| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 00:40 | |
| opendevreview | renliang proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Add and remove incorrect links https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/894610 | 03:18 |
|---|---|---|
| tonyb | I just wrote this code review. As it speaks of the TC as a whole I feel like I should bring it to the attention of the TC as a whole: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893810/comments/6443d743_079e39d4 | 03:19 |
| gmann | tonyb: I am not sure what is your exact concern over a 1 min task per cycle in election. I have proposed email template and election official just need to send the email. | 03:30 |
| gmann | reason why we think it is more appropriate in election task is that only benefits of extra AC now is voting rights | 03:30 |
| gmann | election a another working group under TC team is also good communication to do via closely related team | 03:31 |
| tonyb | I have stated my concen in the comment. It is not IMO the resposibility of the election officals | 03:31 |
| tonyb | I don't see this as an example of godd communications | 03:31 |
| gmann | just asking community to propose extra AC to TC so that they can vote in election is not responsibly of election official? | 03:31 |
| gmann | maybe it is just you then, i did not see that strong objection from other election official and even past officials | 03:32 |
| tonyb | Correct. | 03:32 |
| gmann | it is related to voting nothing else | 03:32 |
| tonyb | It is recognition of being an active contributor. *today* that gives only gives you the ability to vote | 03:33 |
| tonyb | correlation does not imply causation | 03:33 |
| gmann | tonyb: you are wrongly reading the change, we are not asking election official to confirm or do any task for AC. it is just reminder to community during election as election need them to vote if there are any | 03:34 |
| gmann | and rest of process of what AC can do extra or how to add AC is all TC handle | 03:34 |
| tonyb | Nope I understand the change and what it does | 03:35 |
| gmann | it is just 2 min work during election as it is related to vote, if in future it change then we can remove if needed | 03:35 |
| tonyb | I have laid out my objections, and suggested a path forward | 03:35 |
| gmann | election group was created to handle such election/voting related things. if you want TC to ask each community member to check their election pre-steps then I do not think that is more appropriate | 03:36 |
| gmann | then all election things also can be handle there is reason we have separate group to handle it in TC | 03:37 |
| tonyb | I'm not asking the TC to be responsilbe for any "election pre-steps". I'm asking the TC, as a whole, to take actions to maintain community health, one aspect of which is OSF membership. | 03:42 |
| gmann | sure, that is whole complete separate topic from that change. As we discussed in last TC meeting, adding extra AC notification email in election process was something we discussed as best possible/close things. | 03:44 |
| gmann | you can check meeting logs and recording if you do not trust me. hope rescording is uploaded by knikolla | 03:45 |
| tonyb | To me it is *not* a seperate topic from that change. Hence my objection | 03:46 |
| gmann | community health and extra AC is whole separte thing, your -2 seems confusing to me that what all TC can do to improve community health and that is reason to block the extra AC notification step | 03:47 |
| gmann | feel free to add that topic in PTG or TC meeting but "Extra AC notification email in election process" is a very small ask to election group and it should not be blocked by the whole community health reason | 03:48 |
| tonyb | The meeting logs are minimal, because it was a zoom meeting. To be clear this is not a trust issue. I do not believe there is malice here. There *is* a communication issue here. | 03:48 |
| gmann | here is the full recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA2_O6cks6o | 03:49 |
| tonyb | Thank you for the link. | 04:09 |
| tonyb | As an exmaple for communication the only hit I have for that link is in the gerrit comment. | 04:10 |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 04:59 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 05:08 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 05:50 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 06:06 | |
| *** bauzas_ is now known as bauzas | 06:51 | |
| knikolla | tonyb: Thanks for your feedback. I responded in the Gerrit patch. Regarding discoverability for Zoom meeting: the Youtube channel under which all those recording are published is linked to on the OpenStack TC meeting wiki page https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda_Suggestions | 11:01 |
| spotz[m] | knikolla: Can D&I WG have 2 minutes at the end of the meeting? We're starting an initiative and would love input | 14:45 |
| clarkb | Hello OpenStack TC. Over the weekend we restarted Zuul from scratch without cached configs. This highlighted that we have a github rate limit problem specifically with zuul integrating with github projects that don't ahve the zuul app installed (this increases your rate limits). One such repo is github.com/elastic/kibana used by the monasca project here | 15:29 |
| clarkb | https://opendev.org/openstack/monasca-kibana-plugin/src/branch/master/.zuul.yaml#L15. Not only that but kibana is no longer open source. Since it is not open source and contributing to zuul restart problems I'd like to remove it from zuul entirely. This will break that monasca job. There isn't currently a monasca PTL though and the current candidate indicates they have struggled | 15:29 |
| clarkb | to contribute due to zuul problems: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893033 | 15:29 |
| clarkb | Do you have a prefered course of action here? I don't need monasca to make changes in order to change the zuul server config, but if I rip out kibana it will break that job and add another todo item to a monasca revival | 15:30 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Add call for Extra AC in PTL guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/894807 | 16:18 |
| gmann | tc-members: knikolla: I might be late or on/off in today meeting. got the appointment at same time. below are the updates from me in case I do not show up in meeting | 16:23 |
| gmann | Action Items: gmann to ensure that a call for extra-ACs is included in future election/governance operational documentation to ensure it's difficult to miss in the future. | 16:24 |
| gmann | I proposed this as an election process task, but it seems this very small task is not welcome there and | 16:24 |
| gmann | It ended up with a wider and unrelated discussion from that change. I abandon that not to drag it | 16:24 |
| gmann | more and proposed other ways to add it to the project team guide. | 16:24 |
| gmann | #ink https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893810 | 16:24 |
| gmann | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/894807 | 16:24 |
| gmann | and this is on bylaws changes, | 16:24 |
| gmann | please review and provide your feedback in case we delete something from | 16:24 |
| gmann | bylaws and not adding it in TC. The working group will be meeting next week and discuss the TC feedback. | 16:24 |
| knikolla | thanks gmann for the update | 17:31 |
| knikolla | tc-members: reminder weekly meeting in ~30 minutes. | 17:32 |
| knikolla | spotz: sure thing :) | 17:47 |
| knikolla | #startmeeting tc | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Sep 12 18:00:16 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is knikolla. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 18:00 |
| knikolla | #topic Roll Call | 18:00 |
| JayF | o/ | 18:00 |
| knikolla | Hi all, welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee | 18:00 |
| dansmith | o/ | 18:00 |
| knikolla | A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct | 18:00 |
| knikolla | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 18:00 |
| rosmaita | o/ | 18:00 |
| diablo_rojo | o/ | 18:00 |
| knikolla | We have 2 noted absences (noonedeadpunk and jamespage) and one late (gmann) | 18:00 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:01 |
| knikolla | hi diablo_rojo :) | 18:01 |
| knikolla | o/ | 18:01 |
| knikolla | i'll give it 2 more mins and we can get started at 4 minutes past the hour. | 18:02 |
| knikolla | #topic Follow up on past action items | 18:04 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 18:04 |
| knikolla | We have one action item noted down | 18:04 |
| knikolla | gmann to ensure that a call for extra-ACs is included in future election/governance operational documentation to ensure it's difficult to miss in the future. | 18:04 |
| knikolla | He'll be late to the meeting but he was awesome and provided an update before it. | 18:04 |
| knikolla | gmann proposed this and we received some push back about the narrow focus of the change and the need for broader guidelines related to preparing people to vote, rather than just adding extra AC. | 18:04 |
| knikolla | For example the number of extra ATCs (now ACs) is much smaller than the number of non-foundation members (community members) or gerrit submitters who did not join in openinfra.dev. | 18:05 |
| knikolla | So more general guidelines would go a longer way towards helping the electorate. | 18:05 |
| knikolla | We can talk more about this item during the election topic, which is part of today's agenda. | 18:05 |
| knikolla | Ah, we have one more related action item | 18:06 |
| knikolla | JayF to contact i18n SIG about extra-ACs | 18:06 |
| JayF | I emailed Ian Choi and got no response; but I did see i18n sig has some docs about setting up extra ACs. | 18:07 |
| JayF | I believe this can be grouped in with the other extra AC work; there is clearly need for us to be more active with ensuring this happens in a timely manner. | 18:07 |
| knikolla | ++, thanks JayF | 18:08 |
| frickler | you can also try ianychoi[m] in #openstack-i18n | 18:08 |
| knikolla | we can circle back to the election item during it's agenda topic. | 18:08 |
| knikolla | #topic Gate health check | 18:08 |
| knikolla | Any updates on the state of the gate? | 18:08 |
| JayF | frickler: I doubt there's a real action to take, especially in light of the commentary on/around election changes. | 18:09 |
| dansmith | tbh I haven't been sending push through the gate in the past week so I'm not sure, | 18:09 |
| frickler | I've seen oom failures in cinder tempest jobs today | 18:09 |
| dansmith | but I have seen plenty of things landing, so I take that as a good sign that it hasn't significantly regressed | 18:09 |
| frickler | seems to be blocking them quite a bit | 18:09 |
| dansmith | I know they're looking to back down the concurrency on their jobs, probably as a result of that | 18:10 |
| dansmith | are they jobs that have more stuff running than normal? | 18:10 |
| dansmith | more services I mean | 18:10 |
| rosmaita | possibly c-bak in addition to the usual | 18:11 |
| frickler | just the usual integrated projects afair | 18:11 |
| dansmith | okay | 18:11 |
| dansmith | rosmaita: yeah, why does c-bak take more memory? | 18:12 |
| rosmaita | i don't think it does | 18:12 |
| frickler | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/887081 is an example with a lot of retries already and no success | 18:12 |
| dansmith | rosmaita: we have it disabled specifically because it does, IIRC | 18:12 |
| clarkb | c-bak historically was one of the worst memory hogs | 18:12 |
| dansmith | yeah that ^ | 18:12 |
| rosmaita | i suspect that if you look at performance.json you will find that not to be the case | 18:13 |
| rosmaita | for quite a while now | 18:13 |
| frickler | well, the oom was for some python3 process, but I didn't check which one | 18:13 |
| dansmith | frickler: oh really? normally all OOMs get charged against mysql, | 18:13 |
| dansmith | so if it was a python process that's highly unusual, IMHO, so I'd want to know which one for sure | 18:13 |
| frickler | I'm not sure which job I looked at, but you can check the above patch yourself | 18:15 |
| dansmith | knikolla: nothing else from me on gate though, maybe if frickler can dig up the one in question we can chat in -qa later | 18:15 |
| knikolla | thanks dansmith | 18:15 |
| knikolla | #topic OpenStack TC Charter Updates for OIF Foundation Simplification | 18:16 |
| knikolla | As discussed in the previous TC+Board syncup, the OpenInfra Foundation bylaws contain a lot of OpenStack specific language. | 18:16 |
| knikolla | Me, gmann, and rosmaita have been meeting with Allison from the board to study the necessary changes to move that language to the charter and free up the bylaws for OpenStack references. | 18:16 |
| knikolla | Bylaws changes and what all to go in the TC charter have been shared in an email which you all should have received. TC needs to provide the feedback before Sept 19. | 18:16 |
| knikolla | If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to bring them up now | 18:17 |
| JayF | I wanna thank the folks on the email thread who commented on them and all, I had no feedback but I appreciated the discussion there | 18:17 |
| frickler | is there a reason that this is not a public discussion? | 18:18 |
| knikolla | That's a good question. I'll bring it up in the thread and will share the PDF in openstack-discuss if I get a go ahead. | 18:18 |
| spotz[m] | I don't think it's not not a public discussion | 18:19 |
| knikolla | there's too many negations there and my head now hurts, haha | 18:19 |
| spotz[m] | hehe | 18:19 |
| fungi | in part, the initial pass is a back-and-forth with the foundation's legal counsel, and we don't want to have them spending billable hours answering community questions while the proposal is being solidified | 18:20 |
| spotz[m] | I'm pretty sure fungi has emailed the sync info to the dev list each time and the bylaw changes are public as well | 18:20 |
| knikolla | I'll go ahead and share the TC charter changes without the bylaws bit. | 18:21 |
| fungi | if parts of the proposal that require an individual member vote go ahead, then obviously there's public discussion with the individual membership that has to go on anyway | 18:22 |
| knikolla | That part should be safe to share and will be more relevant for the OpenStack community. | 18:22 |
| knikolla | ++, the sept 19 deadline is before it goes to legal, IIRC. | 18:22 |
| knikolla | But it's not like these changes are going to take effect without a long public phase, both for the tc charter and oif bylaws. | 18:23 |
| frickler | my concern is more about TC actions being as open as possible, but I guess that's ok-ish this way | 18:23 |
| knikolla | I understand and share your concern, so thank you for raising it. | 18:23 |
| knikolla | Anything else on the topic? | 18:24 |
| fungi | for parts that require tc approval, there will also be a public vote, i'm certain | 18:24 |
| fungi | (because the tc has no other way to record consensus) | 18:25 |
| knikolla | Yes, everything needs to go through Gerrit, and I tend to keep changes open for longer just in case. | 18:26 |
| knikolla | (It's totally not because I don't have executive skills ;) | 18:26 |
| knikolla | #topic OpenStack Elections | 18:27 |
| knikolla | We're one week away from the end of the voting period. | 18:27 |
| knikolla | We already discussed a bit about this topic during the action items phase of the meeting. | 18:28 |
| fungi | is this the first cycle we've accepted votes for two weeks instead of one? | 18:28 |
| knikolla | No, IIRC | 18:29 |
| dansmith | I was going to ask | 18:29 |
| JayF | I'm fairly certain we did it last cycle as well | 18:29 |
| fungi | thanks, i couldn't remember if it was last cycle or this one | 18:29 |
| fungi | i do recall it being intentional because people complained they missed the voting period due to being on vacation | 18:30 |
| frickler | well this cycle there was no TC vote at least, iirc none at all even | 18:30 |
| fungi | last cycle? | 18:30 |
| fungi | oh last election, right | 18:30 |
| knikolla | last election cycle, yes | 18:30 |
| JayF | Maybe I should say I'm fairly certain *we changed the rules* before last election | 18:30 |
| JayF | I do not recall if we actually had an election | 18:30 |
| knikolla | this cycle we have 6 candidates for tc | 18:30 |
| fungi | makes sense, this may be the first time we've exercised the two-week voting period then | 18:31 |
| knikolla | thank you frickler for volunteering :) | 18:31 |
| diablo_rojo | yes | 18:31 |
| diablo_rojo | I believe that is correct | 18:32 |
| fungi | many thanks to everyone, new and returning, who cast their candidacies for tc | 18:32 |
| knikolla | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/893810 | 18:32 |
| knikolla | There was some good feedback on the patch above | 18:32 |
| knikolla | especially on the necessity to provide guidelines on people for how to prepare to vote | 18:33 |
| knikolla | I'm not yet sure about the best way to go about that, as people may just ignore templated emails | 18:33 |
| knikolla | I was thinking some kind of actionable PTL end of cycle checklist | 18:34 |
| fungi | reaching ptls to remind them of periodic tasks (release, ptg, etc) has been a perpetual challenge | 18:35 |
| diablo_rojo | Yes, take the current release process. Three ptls didn't approve their client library patches. | 18:35 |
| knikolla | We need to reach a lot of incumbent PTLs after the election cycle to even remind them to run again. | 18:36 |
| knikolla | It seems an area where being more proactive will go a long way. | 18:36 |
| fungi | also, extra-ac refreshes aren't clearly covered by any specific liaison position in the dpl model | 18:36 |
| fungi | that might be a gap worth closing | 18:37 |
| diablo_rojo | Ohhh that is a good point too. | 18:37 |
| JayF | I'll note that overall our election participation is extremely low which may also drive down importance of following up on extra-acs. | 18:37 |
| JayF | Given that currently the only real tangible benefit of being an extra-ac is the ability to vote (or be PTL/TC) | 18:37 |
| fungi | *and* extra-acs may not be associated with any project team (the i18n sig for example is not a project team) | 18:37 |
| frickler | or increase it since every single vote may be more valuable? | 18:38 |
| spotz[m] | The extra-acs being collected we found were forgotten this cycle as well | 18:38 |
| diablo_rojo | Currently that is the only value in being an extra-ac. Historically there have been more benefits. | 18:38 |
| JayF | frickler: My point is more that if 90% of our contributors don't care to vote that would imply there may be a % of PTLs who don't see value in it either (and de-prioritizes it in favor of the overgrown todo lists we all have) | 18:38 |
| diablo_rojo | Oh and I guess being listed in the release marketing materials | 18:38 |
| knikolla | Both are a signal of the lack of importance that elections have had in the past few cycles | 18:39 |
| JayF | I'm just saying, there are multiple approaches; proactive reminders are good, but if we can provide more incentive it might help as well | 18:39 |
| knikolla | are attributed * | 18:39 |
| fungi | technically we list contributors in the release info even if they aren't able to vote (but we include extra-acs in the list, yes) | 18:39 |
| knikolla | Voting is important when there are choices, which we scarcely provide. | 18:40 |
| diablo_rojo | fungi: good clarification :) | 18:40 |
| diablo_rojo | knikolla: exactly. Its been quite some time since we've actually had a poll for more than one team/project I think. | 18:40 |
| fungi | this is sort of related to the thing spotz[m] wants to talk about later too, i think | 18:41 |
| spotz[m] | yep yep | 18:41 |
| knikolla | So the floor is yours spotz | 18:41 |
| spotz[m] | So earlier today the D&I WG met and we brought up a topic we had discussed back in the Spring. Basically a leadership shadowing program where folks in the OpenStack projects and the larger OpnInfra projects could see what the leadership does, get some experience and visibility and hopefully run in the future | 18:43 |
| spotz[m] | We are starting to put possibility ideas in an etherpad | 18:44 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:44 |
| spotz[m] | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/diversity-leadership | 18:44 |
| spotz[m] | One I've seen used by some projects is a non-lader running the bug reports, sending out emails, and possibly running a bug meeting | 18:44 |
| spotz[m] | One thing we do in RDO is take volunteers to run the next meeting so everyone can get experience doing that | 18:45 |
| knikolla | I do want to sign up the TC for the pilot and have a few ideas :) | 18:45 |
| JayF | This is similar to what we've historically done in Ironic of finding someone who has not yet been PTL; teaching them what needs to be done then doing a handoff at the election period ... but I know, at least for Ironic, we don't have a lot of interested potential leaders breaking down the doors | 18:46 |
| JayF | so my main question with this is where to the mentees/shadowers come from? | 18:46 |
| knikolla | Obviously pending TC consensus and assuming I won't get voted out of chair this cycle. | 18:46 |
| spotz[m] | Please add them to the etherpad. I think if we have some good examples of things people can do we'll have more buy-in from leaders and potential leaders | 18:46 |
| fungi | JayF: i think that's one of the questions we hope to find answers for | 18:47 |
| spotz[m] | Shadowers will come from current community members who show an interest and ask to take part. This isn't welcome to the community type mentorship so they should already be involved | 18:47 |
| knikolla | Hence I think the TC would be a great fit. | 18:48 |
| fungi | though it is also something that folks like the first-contact sig can set the tone for | 18:48 |
| spotz[m] | And that means for StarlingX/Kata/etc they already contribute there | 18:48 |
| diablo_rojo | spotz: have you looked at the k8s shadow program? They might have some advice/best practices to help advise too | 18:48 |
| fungi | we did discuss some of that during one of the openstack/kubernetes cross-community leadership get-togethers right? | 18:49 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:49 |
| spotz[m] | Nope I haven't we've just been talking about this between ourselves, we delayed it thinking we'd have an in-person PTG which would have been a great place to kick it off cause they could literally shadow someone | 18:49 |
| diablo_rojo | fungi: a little, but I think there are docs somewhere we can look at | 18:50 |
| diablo_rojo | spotz: we could also invite the k8s release folks or their tsc to come talk about the programs | 18:50 |
| diablo_rojo | (to the ptg) | 18:50 |
| spotz[m] | I think we've discussed regular mentoring before. I know we switch to co-horts because that's what K8s was doing and that really didn't work for us and kinda finished off out mentoring program | 18:50 |
| spotz[m] | Yeah we can definitely schedule some time specifically for this at the PTG as we get better attendance there then our meetings | 18:51 |
| gmann | this is good topic for TC+leaders interaction sessions too | 18:51 |
| rosmaita | I think all projects are open to volunteers doing things, our problem has been getting people to volunteer ... this sounds like another effort for us to build something in the hope that people will show up | 18:51 |
| rosmaita | i think it would be better if the D&I WG did something like direct reachout to people telling them to show up at project meetings or in irc channels and volunteer, and then projects will handle the mentoring | 18:51 |
| diablo_rojo | Yeah they have been really successful with their release team shadow program | 18:52 |
| diablo_rojo | in particular | 18:52 |
| knikolla | I think k8s was also recently revamping their shadowing program, IIRC. | 18:52 |
| JayF | rosmaita++ | 18:52 |
| gmann | rosmaita: agree | 18:52 |
| dansmith | yep | 18:52 |
| fungi | rosmaita: yes, i heard clarkb mention something similar. basically the suggestion is that we might get more traction if there's someone seeking out and identifying potential future community leaders and encouraging them | 18:53 |
| knikolla | rosmaita: that's a great point. I think this is more targeted to people who have an interest but are struggling to find a footing due to uncertainty regarding time commitment or lack of skills. | 18:53 |
| knikolla | So providing a softer landing to try leadership roles | 18:53 |
| knikolla | Without the full commitment and risk associated with it. | 18:53 |
| gmann | frickler: knikolla: on the bylaws change discussion, it is public one only. we call out the interested members in TC+board syncup Aug call who can join the discussion of bylaw changes. after we got the interested members then we started the discussion. | 18:54 |
| gmann | once that group make changes in better shape it will be voted public only via board, individual member, tc charter in gerrit etc | 18:54 |
| spotz[m] | Or they're just not sure what the role entails. So it's a bit of everything folks are mentioning. fungi and I can't be everywhere in OpenStack let alone all the projects so if you want us to reach out to people to encourage them someone has to give us their names | 18:55 |
| gmann | if anyone still interested in the discussion of getting changes in mroe readable/shape form, let me know and i will get you included in the next call | 18:55 |
| spotz[m] | gmann if you can include me I'll join, the normal syncs have coincided with the CentOS Board meetings which is why I haven't been able to attend | 18:56 |
| rosmaita | spotz[m]: not sure what you mean about names | 18:56 |
| gmann | and this is etherpad where discussion is captured publicly #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-tc-charter%2Bbylaws-scratchpad | 18:56 |
| gmann | spotz[m]: noted, will do | 18:57 |
| knikolla | #topic Open Discussion | 18:57 |
| knikolla | I'll be unavailable tomorrow as I'm flying back to the US | 18:57 |
| rosmaita | and boy will your arms be tired | 18:57 |
| dansmith | rosmaita: thanks DAD | 18:57 |
| * fungi apologizes in advance for the tsa experience | 18:58 | |
| knikolla | haha | 18:58 |
| clarkb | I would like to land https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/894814/ to remove a current job dependency for monasca from zuul | 18:58 |
| clarkb | there are two motiviations for this. The first is elastic/kibana has a significant number of branches in it which causes zuul to do many queries to sort of branch details which leads to us hitting api rate limits | 18:58 |
| clarkb | second is kibana is not open source anymore and I'd rather we not integrate with that in our CI system | 18:59 |
| clarkb | but it will break monasca's integration job and sounds like broken CI has impacted ability to get contributors/ptl candidates | 18:59 |
| knikolla | fungi: i'll be flying through istanbul, and they do some weird gate security check for all flights towards the USA. | 18:59 |
| spotz[m] | @rosmaita someone mentioned the D&I WG should reach out to potential shadows and we can definitely email them to encourage them but someone would have to tell us WHO to contact | 18:59 |
| gmann | frickler: let me know if you wanted to be part of that discussion and I can include, it is schedule next at Tue Sep 19, 2023 4pm - 5pm (EDT) | 18:59 |
| clarkb | I don't think this will make things significantly worse so if I don't ehar otherwise I'll try to land that soonish but please give me your feedback if you think that is an issue | 18:59 |
| fungi | also infra related (meant to bring it up during state-of-the-gate), we dropped fedora node labels in zuul/nodepool yesterday. no impact was anticipated nor observed | 19:00 |
| knikolla | We're almost out of time. Thanks all! | 19:00 |
| gmann | clarkb: as you might know, there are lack in PTL and maintainers there so this break is good indication | 19:00 |
| knikolla | #endmeeting | 19:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Sep 12 19:00:08 2023 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:00 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-09-12-18.00.html | 19:00 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-09-12-18.00.txt | 19:00 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-09-12-18.00.log.html | 19:00 |
| clarkb | gmann: yes I'm reaching out to the TC because the project is currently leaderless | 19:00 |
| gmann | clarkb: and I know fujistu was the main interested company in the Monasca but it seems they have changed their direction long back | 19:00 |
| clarkb | fwiw my suggestion to the TC and project would be to 1) drop most testing and start over if testing is that broken and 2) replace all non open source kibana/logstash/elasticsearch integrations with open source alternatives | 19:01 |
| rosmaita | spotz[m]: if we at cinder for example had a list of people, we would have already contacted them | 19:01 |
| rosmaita | i think maybe something general on the openstack-discuss ML ? | 19:01 |
| frickler | gmann: my concern was mainly about private email threads. I don't think calls of any type are public, either, but that's a different topic | 19:01 |
| fungi | cleanup on opendev's end which breaks more monasca jobs seems reasonable at this point, seeing as how they've not been merging new changes anyway and already have some broken jobs | 19:01 |
| JayF | clarkb++ It seems to be you have to do what you do to keep the CI system running, if Monasca can't handle that it might be the sign that project needs to be marked inactive | 19:02 |
| frickler | there are lots of that signs already, config errors, unmerged release patches | 19:02 |
| spotz[m] | Oh for sure, we're at the preliminary get things organized stage first have projects lined up then I'll spam | 19:02 |
| gmann | frickler: it require voice discussions and it is difficult to keep every discussion on irc.ML etc that is why what we choose 1. call out all interested people who want to be part of discussion 2. discuss and shape the changes in better way 3. make it public for review and finally formal vote | 19:03 |
| gmann | clarkb: +1 on that change, and this is good timing as anyone volunteering for PTL have to fix gate and commitment to do so in future | 19:04 |
| clarkb | thank you for the feedback | 19:04 |
| frickler | inclusiveness and openness are not easily achieved, I disagree on voice discussions being necessary anywhere | 19:04 |
| gmann | otherwise we have seen many project PTL volunteer just show up for PTL assignment and then disappear | 19:04 |
| gmann | frickler: humm, for board level things we do voice call only even that is board meeting, board strategic discussion , baord+ openinfra project syncup etc | 19:05 |
| JayF | frickler: almost exactly a year ago, when I joined the TC, we had a similar discussion and there were some people who spoke up making it clear that due to language barriers or processing issues or whatever-the-reason they can follow on phone/video calls better, which is why we maintain the once-a-month zoom tc meeting | 19:05 |
| gmann | and IMO as long as we open those call to anyone in the community we are open. anyone can join those call | 19:05 |
| JayF | frickler: I don't love it as a practice either but I also am a person who works easier in written text, so I do wanna allow space for folks that are the opposite. | 19:06 |
| gmann | if they are private voice call then i could have agree about the point of not being public | 19:06 |
| gmann | wendar explicitly callout all the interested people in board+TC syncup call and then only started the discussion with them and by capturing all discussion point in etherpad | 19:07 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Add call for Extra AC in PTL guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/894807 | 19:10 |
| gmann | tc-members ^^ please review extra AC things so that we can close this item instead of just stretching it. thanks rosmaita for review | 19:11 |
| gmann | and there are other governance changes form noonedeadpunk also up and ready to merge | 19:12 |
| gmann | this one https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/893831 | 19:13 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Rename extra-atcs key to extra-acs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/893831 | 19:24 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Convert ATC to AC term https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/894211 | 21:58 |
| rosmaita | spotz[m]: left an alernative proposal for you on https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/diversity-leadership | 22:05 |
| spotz[m] | rosmaita: We're also working on getting a pageup on the Opendev website where I think something like that could go as we are Foundation wide and not just OpenStack | 23:09 |
| clarkb | though many of the projects hosted by opendev use very different approaches to development and leadership. I would say that is true even within openstack | 23:11 |
| clarkb | so you might need to do both things. Go from high level to specifics depending on context | 23:11 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!