| *** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau | 07:29 | |
| *** diablo_rojo__ is now known as diablo_rojo | 11:21 | |
| *** diablo_rojo is now known as Guest2424 | 11:22 | |
| *** Guest2424 is now known as diablo_rojo | 11:23 | |
| *** akekane_ is now known as abhishekk | 12:31 | |
| fungi | don't forget, board strategy call is starting in ~5 minutes, side-channel discussions in the #openinfra-board channel | 13:55 |
|---|---|---|
| *** akekane_ is now known as abhishekk | 14:19 | |
| opendevreview | Kendall Nelson proposed openstack/election master: Add Detail to Running Election Configuration Script https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/796294 | 14:36 |
| *** pojadhav is now known as pojadhav|afk | 16:35 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk | 16:40 | |
| TheJulia | gmann: given the discussion on the call earlier today, can we anticipate that the TC tries to drive encouragement on retrospective and looking forward to projects in the near future? | 17:13 |
| fungi | i listened in on that call, and it's not clear to me what that question means in the context of the openstack tc | 17:14 |
| gmann | TheJulia: I am not 100 % on that all action item for TC ? | 17:15 |
| fungi | particularly what "looking forward to projects" means | 17:15 |
| gmann | is it retrospective of infra projects as strategy level or openstack projects at technical level? | 17:16 |
| TheJulia | The expressed ask was around the idea that we, and all projects, and even subprojects should be evaluating where we have been and where are we going. i.e. have a retrospective. | 17:16 |
| gmann | I am in impression that we are continuing the discussion on this in next call ? | 17:17 |
| TheJulia | so kind of across the board was the idea, because if we don't know where we are, at least honestly, then we cannot chart a forward path | 17:17 |
| TheJulia | In part, we will, but I'm sure there will be additional items raised during that call and asking point blank then doesn't seem super polite :) | 17:18 |
| TheJulia | given this back and forth, it is clear it didn't come across clearly :( | 17:18 |
| gmann | yeah, i think we need to be clear or we can say continue discuss what we discussed today to do in next call 'on what part we expect from TC and what Board/foundation planning to do' | 17:20 |
| fungi | the main points i got were the suggestion that most users want to not need to think about the software we're producing, and that maybe we should decompose openstack into multiple different open infrastructure projects | 17:21 |
| TheJulia | Those were also points raised | 17:21 |
| TheJulia | but yes, future discussion required | 17:21 |
| fungi | got it, i mistakenly thought the board was talking about retrospective and forward-looking ideas for the foundation | 17:22 |
| fungi | rather than asking the projects themselves to do that | 17:22 |
| TheJulia | We were speaking broadly across the board, board, foundation, projects | 17:23 |
| gmann | yeah that was my understanding | 17:23 |
| TheJulia | and also a bit vaugely | 17:23 |
| fungi | i see. since it was a board of directors brainstorming call it seemed like it was a conversation between board members (which is why i stayed silent, and assume other non-board-members did as well) | 17:23 |
| *** diablo_rojo is now known as Guest2459 | 17:24 | |
| TheJulia | hmm, perception disconnects. noted! | 17:24 |
| gmann | fungi: yeah, may be good to get clarification. | 17:27 |
| clarkb | as an fyi we itend on doing this, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/790093, project rename on friday | 22:55 |
| clarkb | there is no neededby footer to point at the governance change that needs to go along with that. Could a TC member maybe ack that they are happy with that change as we prepare to make it (or I usppose NACK it) | 22:55 |
| gmann | clarkb: I think we should have governance patch up and have TC vote there | 23:05 |
| clarkb | hrm ok. Is that something that might happen before friday? It didn't occur to me that this bit may have been missed until I started getting stuff together for it | 23:06 |
| clarkb | fungi: ^fyi | 23:06 |
| clarkb | I'll leave a comment on that change | 23:06 |
| fungi | thanks | 23:08 |
| gmann | clarkb: I think yes but depends on when patch is up, As this is not completely new project application and it is under neutron project governance then it is project-update category and can be merged with 2 TC vote + PTL | 23:08 |
| fungi | right, there's no minimum review time for deliverable additions to existing official project teams | 23:09 |
| clarkb | ok | 23:09 |
| fungi | they have their own expedited approval process called out in the tc house rules | 23:09 |
| clarkb | I left a comment on that change. If anyone knows the tapaas folks maybe they can ping them? | 23:09 |
| fungi | and they're mainly a rubber stamp to confirm the ptl is aware/in favor | 23:09 |
| fungi | and to make sure the project is properly tracked of course | 23:10 |
| gmann | yeah. | 23:11 |
| clarkb | I'll proceed as if all the paperwork will be lined up in time, we can always postpone if we need to | 23:11 |
| gmann | I will ping Slawek once he is online | 23:12 |
| clarkb | thanks | 23:13 |
| fungi | i think slawek was on vacation this week (there was a post on the ml), or maybe that was last week... all the days are running together for me lately | 23:13 |
| clarkb | I thought yesterday was tuesday and today was monday | 23:14 |
| gmann | ah yeah, he is on PTO until 1.08.2021 | 23:14 |
| gmann | http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-July/023812.html | 23:15 |
| clarkb | ok, I guess let me know how you think we should proceed. I don't want to do the rename if the openstack side isn't ready for it | 23:16 |
| clarkb | slawek did +1 the change in project-config | 23:16 |
| gmann | I think we should wait for governance side to merge in case it does not for any reason and then you need to rename again. | 23:18 |
| clarkb | gmann: you're basically saying lets wait for slawek to return from vacation? | 23:19 |
| gmann | clarkb: yeah. though he is +1 on project config change but we need PTL confirmation for project updates basically 'it is ok to add under neutron project or separate' ? | 23:21 |
| clarkb | ya | 23:22 |
| clarkb | we could do the rename if the TC would be happy adding it separately I guess since we could fallback to that. | 23:22 |
| clarkb | I'm personally not in a rush though we've been trying to get a few of these things done in the quiet part of the release cycle | 23:22 |
| clarkb | it gets harder as it gets later | 23:22 |
| gmann | clarkb: if fallback is ok for project-config side then may be it is ok to merge the project-config change and governance patch can land later next week. | 23:26 |
| clarkb | gmann: it doesn't change anything on our side because it would be openstack/ in either case | 23:27 |
| gmann | but let's have patch up in governance so that TC know and can feedback especially if any big objection. | 23:27 |
| clarkb | yup I have requested that from the project-config authors. I won't push it for them as I can't make the case for it | 23:27 |
| gmann | +1. works fine. | 23:28 |
| gmann | if patch is up I will ask TC feedback in Thursday meeting or before and update you. | 23:28 |
| fungi | the tc could also decide to accept the neutron release liaison's acknowledgement in lieu of the known absent ptl's | 23:37 |
| fungi | it's not like any of that is carved into the stone of the tc charter | 23:38 |
| fungi | as noted, the ptl did already indicate being in favor of (re)adopting the deliverable by voting in favor of the project-config change for it | 23:38 |
| fungi | and i would also be okay going forward with the rename maintenance as scheduled, on the presumption that the governance change will eventually merge | 23:39 |
| gmann | commented the project rename process page link in project-config patch in case author has any question. | 23:49 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!