| *** gthiemon1e is now known as gthiemonge | 10:14 | |
| *** iurygregory_ is now known as iurygregory | 11:55 | |
| opendevreview | James Page proposed openstack/governance master: Add charmed openstack-hypervisor OpenStack Charms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/879437 | 14:21 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | James Page proposed openstack/governance master: Propose Sunbeam as a new OpenStack project https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/881384 | 14:21 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Add charmed openstack-hypervisor OpenStack Charms https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/879437 | 15:39 |
| knikolla | o/ | 15:41 |
| *** dasm is now known as Guest12046 | 15:52 | |
| knikolla | tc-members: one more vote required on the proposal to deprecate TripleO. Please take a look and review. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/877132 | 18:34 |
| gmann | knikolla: I think number of votes are enough here (4 RC Vote out of 9 members) but did not check the days criteria . | 18:40 |
| diablo_rojo_phone | Next week is newsletter week! Get your suggestions in by Thursday! https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/newsletter-openstack-news | 18:42 |
| diablo_rojo_phone | knikolla: ^ | 18:42 |
| diablo_rojo_phone | tc-members ^ | 18:42 |
| knikolla | gmann: That is true. I've been mostly trying to merge things with >1/2 votes to get a better feel of what level of effort/time is required for >1/3 vs >1/2. | 18:43 |
| gmann | knikolla: ok but if that is delaying the thing that is not good. I hope 7 days enough for every TC to have a looks as criteria and this has been for ~1 month | 18:44 |
| knikolla | Thanks diablo_rojo_phone ! | 18:44 |
| gmann | * this(tripleo deprecation) has been open | 18:45 |
| diablo_rojo_phone | To make it more clear, need suggestions by this Thursday as the newsletter goes out next Tuesday I think. | 18:45 |
| knikolla | gmann: Yes, it is not good, delaying merging. But I honestly think it's also not good taking the opportunity to twist a knob here and there and see what effect that has on things. It may point to a larger problem of members not being engaged with the proposals either due to lack of time/being spread too thin, or something else (for example only reviewing things once a week when there's the meeting). | 18:50 |
| knikolla | not taking the opportunity* | 18:50 |
| gmann | knikolla: that is my point, we are not merging anything before it qualify for merge. and we made our process little faster to speed up the TC decision. if you feel it is not good then we should update our charter, house rule first. | 18:51 |
| gmann | IMO, the number of days thing must be open as per motion is enough days for every TC members to look. | 18:52 |
| JayF | Just because we can merge something quickly doesn't mean we always should. I think it's a good goal to try and get more engagement. It's not a good look, or a good thing at all, when most of the resolutions are approved by a minority | 18:53 |
| gmann | but if you feel those number of days criteria is less to engage all TC then we should propose to increase that. | 18:53 |
| gmann | it cannot be merged as minority. it is merge as per motion criteria we have, if we feel that is still less than we can increase that in charter right | 18:54 |
| knikolla | gmann: I understand your point. I'm not trying to change the charter. I am playing around with small things in process in search of better insights. What that insight that leads to and how it may or may not lead us to change the process moving forward is an open question. | 18:55 |
| gmann | but my point if holding things for more than 1-2 week because not all/half TC members are reviewing things is not good. | 18:55 |
| JayF | only half of TC members reviewing a thing is, itself not good too :( | 18:55 |
| * JayF is guilty of this at times, too | 18:55 | |
| gmann | yeah, we need to improve that and make all TC members more active instead of delaying things | 18:55 |
| gmann | and it is not every day we have to be active/doing review. it is what our charter says like 'open for 7 days' | 18:56 |
| gmann | anyways, i still feel if things are validated by our charter/house rule we should merge it soon than just waiting unless any TC members explicitly asked for wait | 18:57 |
| knikolla | I'm not saying we have to do reviews 24/7. If something has been open for 3 weeks and only less than half of the TC has reviewed it, there is a problem. And merging things quickly only hides that. | 18:57 |
| knikolla | If I weren't delaying some things to get >1/2, you wouldn't have noticed things merging more slowly. | 18:58 |
| knikolla | This is my point and my opinion, trying to get better insights for the long term health of things is more important than short term efficiency. | 18:59 |
| gmann | but we know that and it has been since starting i think where not all TC members are active always. not merging to proving that is actually not required | 18:59 |
| gmann | if we can solve that problem it is great. I tried it by distributing the work among all TC and it somewhat worked but did not solve the problem | 19:00 |
| gmann | but again, I am saying let's not delay the things due to this problem which is good to solve it as separate | 19:01 |
| knikolla | But I didn't know that because this wasn't something I was aware or exposed to. This was a bit of knowledge debt that TC chairs have to relearn. Being on the TC for 2 full terms before this, I wasn't aware of it. | 19:01 |
| knikolla | That's why it's so important for me to rotate these kinds of positions as often as possible. It makes people learn and highlights knowledge gaps for why things have been done the why they have. | 19:02 |
| gmann | its not just chair but we can see in past reviews also that its hardly few changes where everyone/1/2 voted | 19:02 |
| gmann | sure | 19:02 |
| fungi | certainly some things covered in the "house rules" are governance changes in name only. simple bookkeeping changes like updates to project deliverables adding/removing stuff doesn't need to waste half the tc's time reviewing, a couple of tc members checking it over ought to suffice | 19:12 |
| fungi | for resolutions on the other hand, yes higher engagement seems warranted | 19:13 |
| fungi | the openstack/governance repository is sort of a unique beast in that it contains a mix of governing documents (charter, resolutions, policies, guidance...) that needs mindshare and consensus opinion, and also some more basic data that just needs checking for correctness | 19:15 |
| gmann | true, house rules were written for that purpose only. to speed up such things and charter, resolution etc still require majority of TC to provide opinion and we have given enough time for all TC and even community to feedback on those. | 19:19 |
| gmann | But at the same time if not many TC reviewing the things then we need to make them review or at least ask them to add comment if they want to abstain to vote instead of waiting | 19:20 |
| gmann | weekly meeting was one of good way to improve this and it has worked well I think. and we do ask for review in every meeting but still | 19:21 |
| gmann | but I am not against of increasing the motion requirement to have 1/2 TC member vote which is good if we can get more engagement | 19:23 |
| *** Guest12046 is now known as dasm | 19:40 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!