| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Create candidates/2024.1 placeholder directories https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/891094 | 18:30 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Update Electorate description https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/891128 | 20:58 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Update election_season season templates https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/891129 | 20:59 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Add process documentation for update-release-calendar https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/891130 | 20:59 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Ignore tox4 .eggs directory https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/891131 | 20:59 |
| fungi | oh boy... https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license | 21:03 |
| fungi | probably the largest concern there for openstack is vault? though pretty sure barbican can be used without vault right? | 21:04 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Update election_season season templates https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/891129 | 21:05 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Add process documentation for update-release-calendar https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/891130 | 21:05 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Ignore tox4 .eggs directory https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/891131 | 21:05 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Add combined_campaigning_kickoff.j2 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/891135 | 21:05 |
| dmendiza[m] | fungi: yeah, Vault is optional for Barbican and Castellan | 21:10 |
| fungi | thanks for confirming | 21:11 |
| fungi | maybe soon there will be an "openvault" fork | 21:12 |
| tonyb | Hello TC members, With the election season approaching I'd like to ask the TC to be mindful of merging changes that may have impacts on the election. This primarily means projects switch to/from DPL, but adding repos to a project team is also potentially impactful. Looking at https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/governance+is:open https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/867588 , | 21:22 |
| tonyb | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/869752 and https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/890922 would be such changes. | 21:22 |
| tonyb | I do note that as it stands none of them are verified so probably wont merge. | 21:23 |
| tonyb | Ideally these or any new changes would be resolved by Aug 30 midnight UTC in preperation for tagging the governance repo | 21:24 |
| gmann | tonyb: yes, any new repo/projects added before email deadline (Aug 30) can be considered for this election/governance tag. not just these one but we might have a new one also proposed before Aug 30 | 21:27 |
| gmann | as per our house rule and speed up the project-updates (adding repo etc) they do not need to wait for any official time duration instead can be merged with normal two +2 from TC, PTL +1 criteria | 21:28 |
| tonyb | Sure. | 21:29 |
| tonyb | I'm not asking for process change just awareness, and if things merge that might be impactful for them to be communicated to the election officals | 21:30 |
| gmann | they all are waiting for project-config changes, as soon as those get in we can merge governance changes too | 21:30 |
| tonyb | As I said the main ones that are "problems" are DPL changes | 21:30 |
| tonyb | and I guess any potential retirements | 21:31 |
| gmann | I do not think we have any coming DPL change before election, I think I have added such deadline in DPL model things. let me check if that is merged | 21:32 |
| gmann | "All requests should be merged before the election nominations start otherwise request will be postponed to the next cycle." https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20200803-distributed-project-leadership.html#process-for-opting-in-to-distributed-leadership | 21:34 |
| gmann | and with nomination less than 7 days and any request coming today also cannot be merged before nomination. | 21:34 |
| gmann | tonyb: we are good in DPL/ as per the above criteria, there cannot be any change in DPL/PTL model change for any project for this cycle | 21:35 |
| tonyb | Perfect | 21:36 |
| gmann | fungi: thanks for sharing hahsicorp case. | 21:44 |
| gmann | if I understand correctly that any tool by hashicorp used directly or indirectly via other other open source license cannot be used in production ? | 21:46 |
| gmann | for example, vault used in baribican, barbican used in production is ok or not ok? | 21:46 |
| fungi | gmann: it's a matter of licensing. i haven't read the licensing terms closely, but the quick summary is that some uses may be disallowed or may require the purchase of a license. that means it's not open source, so we can't (by our own licensing requirements for dependencies) rely on that software exclusively and can only support it as an alternative to some actual open source dependency | 22:14 |
| fungi | in the barbican/castellan case that's fine because you can use them without vault, the included support for vault is optional and only there to enable people who happen to already use vault for other things | 22:16 |
| fungi | though it would also be entirely reasonable for the barbican and/or oslo teams to decide that since new versions of vault aren't open source, they're going to drop support for it | 22:17 |
| gmann | yeah, i think that can be a good path forward | 22:23 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!