| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 00:17 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 00:26 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 01:19 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 02:32 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 02:39 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:19 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 03:21 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:23 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 03:23 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 03:25 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc | 03:47 | |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Close Xena Elections https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/779846 | 03:47 |
|---|---|---|
| gmann | diablo_rojo: ^^ fixed the TC term date which is published as "Elected On" (we changed this in last cycle i think). your original date March,2021 was correct. | 03:48 |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 03:48 | |
| gmann | other part lgtm, thanks for fixing | 03:48 |
| gmann | Zun also have PTL candidacy now, we left with 5 project as PTL-less (out of which Cyborg might have PTL candidate during China day time) | 04:00 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 04:12 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 04:12 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 05:33 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 05:33 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 05:47 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 06:24 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 06:24 | |
| * ricolin rif | 06:25 | |
| * ricolin Rico is asking if WangXinRan will volunteer for Cyborg PTL role again | 06:26 | |
| ricolin | Wang XinRan will propose patch for volunteer for Cyborg PTL today | 06:41 |
| *** ralonsoh has joined #openstack-tc | 06:51 | |
| openstackgerrit | Xinran WANG proposed openstack/election master: Add Xinran Wang candidacy for Cyborg PTL in Xena https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/779911 | 06:52 |
| yoctozepto | whiteboard updated | 07:05 |
| yoctozepto | 4 projects indeed | 07:05 |
| ricolin | yoctozepto, thx | 07:12 |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 07:13 | |
| openstackgerrit | Xinran WANG proposed openstack/election master: Add Xinran Wang candidacy for Cyborg PTL in Xena https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/779911 | 07:26 |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 07:41 | |
| openstackgerrit | Xinran WANG proposed openstack/election master: Add Xinran Wang candidacy for Cyborg PTL in Xena https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/779911 | 07:43 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 07:47 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 07:47 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 07:49 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 07:52 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 08:04 | |
| *** dklyle_ has joined #openstack-tc | 08:08 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 08:10 | |
| *** andrewbonney has joined #openstack-tc | 08:24 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 08:33 | |
| *** tosky_ has joined #openstack-tc | 08:52 | |
| *** tosky is now known as Guest86814 | 08:53 | |
| *** tosky_ is now known as tosky | 08:53 | |
| *** Guest86814 has quit IRC | 08:55 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:30 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 11:03 | |
| *** openstack has joined #openstack-tc | 13:17 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +o openstack | 13:17 | |
| *** dklyle_ has quit IRC | 13:43 | |
| openstackgerrit | Aurelien Lourot proposed openstack/governance master: Add Manila-NetApp backend charm to OpenStack charms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/780007 | 13:58 |
| gmann | yeah 4 project left out of which Mistral can try DPL as discussed previously, we left with 3 projects to discuss for leader assignments. | 14:44 |
| mnaser | #startmeeting tc | 15:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Mar 11 15:00:48 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mnaser. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:00 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 15:00 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 15:00 |
| mnaser | #topic roll call | 15:00 |
| mnaser | o/ | 15:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "roll call (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:00 | |
| ricolin | o/ | 15:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 15:00 |
| belmoreira | o/ | 15:01 |
| redrobot | ✋ | 15:01 |
| yoctozepto | \o/ | 15:02 |
| mnaser | #topic Follow up on past action items | 15:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Follow up on past action items (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:02 | |
| mnaser | #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-03-04-15.03.html | 15:03 |
| mnaser | we don't have anything listed, so we can skip that for today | 15:03 |
| mnaser | #topic Audit SIG list and chairs (diablo_rojo) | 15:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Audit SIG list and chairs (diablo_rojo) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:03 | |
| mnaser | cc ricolin on this one too | 15:03 |
| yoctozepto | ping diablo_rojo_phon | 15:03 |
| ricolin | we only got one patch in review now https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance-sigs/+/778304 | 15:04 |
| mnaser | right, i think gmann brings up a good point about archiving things | 15:05 |
| ricolin | yes | 15:05 |
| ricolin | I through we have ways to retire a SIG | 15:06 |
| gmann | should we add sig also in TC-liaison list so that we periodically checks the status/health ? | 15:06 |
| ricolin | gmann, +1 | 15:06 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: ++ | 15:07 |
| fungi | we had them in there originally | 15:07 |
| gmann | ricolin: yeah we have for moving to 'completed' state but not for 'un finished ' or so | 15:07 |
| fungi | the first cycle or two that we did liaisons, we had an optional section for sigs and board-appointed committees/working groups | 15:07 |
| gmann | ricolin: i mean if any SIG is retired from 'forming' state only | 15:07 |
| gmann | fungi: i see. | 15:08 |
| gmann | while reiterating the liaison for Xena cycle we can add SIG also in our automatic assignment script | 15:08 |
| fungi | at the time people felt just keeping up with all the project teams was more work than we were able to get done in the cycle, but we also had much loftier goals for health measurement back then | 15:08 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:08 |
| ricolin | I guess this is currently all we have for retire process https://governance.openstack.org/sigs/reference/sig-guideline.html#retiring-a-sig | 15:09 |
| mnaser | it's pretty hard to keep up with all the teams with all the things we have to deal with, that's what i found anyways | 15:09 |
| gmann | ricolin: yeah, may be we can add 'forming' -> 'retire' also there | 15:09 |
| belmoreira | +1 | 15:10 |
| mnaser | maybe add a reason | 15:10 |
| gmann | mnaser: true, at least we know if any SIG is not active then who from TC can follow up quickly | 15:10 |
| mnaser | and say 'folded into XYZ' | 15:10 |
| jungleboyj | mnaser: ++ | 15:10 |
| ricolin | we should also ask to retire or migrate SIG repo too in doc I assume | 15:10 |
| *** spotz has joined #openstack-tc | 15:10 | |
| gmann | mnaser: +1 for reason, nice idea | 15:11 |
| ricolin | a reason will definitely something good for reactive | 15:11 |
| ricolin | I will update the doc to reflect on these suggestion | 15:11 |
| gmann | thanks. | 15:12 |
| ricolin | Will also update the container SIG patch too | 15:12 |
| ricolin | diablo_rojo_phon, ^^^ | 15:12 |
| mnaser | cool | 15:12 |
| gmann | and should I add SIG in TC liaison list if all ok? | 15:12 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/election master: Close Xena Elections https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/779845 | 15:12 |
| mnaser | i guess we could | 15:12 |
| gmann | ok, | 15:13 |
| ricolin | I think we should | 15:13 |
| ricolin | but on the other hand | 15:13 |
| ricolin | popup tema | 15:13 |
| ricolin | what about popup team | 15:14 |
| gmann | popup team has TC liaison/volunteer already. | 15:14 |
| ricolin | oh, than we're all good:) | 15:14 |
| gmann | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/popup-teams.html | 15:14 |
| gmann | 'TC Liaison' | 15:14 |
| ricolin | the TC liaison for image encryption should update | 15:15 |
| ricolin | or we're fine to have non-TC for TC liaison for popup team? | 15:16 |
| mnaser | i think its ok for it to just be a liasion and not necessary a tc member | 15:16 |
| mnaser | but maybe that's another discussion topic | 15:16 |
| mnaser | :p | 15:16 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:17 |
| jungleboyj | :-) I mean, he is an honorary member. :-) | 15:17 |
| mnaser | ricolin: wanna add that to next weeks agenda? | 15:17 |
| ricolin | I think no need to make more discussion as I believe on fungi for it:) | 15:17 |
| jungleboyj | Poor guy will never be able to get away. | 15:17 |
| ricolin | mnaser, I think we're good on this | 15:17 |
| gmann | :) we will not let him to go away | 15:17 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 15:17 |
| fungi | heh, yeah i was a tc member when i originally served as the sponsor for that pop-up | 15:17 |
| ricolin | yep! | 15:17 |
| fungi | i still attend their weekly meetings | 15:18 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:18 |
| mnaser | #topic Gate performance and heavy job configs (dansmith). | 15:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Gate performance and heavy job configs (dansmith). (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:18 | |
| jungleboyj | https://media1.giphy.com/media/KczBU4M2IEdClprXaq/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e4772p0dj0zuysiay11z145hvnovyiqbthd0thwb6nx&rid=giphy.gif | 15:18 |
| fungi | i want to say we originally decided that tc liaisons for pop-up teams didn't need to be tc members, i just happened to be in that case | 15:18 |
| dansmith | oof, sorry | 15:18 |
| mnaser | i think this one has been a rotating topic without that much progress | 15:18 |
| mnaser | its been a busy week for all of us i think | 15:18 |
| dansmith | yeah, so, | 15:19 |
| fungi | i saw we finally caught up with our node request backlog around 02:00 utc today | 15:19 |
| dansmith | the gate has been crazy busy | 15:19 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:19 |
| dansmith | I've seen a lot of cinder fail, | 15:19 |
| jungleboyj | mnaser: It has at least gotten some visibility in Cinder and we are working on cleaning up failures that are slowing the checks. | 15:19 |
| dansmith | and the tempest queue has been somewhat problematic | 15:19 |
| dansmith | we're definitely doing a lot of work, which is great | 15:19 |
| gmann | yeah yesterday we finally got many of them merged in tempest but it was issue there | 15:20 |
| dansmith | given the last couple weeks have been atyipcal (for normal, not for this part of the cycle), it's hard to tell how good we are or aren'tm | 15:20 |
| dansmith | but some things have taken millions of rechecks to get landed | 15:20 |
| gmann | and obviously it start happen during release time | 15:20 |
| fungi | today is not so bad, i guess because we're at/past the freeze deadline now? | 15:20 |
| dansmith | fungi: the major rush was yesterday for sure | 15:20 |
| fungi | node backlog reached nominal levels around 13:00 utc | 15:20 |
| fungi | there's a little bump at the moment, but there were brief periods in the past two hours where we weren't even using all of our quota | 15:21 |
| dansmith | mnaser: personally I think this is a good thing for us to keep eyes on.. doesn't have to be every week, but I think keeping it on the radar has yielded good stuff, IMHO | 15:21 |
| mnaser | yeah i think lets keep it on the radar | 15:21 |
| mnaser | i agree | 15:21 |
| gmann | agree | 15:21 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 15:22 |
| fungi | also the additional quota from inap has really helped in the past few weeks | 15:22 |
| dansmith | fungi: yeah, really seems like it | 15:22 |
| fungi | things would have been much worse without it | 15:22 |
| dansmith | yesterday it was almost eight hours to get jobs running for a while, | 15:22 |
| dansmith | but with a huuuge queue | 15:22 |
| dansmith | so it felt like things were doing pretty well considering all the fail | 15:23 |
| *** dirk2 is now known as dirk | 15:23 | |
| fungi | there's been some push on the ml to solve some cinder-related failures by switching the iscsi signalling is it? | 15:23 |
| fungi | something which was causing a lot of job failures anyway | 15:24 |
| jungleboyj | Yes. | 15:24 |
| jungleboyj | I am not sure where that landed after discussion yesterday though. | 15:24 |
| dansmith | switching to or from iscsi, | 15:24 |
| dansmith | or switching something about how we use it? | 15:25 |
| jungleboyj | Switching how we use it. | 15:25 |
| fungi | lio vs tgt i think? | 15:25 |
| jungleboyj | From tgt to lio | 15:25 |
| dansmith | ah | 15:25 |
| fungi | anyway, would be good not to lose sight of it with the change volume dropping as the cycle goes through its post-freeze state change | 15:25 |
| mnaser | this sounds all good so we'll keep watching over things :) | 15:26 |
| mnaser | i think we can move on to the next item | 15:26 |
| dansmith | yup | 15:26 |
| mnaser | #topic Consensus on lower constraints testing (gmann) | 15:26 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Consensus on lower constraints testing (gmann) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:26 | |
| gmann | it seems no objection on the proposed plan on ML #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-February/020556.html | 15:26 |
| gmann | which is basically 1. Only keep direct deps in lower-constraints.txt 2. Remove the lower constraints testing from all stable branches. | 15:27 |
| gmann | and it will be easy to maintain | 15:27 |
| gmann | like for nova 77 deps can be removed from l-c #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/772780 | 15:28 |
| fungi | #2 includes removing it from new stable branches when they get created | 15:28 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:28 |
| fungi | stable branches need stable jobs, and those won't be stable over time | 15:28 |
| gmann | as next step, i feel we should document it somewhere, in project guide or PTI or resolution ? | 15:28 |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 15:29 | |
| yoctozepto | I agree, it makes most sense to have some stub for it and fix when needed | 15:29 |
| gmann | I feel PTI is better place? | 15:29 |
| ricolin | gmann, do you think a goal is too strong/enforcing for this? | 15:30 |
| gmann | or resolution and then update PTI | 15:30 |
| gmann | ricolin: it is not strong, i think just removing the indirect one which would not cause much work | 15:30 |
| fungi | we haven't previously required the use of lower-constraints jobs, so it seems weird to have a policy requiring something about a non-required job | 15:30 |
| yoctozepto | indeed | 15:31 |
| fungi | i think so far the pti only lists necessary policy, so this would be a shift to also including guidance i guess | 15:31 |
| yoctozepto | I am with fungi on this | 15:32 |
| yoctozepto | better not | 15:32 |
| jungleboyj | Agreed. | 15:32 |
| * mnaser personally defers to the others on thisd | 15:32 | |
| gmann | true for projects clarity we can add somewhere at least when project asked TC to have some guidelines on this | 15:32 |
| fungi | i agree with the guidance, just seems like maybe not something that needs to be enshrined in openstack's governance | 15:32 |
| yoctozepto | agreed | 15:33 |
| fungi | does the qa team maintain content in the project teams guide? | 15:33 |
| gmann | i do not think so | 15:33 |
| fungi | i wonder if a section in there on testing recommendations (not policy) would fit | 15:34 |
| gmann | i think pti is the place where we all look on testing guidelines | 15:34 |
| fungi | well, we certainly look there for policies that the tc has officially voted on | 15:34 |
| yoctozepto | pti does not mention l-c at all | 15:35 |
| gmann | yeah that's what projects were looking for, TC decide on l-c testing | 15:35 |
| yoctozepto | in fact, the only place is pt guide | 15:35 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: yes that was the confusion i think when this bring up on ML | 15:35 |
| fungi | just remember the pti is part of openstack's governing documents (it's in the governance repository along with things like tc resolutions) | 15:35 |
| yoctozepto | yes | 15:35 |
| gmann | and it was hard to maintain and we did not find pti does not talk about it so remove it? | 15:35 |
| gmann | remove the testing job? | 15:35 |
| * yoctozepto with his masakari ptl and kolla cores hats on admits to removing all l-c jobs | 15:36 | |
| gmann | I feel having all testing policy in single place will be more clear | 15:36 |
| yoctozepto | not a single tear was shed | 15:36 |
| fungi | policy yes, but is this policy when it's about something not required? | 15:36 |
| gmann | and 'do not test l-c on stable and direct deps on master' s policy for testing | 15:37 |
| yoctozepto | feels too brute | 15:37 |
| gmann | at least like 'only requirement is to test direct deps on master' | 15:37 |
| yoctozepto | so we are then adding one now, aren't we? | 15:37 |
| gmann | i will say adding the one we were testing without any clearity | 15:38 |
| gmann | if we end up removing the l-c testing then I would agree | 15:38 |
| yoctozepto | would make sense to query projects; perhaps some do not test l-c at all | 15:38 |
| yoctozepto | fwiw, masakari had broken jobs which ran noop with l-c so :-) | 15:39 |
| yoctozepto | just saying :D | 15:39 |
| gmann | yeah because there was no clarity on whether to test or not | 15:39 |
| yoctozepto | indeed | 15:39 |
| yoctozepto | so do we want to test l-c? we know the shortcomings of the newly proposed approach | 15:40 |
| gmann | and after checking 'who need these' and 'whether it is worth to test or not' we end up like yes we can at least test direct deps in consistent way | 15:40 |
| yoctozepto | it makes sense obviously | 15:40 |
| yoctozepto | "accidental version bump, you shall not pass!" | 15:41 |
| spotz | Hehe | 15:41 |
| yoctozepto | I would vote on making this a policy then | 15:42 |
| gmann | in PTG, many project will be discussing on these like nova will so I think we should be ready with TC guidelines by then. | 15:42 |
| fungi | so far, openstack has not mandated lower bounds testing, but many projects used lower-constraints jobs as an ad hoc standard. recent changes in pip made it apparent they could not be easily maintained on stable branches. some projects were cool with removing their l-c jobs entirely (they're not required after all), others wanted to keep the jobs but were looking for a compromise and so we've suggested | 15:42 |
| fungi | that compromise is to just take them out of stable branches. none of that is policy | 15:42 |
| yoctozepto | yes, none *is* at the moment | 15:43 |
| mnaser | so maybe this is something we can leave up to the projects to decide but list the different options? | 15:43 |
| fungi | it's all up to individual teams if they want to run l-c jobs at all, and they can also *try* to run them in stable branches if they like tilting at windmills, but it's inadvisable | 15:43 |
| gmann | mnaser: project wanted TC to decide | 15:43 |
| gmann | that was the original discussion started when neutron asked on ML | 15:44 |
| fungi | nova wants the tc to tell them whether and how to run lower-constraints jobs? | 15:44 |
| gmann | after oslo started the thread on dropping those. | 15:44 |
| mnaser | so if projects want the tc to decide, then it sounds like policy | 15:44 |
| gmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-January/019660.html | 15:45 |
| gmann | from here it was started to have some common guidelines | 15:45 |
| fungi | a tc policy of "you can do this if you want" isn't a policy, so if some projects want the tc to make a policy about lower-constraints jobs then it sounds like they're asking the tc to require these jobs when they were not previously required. that's a lot different from mere guidelines | 15:46 |
| mnaser | ok, so a guideline sounds like a list of approaches to take | 15:46 |
| gmann | well it can be "l-c testing can be done with direct deps only for master and not needed for stable as mandatory" | 15:46 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 15:46 | |
| fungi | is nova asking the tc to decide how all projects will do lower bounds testing, or is nova asking the tc to provide them with some suggestions? the first is policy, the second is not | 15:47 |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 15:47 | |
| gmann | its not nova, its from all other projects like neutron was seeing for some common strategy on this. | 15:47 |
| gmann | where come project were dropping it and some not | 15:47 |
| fungi | and i anticipate at least some projects to object to being required to add lower bounds testing they don't feel they have the capacity to stay on top of | 15:48 |
| gmann | we have job testing it and it run on all project/stable also so why not to make it in pti on what we expect on that. | 15:48 |
| fungi | and you'll need to decide how to determine what kinds of deliverables are required to have/add lower bounds testing, vs how to identify deliverables where it doesn't make sense | 15:49 |
| *** timburke_ has quit IRC | 15:49 | |
| gmann | that is true in many other testing also, not all projects test also defined pti | 15:49 |
| yoctozepto | let's recap what we know | 15:49 |
| yoctozepto | 1) l-c testing was largely broken | 15:49 |
| yoctozepto | 2) we survived | 15:49 |
| yoctozepto | so? | 15:49 |
| yoctozepto | no need to policy if not required :D | 15:50 |
| mnaser | i think we should revisit this next week | 15:50 |
| mnaser | i'd like sometime to chat over the next topic. | 15:50 |
| fungi | it's not like upper-constraints which is centrally maintained, lower bounds are different for every project and not always trivial to identify, i'm unconvinced that it makes sense to start forcing it on project teams who don't see value in it | 15:50 |
| *** timburke_ has joined #openstack-tc | 15:50 | |
| mnaser | or we keep discussing this | 15:50 |
| mnaser | and move the rest of topics next week | 15:50 |
| mnaser | but yeah | 15:50 |
| gmann | ok for next week as next topic is more important | 15:50 |
| yoctozepto | perhaps it's good to vocalize on ptg | 15:50 |
| jungleboyj | yoctozepto: ++ | 15:51 |
| mnaser | #topic PTL assignment for Xena cycle leaderless projects (gmann) | 15:51 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "PTL assignment for Xena cycle leaderless projects (gmann) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:51 | |
| mnaser | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/xena-leaderless | 15:51 |
| gmann | We have 4 project left as leader-less and 4 project as late candidacy | 15:52 |
| gmann | better than last cycle i think | 15:52 |
| yoctozepto | (let's keep retiring and it will get better and better, yes) | 15:53 |
| jungleboyj | That is better. | 15:53 |
| ricolin | It is | 15:53 |
| gmann | out of first 4, Mistral might go with DPL as discussed preciously | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | very well | 15:53 |
| redrobot | I volunteer as tribute for Barbican. | 15:53 |
| yoctozepto | you are too kind | 15:53 |
| spotz | :) | 15:53 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 15:53 |
| gmann | nice | 15:53 |
| ricolin | :) | 15:53 |
| * redrobot was not paying attention to PTL nomination deadline. | 15:53 | |
| fungi | redrobot: i your defense, we didn't provide as many warnings it was coming up as we have in past cycles | 15:54 |
| gmann | I can reach out to Mistral team for DPL model | 15:55 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: should we then move mistral to dpl in the whiteboard? | 15:55 |
| fungi | we actually ended up with a lot fewer "leaderless" results than in past cycles | 15:55 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: ack | 15:55 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: let's check with them on required liaison list or so | 15:55 |
| redrobot | fungi 😅 | 15:55 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: yeah, I figured from your subsequent message | 15:55 |
| gmann | basically we need to decide on Keystone and Zaqar | 15:56 |
| jungleboyj | Wow. Keystone ... | 15:56 |
| gmann | Zaqar seems not active in last cycle | 15:56 |
| spotz | Yeah my feelings too jungleboyj | 15:56 |
| gmann | may be we can get release team input also if they are doing wallaby release or not | 15:56 |
| fungi | knikolla was suggesting dpl for keystone | 15:57 |
| yoctozepto | zaqar is not deployable by kolla nor charms | 15:57 |
| yoctozepto | I think tripleo and osa do deploy it though | 15:57 |
| jungleboyj | Ok. I assume there is still enough activty there to spread out the responsibility? | 15:58 |
| jungleboyj | Someone go find Brant Knudson | 15:58 |
| yoctozepto | I agree with gmann that Zaqar is likely 5 - bye-bye for now | 15:58 |
| fungi | for keystone? i don't get the impression keystone is dead, at least, they're on top of vulnerability reports from my vmt perspective | 15:58 |
| gmann | yeah, I will ping release team on Zaqar release status | 15:59 |
| gmann | agree on keystone, it is active project just no PTL | 15:59 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: Yeah. If knikolla is recommending depl, that seems fine. | 15:59 |
| yoctozepto | https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/releases+zaqar | 15:59 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: thanks | 15:59 |
| yoctozepto | nothing in wallaby whatsoever | 16:00 |
| gmann | yeah | 16:01 |
| belmoreira | another important data point is also to understand if the project is actually used | 16:02 |
| gmann | yeah, good point | 16:03 |
| gmann | may be we can check latest user survey data | 16:04 |
| jungleboyj | Makes sense. | 16:04 |
| yoctozepto | yeah, on that note I already wrote regarding deployment tools | 16:05 |
| gmann | we are out of time anyways. we can keep discussing it on etherpad or after meeting | 16:06 |
| yoctozepto | there was not enough steam to even add it in kolla and charms :/ | 16:06 |
| ricolin | Project like Heat use Zaqar to impl. singal, will be great to send them some notify if we gonna remove Zaqar | 16:06 |
| yoctozepto | ricolin: that's interesting | 16:06 |
| knikolla | o/ sorry i'm late | 16:07 |
| ricolin | yoctozepto, not hard dependency, just provide it as one of singal backend | 16:07 |
| ricolin | I mean from heat side | 16:07 |
| ricolin | knikolla, o/ | 16:07 |
| yoctozepto | ricolin: yeah, I've done a quick read | 16:07 |
| yoctozepto | they should be happy to maintain less code :-) | 16:07 |
| yoctozepto | hi knikolla | 16:08 |
| yoctozepto | oh, we are past time indeed | 16:08 |
| spotz | Not too badly | 16:08 |
| yoctozepto | if knikolla could say a word about keystone governance model | 16:09 |
| yoctozepto | we would have a (almost) complete set of information | 16:09 |
| jungleboyj | \o/ | 16:09 |
| knikolla | None of the cores has reached out to me showing interest in taking over as PTL | 16:10 |
| knikolla | And pretty much everyone has cycled through the role (or is ptl of some other project) | 16:10 |
| yoctozepto | duh | 16:10 |
| spotz | Maybe ping them? They might be too shy to step up? | 16:11 |
| gmann | ohk, how about DPL model? anyone interested in that or something you have discussed in keystone meeitng or so | 16:11 |
| fungi | speaking from experience, it takes a lot of convincing for a former ptl to come out of retirement | 16:12 |
| spotz | I was thinking more the cores | 16:12 |
| knikolla | I don’t think it’s a question of shyness | 16:12 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: hberaud said mistral is not releasing either | 16:12 |
| fungi | spotz: he was saying basically all the keystone cores are also former keystone ptls | 16:12 |
| yoctozepto | ++ | 16:13 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: yeah but as per Renat (former PTL) he is ok to help on that | 16:13 |
| spotz | Ahhh | 16:13 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: ahh, ack! | 16:13 |
| bnemec | I get the impression that everyone is being pulled in other directions and doesn't feel like they have the time to commit to being PTL. | 16:13 |
| * bnemec sympathizes | 16:13 | |
| jungleboyj | bnemec: ++ | 16:13 |
| yoctozepto | I could not agree more | 16:14 |
| knikolla | I’ll ping the cores privately before Tuesday’s meeting, for a final attempt | 16:14 |
| knikolla | Othwerise, I guess DPL will be it. | 16:14 |
| gmann | +1 | 16:15 |
| gmann | thanks knikolla | 16:15 |
| yoctozepto | ++ | 16:15 |
| gmann | may be we should end meeting | 16:15 |
| yoctozepto | all right, I think we have gathered all we could | 16:15 |
| gmann | mnaser: ? | 16:15 |
| yoctozepto | my thoughts exactly | 16:16 |
| mnaser | sorry, yes | 16:16 |
| mnaser | #endmeeting | 16:16 |
| *** 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/" | 16:16 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Mar 11 16:16:05 2021 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:16 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-03-11-15.00.html | 16:16 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 16:16 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-03-11-15.00.txt | 16:16 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: +1, good progress and discussion | 16:16 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-03-11-15.00.log.html | 16:16 |
| fungi | at some point the tc needs to come to a decision on what to do about the vacant seat | 16:16 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: :-) | 16:16 |
| * fungi waves his election official hat around one more time | 16:16 | |
| yoctozepto | fungi: spotz nominated herself late iirc | 16:17 |
| fungi | yep | 16:17 |
| yoctozepto | ok | 16:17 |
| fungi | closest thing in the tc charter which addresses it says that if all else fails, a special election is conducted to fill a vacancy | 16:17 |
| yoctozepto | hmm | 16:18 |
| yoctozepto | I guess this is the first time such a thing happened | 16:18 |
| jungleboyj | Can we take a poll on spotz ? | 16:18 |
| fungi | it may make sense to apply that rule, and then once there's a full compliment of tc members, start talking about shrinking the number of seats further | 16:18 |
| jungleboyj | That is special. | 16:18 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: ++ | 16:18 |
| spotz | I was just an airhead and forgot to coo it | 16:19 |
| yoctozepto | fungi: tbh, 9 sounds like a decent number to have lively discussions | 16:19 |
| fungi | hardly an airhead, you were busy. i think everyone here is familiar with that | 16:19 |
| yoctozepto | yeas, I sympathise as well | 16:20 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 16:28 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 16:30 | |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 16:53 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 17:06 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 17:20 | |
| lbragstad | someone pinged me here a few days about the keystone PTL thing and i'm just getting around to following up, | 17:35 |
| fungi | lbragstad: tl;dr is if you want it, it's probably yours! ;) | 17:36 |
| lbragstad | most of my focus is on getting other openstack projects to retrofit their policy to work with newer keystone constructs, and it takes up most of my time | 17:36 |
| lbragstad | even with the lower bandwidth keystone requires, i don't think i'd have the ability to step into the role again and give it the attention it deserves :( | 17:36 |
| fungi | yeah, i think the main question now is does keystone want to pivot to distributed leadership, and if so does it have volunteers for the various roles defined in the dpl resolution | 17:37 |
| * lbragstad nods | 17:37 | |
| gmann | yeah at least three liaison DPL model need | 17:38 |
| jungleboyj | lbragstad: Thanks for the input. | 17:43 |
| *** andrewbonney has quit IRC | 18:12 | |
| *** ralonsoh has quit IRC | 18:48 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 18:52 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 18:55 | |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Appoint Shengqin Feng as Zun PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/780067 | 19:13 |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Appoint XueFeng Liu as Senlin PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/780068 | 19:17 |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Appoint Martin Chacon Piza as Monasca PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/780070 | 19:20 |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Appoint Xinran Wang as Cyborg PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/780071 | 19:25 |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Appoint Douglas Mendizábal as Barbican PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/780072 | 19:29 |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 19:31 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 19:31 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 19:45 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 19:47 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 19:48 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 19:53 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:36 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:56 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 21:06 | |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 21:23 | |
| *** smcginnis has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** smcginnis has joined #openstack-tc | 23:15 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 23:16 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| *** smcginnis has quit IRC | 23:28 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 23:32 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:41 | |
| *** timburke_ has quit IRC | 23:45 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 23:52 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:57 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!
