| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 00:16 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 00:17 | |
| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 01:29 | |
| *** tkajinam has joined #openstack-tc | 01:29 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 03:24 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 03:35 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 04:25 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 04:36 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 04:36 | |
| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 06:35 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 06:35 | |
| *** tkajinam has joined #openstack-tc | 06:36 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 06:57 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 07:11 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:35 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 07:52 | |
| *** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau | 07:58 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:59 | |
| *** witek_ has joined #openstack-tc | 08:03 | |
| ttx | tc-members: we'll have a community newsletter this week with spotlight on Ussuri release. If there is anything else to mention around OpenStack, please add today to https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/newsletter-openstack-news as usual | 08:34 |
|---|---|---|
| *** lpetrut_ has joined #openstack-tc | 08:39 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 08:42 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jean-Philippe Evrard proposed openstack/governance master: Move i18n into a SIG https://review.opendev.org/721605 | 09:35 |
| evrardjp | ttx: commented. | 09:38 |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 10:05 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|bbl | 10:19 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:59 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 11:00 | |
| ttx | Did y'all come to some conclusion around packaging-RPM? | 11:24 |
| *** samueldmq_ has joined #openstack-tc | 11:28 | |
| *** samueldmq_ has quit IRC | 11:34 | |
| *** samueldmq_ has joined #openstack-tc | 11:36 | |
| *** samueldmq_ is now known as samueldmq | 11:40 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 11:54 | |
| *** rpittau|bbl is now known as rpittau | 12:21 | |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 12:41 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 12:44 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 13:00 | |
| *** spotz has joined #openstack-tc | 13:27 | |
| gmann | ttx: not yet, last we discussed was to hear back from packaging-RPM team after their meeting. and dirk has added the comments on etherpad. | 13:31 |
| cloudnull | o/ | 13:32 |
| ttx | we don't need nearly as much accountability from a low-level packaging team than from a IaaS core component, so it seems they could experiment with PTL-less | 13:33 |
| ttx | or really, a SIG since all they produce is tooling to help package, rather than packaging | 13:35 |
| ttx | It's really where the tension comes from: we ask accountability from them that is not justified by what they produce | 13:37 |
| ttx | project team / PTL model is based on the accountability we need for teams producing "openstack": release liaison, security liaison... | 13:38 |
| ttx | But RPM-Packaging does not really need a release liaison or a security liaison | 13:39 |
| ttx | so they would be better off as a SIG, imho. We sould stop bothering them with useless elections | 13:39 |
| ttx | *would | 13:40 |
| evrardjp | sorry I didn't report on this | 13:45 |
| evrardjp | yeah they wish to try PTL-less | 13:45 |
| evrardjp | they don't see a point of moving to a SIG yet, and I thought it would be nice to really test the ptl less story | 13:46 |
| evrardjp | if not we can move them to sig | 13:46 |
| ttx | evrardjp: could they be interested in SIG instead? PTL-less still requires things from them that do not really make sense in their case, like a security liaison | 13:46 |
| ttx | so I feel like it's not the best example to experiment with | 13:46 |
| evrardjp | they just don't want any change in their workflows | 13:46 |
| evrardjp | "who is gonna be chair of the sig then?" | 13:46 |
| ttx | OK... going to SIG would mean direct tagging instead of going through the releases repo | 13:46 |
| ttx | evrardjp: they can list all the people who do work as co-chairs | 13:47 |
| ttx | Co-chairs are just names that someone interested in joining the group can contact | 13:47 |
| evrardjp | as many of those are _independant deliverables, would that be a problem for releasing? | 13:47 |
| ttx | evrardjp: direct tagging? not really. | 13:48 |
| evrardjp | no I mean, continue using the releases repo | 13:48 |
| evrardjp | and not change practices | 13:48 |
| evrardjp | I didn't realise this would be a problem | 13:48 |
| ttx | We can't maintain exceptions at every corner... openstack/releases is for project teams where we have accountability (release liaisons) | 13:49 |
| ttx | If a team can't give us a head to contact, we should not intermediate | 13:49 |
| evrardjp | I think they don't mind having the people right now set up as release liaison | 13:49 |
| evrardjp | that's why I thought PTL-less was maybe a good idea | 13:50 |
| evrardjp | they still care about delivery of those | 13:50 |
| ttx | OK ptl-less could probably work for them. My only objection to it is that we can't really test-drive the concept with a corner case (like PTL-less requires security liaison, and RPm-packaging really does not need one) | 13:51 |
| ttx | so it's not a great way to evaluate the idea | 13:51 |
| *** openstackstatus has quit IRC | 13:53 | |
| evrardjp | what's the better alternative? Assign a PTL that doesn't have time to answer, or move to a SIG and annoy those regular contributors due to a change of practices? | 13:53 |
| evrardjp | it's a loose-loose situation | 13:53 |
| ttx | agree. I just wish we had tried ptl-less on a more representative guinea pig first | 13:54 |
| *** openstackstatus has joined #openstack-tc | 13:54 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +v openstackstatus | 13:54 | |
| ttx | are they really fine designating a release liaison and a security liaison ? | 13:55 |
| evrardjp | again, the TC can still assign someone PTL, if we really don't want that first guinea pig to be that project | 13:55 |
| evrardjp | I can ask for the security liaison | 13:55 |
| evrardjp | but I am sure they don't mind/have an interest in that | 13:55 |
| ttx | I mean, I understand that the PTL position can be politically overwhelming in a project like Cinder | 13:56 |
| evrardjp | they might even have interest in that* | 13:56 |
| evrardjp | it's not that | 13:56 |
| ttx | I'm not sure how release liaison ≠ PTL for RPM-packaging | 13:56 |
| evrardjp | they aren't just sure how involvment will turn out in the future. In the times of uncertainty, nobody steps up | 13:56 |
| evrardjp | if I understood correctly | 13:57 |
| ttx | Ah, so it's the "can't sign up for next 6 months" thing | 13:57 |
| ttx | ptl-less still requires someone to sign up for being release liaison though | 13:57 |
| evrardjp | yes, but that's more malleable | 13:58 |
| ttx | again, not sure why. PTL can be malleable. In both cases it's a lien in a file | 13:58 |
| ttx | But I can see how that is not how people see it | 13:58 |
| evrardjp | I don't disagree. | 13:58 |
| evrardjp | correct | 13:58 |
| evrardjp | because there is less red-tape within releases oneliners than tc oneliners :p | 13:59 |
| ttx | Anyway, y'all's call :) | 13:59 |
| ttx | We just can't keep it with APPOINTMENT NEEDED as it's braeking all scripts that expect to have a PTL in there | 13:59 |
| evrardjp | agreed | 14:12 |
| gmann | yeah, i agree on ptl-less still need people taking responsibility as liaison so if no one want their name as PTL in current situation and SIF chair then PTl-less will be still same isuse | 14:12 |
| gmann | issue | 14:12 |
| evrardjp | there wasn't a meeting for a while, but I have asked to have a meeting to finally settle this | 14:12 |
| gmann | but is SIG with deliverable ok for us ? | 14:13 |
| evrardjp | we would not deal with releasing | 14:25 |
| evrardjp | if SIG, they will have to do everything with the tagging/pushing to pypi | 14:26 |
| evrardjp | I don't think they have a lot of deliverables to push though, and I am not even sure they are using PyPI in their workflows | 14:27 |
| evrardjp | (just repos) | 14:27 |
| evrardjp | but I think this would be a problem for them if they don't appear for releases, so I think SIG will not be what they aim toward. | 14:27 |
| fungi | their repositories wouldn't technically be deliverables if they were a sig | 14:31 |
| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 14:37 | |
| fungi | they have two branchless utilities (pymod2pkg and renderspec) which tag non-cycle-aligned releases, one catch-all repository (rpm-packaging-tools) for a status script which has neither tags nor cycle branches, and one repository with per-cycle rpm specfiles (rpm-packaging) which has branches but no releases tagged | 14:38 |
| fungi | so i doubt they're really getting any benefit from the coordinated release automation | 14:39 |
| mnaser | eh | 15:11 |
| mnaser | if they don't want to be a SIG | 15:11 |
| mnaser | yet no one wants to be a PTL | 15:11 |
| mnaser | we're sitting in a bit of a checkmate | 15:11 |
| mnaser | s/check/stale/ | 15:11 |
| mnaser | imho, we should create a sig with all current cores. those not interested being on it can remove their names. | 15:12 |
| mnaser | rpm-packaging is not openstack and doesn't have much to do with openstack imho | 15:12 |
| openstackgerrit | Mohammed Naser proposed openstack/governance master: Allow for faster addition of projects https://review.opendev.org/726932 | 15:16 |
| mnaser | gmann, fungi: addressed your comments above | 15:16 |
| mnaser | jungleboyj, evrardjp, njohnston: appreciate readding your votes | 15:16 |
| gmann | mnaser: thanks. done | 15:17 |
| evrardjp | done | 15:17 |
| mnaser | tc-members: in order to make sure i have consensus, can i please have either a -1 or +1 on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/720005/ (drop centos) | 15:17 |
| mnaser | not voting makes things hard to get consensus if we should abandon it | 15:18 |
| njohnston | mnaser: done, thanks! | 15:18 |
| knikolla | done :) | 15:20 |
| knikolla | thanks for the ping | 15:20 |
| jungleboyj | pre-done | 15:20 |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 15:22 | |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/governance master: Clarify the support for linux distro https://review.opendev.org/727238 | 15:41 |
| gmann | mnaser: done but it is always confusing on distro things, clarifying it in https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727238/ | 15:41 |
| gmann | tc-members - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/727238/ | 15:42 |
| *** lpetrut_ has quit IRC | 15:51 | |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/governance master: Clarify the support for linux distro https://review.opendev.org/727238 | 16:03 |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk | 16:10 | |
| *** witek_ has quit IRC | 16:18 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:30 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 16:36 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 16:36 | |
| *** iurygregory has quit IRC | 17:27 | |
| *** iurygregory has joined #openstack-tc | 18:31 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 19:12 | |
| *** camelCaser has quit IRC | 19:35 | |
| *** camelCaser has joined #openstack-tc | 19:35 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 19:57 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 20:01 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:06 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 20:32 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 20:35 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:48 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:13 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 21:25 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:30 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 21:40 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 21:44 | |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/governance master: Clarify the support for linux distro https://review.opendev.org/727238 | 21:51 |
| *** tkajinam has joined #openstack-tc | 22:54 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 23:14 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!