | |
| *** iurygregory has joined #openstack-tc | 06:58 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 07:05 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:28 | |
| *** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau | 07:29 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:34 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 07:36 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 09:31 | |
| openstackgerrit | Rodolfo Alonso Hernandez proposed openstack/governance master: Migrate from olso.rootwrap to oslo.privsep https://review.opendev.org/718177 | 09:34 |
|---|---|---|
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 10:17 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|bbl | 10:21 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 11:12 | |
| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 12:09 | |
| *** rpittau|bbl is now known as rpittau | 12:22 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 12:33 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 12:34 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 12:35 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 12:36 | |
| *** slaweq_ has joined #openstack-tc | 12:38 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 12:41 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 12:41 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 12:42 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 13:14 | |
| *** njohnston_ is now known as njohnston | 13:21 | |
| knikolla | o/ | 14:10 |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 14:13 | |
| *** tkajinam has joined #openstack-tc | 14:16 | |
| gmann | o/ | 14:29 |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 14:37 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 14:46 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 14:49 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 15:01 | |
| ricolin | o/ | 15:02 |
| njohnston | o/ | 15:03 |
| *** slaweq_ is now known as slaweq | 15:03 | |
| gmann | tc-members: if we have majority, can we discuss on community goal for V cycle. | 15:04 |
| zaneb | hi everyone | 15:05 |
| knikolla | hi :) | 15:05 |
| gmann | zaneb: hello | 15:06 |
| evrardjp | o/ | 15:10 |
| evrardjp | hi zaneb! | 15:11 |
| gmann | as you might have seen this ML on V cycle goal: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-April/014497.html | 15:12 |
| gmann | and ussuri final release is not so far, we need to finalize the goal so that projects can start planning. | 15:13 |
| gmann | njohnston and I discussed about deadline for that one option is May 15th ussuri final release | 15:14 |
| njohnston | I wonder if that might be later than preferable for some projects | 15:15 |
| gmann | deadline means, freeze the goal selection for V (either one or two) and avoid any late entry which caused issue since last couple of cycles. | 15:15 |
| gmann | njohnston: good point, early is also good. | 15:16 |
| njohnston | What would you think about putting the deadline at the final RC deadline, R-1? It's not much but we're already close to release. | 15:17 |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 15:17 | |
| gmann | +1. | 15:17 |
| gmann | anther point is about contributor guide U cycle goal where few projects started/completed and lot of projects still need to do- http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-April/014514.html | 15:18 |
| gmann | for them it will contributor goal + V cycle goals in V cycle which i think overload for them. | 15:19 |
| knikolla | that is a lot of projects | 15:19 |
| gmann | my idea is to continue the contributor goal in V cycle also and keep zuulv3 as additional goal for V. no other goal for V cycle. | 15:20 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo_phon: can input on that idea as goal champion. | 15:20 |
| gmann | thoughts ? | 15:23 |
| njohnston | I wonder about the mock goal, if that is something that is likely to be a simple forklift or if there is likely to be some of dev work involved | 15:25 |
| njohnston | that is https://review.opendev.org/#/c/722924/ | 15:25 |
| gmann | njohnston: yeah that is not so hard but contributor goal was even much easy but many projects might not have bandwidth to do all three in V cycle. | 15:26 |
| knikolla | gmann: Contributor goal required actually sitting down and writing words | 15:26 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 15:27 |
| knikolla | based on https://review.opendev.org/#/q/topic:unittest.mock+(status:open+OR+status:merged) it seems the mock goal is scriptable | 15:27 |
| jungleboyj | Sorry for being late. Got distracted by the family. | 15:27 |
| njohnston | with the mock, if it can be scripted and changes autogenerated then it's a +2+W | 15:27 |
| gmann | njohnston: knikolla that will be great. | 15:29 |
| knikolla | jungleboyj: that is the best reason for being late to anything :) | 15:30 |
| jungleboyj | :-) Agreed. | 15:30 |
| jungleboyj | They are usually low bandwidth but they have their days. :-) | 15:31 |
| evrardjp | sorry I am catching up | 15:31 |
| evrardjp | for selection everything is ready, right? So I suppose it can be as late as release, but the sooner the better ofc | 15:32 |
| evrardjp | (because proposal would have ironed out things) | 15:32 |
| evrardjp | or did I get that wrong? | 15:32 |
| evrardjp | I agree with gmann on the fact that we shouldn't require too many goals to avoid some to be not done due to lack of bandwidth | 15:33 |
| gmann | evrardjp: i will not say ready as none is merged in proposed dir yet. | 15:33 |
| jungleboyj | evrardjp: ++ | 15:33 |
| evrardjp | I don't disagree there, I meant as a general truth | 15:33 |
| gmann | yeah, mock one is very close. | 15:34 |
| evrardjp | "for goal selection, I suppose preliminary work has been done" -> better wording | 15:34 |
| jungleboyj | I am ok with continuing the contributor guide one into V. | 15:34 |
| gmann | evrardjp: yeah that's correct. | 15:34 |
| jungleboyj | I think the Mock one is also ok to do given that it doesn't look like it will require a lot of work for the projects. | 15:34 |
| evrardjp | so IMO, goals that weren't finished need to be closed, and the project should be listed | 15:35 |
| evrardjp | sorry | 15:35 |
| evrardjp | I meant | 15:35 |
| gmann | true but asking review is also one big things. for py2 where projects need to just review but could not on time | 15:35 |
| evrardjp | every project which hasn't finished the goal should be listed. | 15:35 |
| evrardjp | wasn't community goals a "golden signal" ? | 15:36 |
| gmann | that is one option. | 15:36 |
| evrardjp | it doesn't mean the project cannot continue it, and finish it | 15:36 |
| evrardjp | to come back to the goals themselves, I personally like the Mock one, because I see that it's reducing tech debt | 15:37 |
| evrardjp | easily | 15:37 |
| evrardjp | with no cost for end users | 15:37 |
| evrardjp | but sadly it doesn't bring value to end users :p | 15:38 |
| evrardjp | same applies to the zuul legacy jobs | 15:38 |
| jungleboyj | True. | 15:39 |
| evrardjp | so if we only have those two, it doesn't show much value to our end users | 15:39 |
| gmann | yeah we do not have user benefits goal for V | 15:39 |
| gmann | zuulv3 goal is not easy for many projects. it is lengthy and complex. | 15:39 |
| evrardjp | I think this has priority over anything else in tech debt | 15:39 |
| evrardjp | IMO | 15:39 |
| gmann | true. maintaining legacy jobs and devstack-gate is becoming hard day by day | 15:40 |
| evrardjp | (I don't consider the client to be tech debt for this case, though it technically most likely is) | 15:40 |
| evrardjp | also it's already approved, so no going back! :p | 15:40 |
| gmann | what I am thinking more is we provide the goal as per projects bandwidth in current situation. | 15:40 |
| evrardjp | isn't everyone's bandwidth in net negative? | 15:41 |
| gmann | have something which can be completed has value. | 15:41 |
| evrardjp | totally | 15:41 |
| evrardjp | so what's your proposal gmann? Decide here what of the other options should be prioritized? | 15:42 |
| gmann | ok | 15:42 |
| evrardjp | I am merely asking, "ok" leaves me puzzled | 15:42 |
| gmann | option1. continue the contributor goal in V cycle as second goal for V cycle | 15:42 |
| gmann | option2: mark contributor goal as close and let project finish on their own time and select one more goal along with zuulv3. | 15:43 |
| gmann | evrardjp: ok was for giving proposals :) | 15:44 |
| evrardjp | yeah I got it afterwards :D | 15:44 |
| fungi | option 2 is reasonable, we always said don't expect 100% completion for any cycle goal anyway | 15:44 |
| evrardjp | I vote for option2 myself | 15:44 |
| jungleboyj | I think option 2 is fine. | 15:45 |
| smcginnis | FWIW, I will be trying to remove mock whether it is a community goal or not. That could give it some extra needed priority, but it is something we should get done eventually whether or not it is an official cycle goal. | 15:46 |
| njohnston | option 2++ | 15:46 |
| gmann | smcginnis +1 thanks. IMO goal give good advantage of getting review attention though everyone agree on changes. | 15:47 |
| evrardjp | smcginnis: thanks | 15:47 |
| njohnston | smcginnis: thanks! | 15:47 |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis: Good input. | 15:47 |
| evrardjp | for me that sounds like a community goal that we are certain winning! :D | 15:47 |
| gmann | ok, let's go with option2. | 15:47 |
| evrardjp | with smcginnis with us, it's impossible to lose! | 15:47 |
| smcginnis | It should be an easy win. | 15:47 |
| evrardjp | I will help you if you like. For my weekend | 15:48 |
| evrardjp | weekends* | 15:48 |
| evrardjp | woops, it was sent in the wrong chan | 15:48 |
| evrardjp | I never said that in here! | 15:48 |
| gmann | evrardjp: you said no weekends work to me many times :) | 15:48 |
| gmann | hehe | 15:48 |
| fungi | too late, now the tc will expect you to help on weekends | 15:48 |
| evrardjp | darn it | 15:49 |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 15:49 | |
| evrardjp | yeah so I don't commit on this! | 15:49 |
| njohnston | lol | 15:49 |
| gmann | ok, in option2, mock goal is very close, https://review.opendev.org/#/c/722924/ compare to rootwrap -https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718177/6 | 15:49 |
| gmann | and also applicable to merge also. | 15:50 |
| jungleboyj | Option 2 sounds good to me and you can't lose with smcginnis helping. ;-) | 15:51 |
| smcginnis | Hah | 15:51 |
| smcginnis | I would actually vote for rootwrap over mock if it was down to the two. | 15:51 |
| jungleboyj | Unless he gets over zealous and just deletes everything. | 15:51 |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis: ++ | 15:51 |
| gmann | so that can be merged on 4th May monday. | 15:51 |
| evrardjp | I would prefer voting rootwrap | 15:51 |
| smcginnis | Getting rid of rootwrap is actually a security win for our users. | 15:51 |
| jungleboyj | That is going to be a heavier lift. | 15:51 |
| evrardjp | exactly | 15:51 |
| smcginnis | jungleboyj: That is true. | 15:51 |
| njohnston | I am skeptical that we will have bandwidth for rootwrap at the same time as zuulv3 | 15:52 |
| gmann | rootwrap is not doubt good for sec things but we are lacking vote on that. | 15:52 |
| njohnston | it is the most developer-intense goal here | 15:52 |
| evrardjp | njohnston: less than the clients | 15:52 |
| evrardjp | isn't it? | 15:52 |
| njohnston | I don't see a goal proposal for the clients yet. While Artem is still interested I am not counting my chickens until they katch, as they say. | 15:53 |
| fungi | the zuulv3 goal is increasingly urgent, as the infra folks have effectively washed their hands of all the old legacy glue and far too many teams now consist of people who inherited jobs written by their predecessors and don't even begin to understand how they work | 15:53 |
| gmann | njohnston: evrardjp yeah, osc is still not proposed so cannot say anything on that | 15:54 |
| tosky | uh | 15:54 |
| tosky | fungi: isn't it approved already? | 15:54 |
| gmann | and 3rd party CI are even more difficult to debug for legacy jobs | 15:54 |
| fungi | tosky: if memory serves it was pre-approved for victoria, so basically yes | 15:55 |
| gmann | tosky: it is, we are not changing that just discussing what else we can fit along with that | 15:55 |
| tosky | oh, ok, sorry | 15:55 |
| gmann | fungi: yeah it is selected also for V | 15:55 |
| gmann | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/selected/victoria/index.html | 15:55 |
| fungi | perfect | 15:55 |
| evrardjp | tosky: it is selected already don't worry | 15:56 |
| evrardjp | sorry for the scare :p | 15:56 |
| evrardjp | njohnston: are you the only one skeptical over the bandwidth issue of both zuul+privsep? | 15:57 |
| gmann | let's review and vote both mock and rootwrap and get them merged in proposed dir. and in next office hour or early we can have discussion for Selection part. | 15:57 |
| knikolla | ++ | 15:57 |
| evrardjp | well, before that: Is privsep real clear now? | 15:57 |
| jungleboyj | That sounds reasonable. | 15:57 |
| gmann | evrardjp: i think so. or you mean in term of bandwidth ? | 15:58 |
| evrardjp | in terms of bandwidth | 15:58 |
| evrardjp | in terms of total bandwidth | 15:58 |
| evrardjp | for the whole openstack | 15:58 |
| evrardjp | because these are major projects | 15:59 |
| njohnston | evrardjp: I don't know if anyone else has doubts. I think ralonsoh is envisioning the rootwrap goal to be multi-cycle so that may ameliorate the bandwidth concern. | 15:59 |
| evrardjp | and I am now super afraid of what njohnston said, and have an approximatively done thing | 15:59 |
| evrardjp | if it's considered as a multi-cycle thing, that's fine, but how can we measure completion at the end of this cycle? | 16:00 |
| gmann | multi cycle goal is also not bad idea that is what we might do for OSC | 16:00 |
| evrardjp | I meant next | 16:00 |
| evrardjp | gmann: I have been claiming that we shouldn't have cycle goals but have a roadmap instead | 16:00 |
| evrardjp | many people shouted at me, so i never followed that road | 16:01 |
| gmann | evrardjp: well we have not done any multi cycle yet but i think dividing the projects can be one way | 16:01 |
| gmann | for example, projects have less work to do for zuulv3 can be target for rootwrap this cycle | 16:02 |
| njohnston | evrardjp: The completion criteria per project and overall are both laid out in the "Completion Criteria" section of https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718177/6/goals/proposed/migrate-to-privsep.rst | 16:02 |
| evrardjp | njohnston: I saw that part :) | 16:03 |
| gmann | true, roadmap framework is something we need to preapre for multi cycle things | 16:03 |
| evrardjp | gmann: I like this | 16:03 |
| jungleboyj | I think we are at the point that we are going to have to start considering multi-cycle items. | 16:03 |
| evrardjp | yeah but we need check points | 16:03 |
| jungleboyj | Or doing a Roadmap. | 16:03 |
| gmann | yeah | 16:03 |
| njohnston | I imagine a multi-cycle goal's process to be like this: start goal, ask all projects to start. Some complete the work, others don't. Next cycle, the list of projects is narrower, and the champion can perhaps take a more hands-on role with the smaller number of projects to help bump them over the line. | 16:03 |
| evrardjp | that was where the problem happened in the past | 16:03 |
| evrardjp | njohnston: so it means the champion has to deal with a yearly effort | 16:04 |
| evrardjp | that's a big thing | 16:04 |
| njohnston | or the goal might change champions, that has to be a possibility we accept | 16:04 |
| evrardjp | even if champion transfers, it's still quite a big investment | 16:04 |
| njohnston | champion fatigue | 16:04 |
| evrardjp | yeah, which is why I think we need to be very clear in the multi-cycle thing. I would love to have this established, as some kind of roadmap, but sadly I am not sure we can solve that (or that we should solve that) right now | 16:05 |
| evrardjp | so what's the tl;dr: for today ? | 16:06 |
| njohnston | I'm really not sure | 16:06 |
| evrardjp | option2: and zuul + privsep + mock ? | 16:06 |
| evrardjp | and let's see what happens? | 16:06 |
| evrardjp | with a priority in that order? | 16:06 |
| gmann | ok, let's prepare something on multi cycle in V cycle and then do. | 16:06 |
| jungleboyj | Sounds like a good plan. | 16:06 |
| evrardjp | yeah we can probably accept those proposed goals, and select them in a "single cycle" or "multi cycle" fashion if necessary | 16:07 |
| njohnston | I think your priority list is good: zuul, then privsep, then mock | 16:07 |
| jungleboyj | Do we know how many projects have at least started the privsep work. I know that Cinder had gotten through part of it. | 16:07 |
| fungi | gmann: evrardjp: the python 3 removal was a multi-cycle goal, we just split it into smaller goals each of which was hopefully achievable in a cycle. there was also a roadmap of sorts tying those goals together over time | 16:07 |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk | 16:07 | |
| evrardjp | if we could also reduce the overhead of this "community goals" at the same time when moving to multi cycle, that would be lovely. | 16:07 |
| evrardjp | No need for more red tape | 16:07 |
| njohnston | neutron started it as well, this comes a lot from our experience with it | 16:07 |
| jungleboyj | Ok. And I think Nova started as well. | 16:08 |
| evrardjp | fungi: correct, but that easier targettable, here I think it's just that the minimum chunk is too big? Or did I get that wrong? | 16:08 |
| evrardjp | I don't want the TC to put too much red tape on community goals tbh | 16:08 |
| fungi | i'm not convinced it can't be split into more manageable chunks | 16:08 |
| evrardjp | oh that's an interesting case :) | 16:09 |
| evrardjp | care to explain? | 16:09 |
| evrardjp | because that means that it can be affordable chunks per cycle | 16:09 |
| fungi | set a target like have at least 50% of your outstanding rootwrap entries replaced by the end of victoria | 16:10 |
| fungi | the problem with a multi-cycle goal which only has one target is that it will effectively become a single-cycle goal for the final cycle because most teams will procrastinate if there's no nearer-term goal to meet | 16:11 |
| njohnston | what if we merge the rootwrap proposal into goals/proposed/ and then ask ralonsoh to iterate on it with multi-cycle milestones | 16:11 |
| fungi | so calling it a multi-cycle goal is little more than saying you're giving them a heads-up that it's a goal for a later cycle | 16:12 |
| njohnston | that is a very good point, fungi | 16:12 |
| njohnston | For your voting convenience: the rootwrap->privsep proposal is https://review.opendev.org/718177 and the mock->unittest.mock proposal is https://review.opendev.org/722924 | 16:16 |
| gmann | yeah, let's vote and then we can discuss on them for multi-cycle or which one to go for V cycle. in next Thursday office hour ? | 16:17 |
| gmann | or meeting if that is early but not sure when that is | 16:17 |
| njohnston | +1 | 16:17 |
| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 16:34 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 16:35 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 16:36 | |
| *** abhishekk is now known as abhishekk|away | 17:04 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 18:00 | |
| *** AJaeger has left #openstack-tc | 18:04 | |
| *** cloudnull2 has joined #openstack-tc | 19:37 | |
| *** cloudnull has quit IRC | 19:38 | |
| *** cloudnull2 is now known as cloudnull | 19:38 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 19:57 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 19:58 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:29 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:44 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 20:45 | |
| *** cgoncalves has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| *** Jeffrey4l has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| *** Jeffrey4l has joined #openstack-tc | 20:53 | |
| *** cgoncalves has joined #openstack-tc | 20:55 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| *** smcginnis has quit IRC | 21:06 | |
| *** smcginnis has joined #openstack-tc | 21:07 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 21:45 | |
| *** tkajinam has joined #openstack-tc | 22:46 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 23:11 | |
| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 23:43 | |
| *** tkajinam has joined #openstack-tc | 23:43 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!