| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Add 2024.1/Caracal results https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/895989 | 00:19 |
|---|---|---|
| tonyb | Election results announced, updating the website and governance repo is slightly delayed. | 00:41 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Add 2024.1/Caracal results https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/895989 | 00:48 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/governance master: Format members.yaml with yamltools https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895997 | 04:24 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/governance master: Add results from the 2024.1/Caracal election https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895998 | 04:24 |
| frickler | well congratulations gmann, dansmith and JayF, thanks to noonedeadpunk and guilhermesp for their candidacy, and thanks to everyone who put their trust in me | 06:02 |
| frickler | tonyb: do you already have some idea about that docs build failure? | 06:03 |
| tonyb | yup, fixed and docs published | 06:04 |
| frickler | tonyb: I was referring to the failure on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895998 | 06:05 |
| tonyb | ahh okay. I'm doing the school run I'll look when I'm back | 06:07 |
| frickler | tonyb: cool, thx, ping me if you need help | 06:08 |
| opendevreview | zhouxinyong proposed openstack/election master: Add Xinyong Zhou candidacy for Sahara PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/894899 | 06:45 |
| frickler | "TC status meetings are public and held monthly" seems outdated? https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#meeting also maybe update all the example calculations from 13 members to 9 now? | 07:58 |
| *** elodilles_pto is now known as elodilles | 08:47 | |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/governance master: Add results from the 2024.1/Caracal election https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895998 | 09:20 |
| tonyb | SHould be fixed now. | 09:31 |
| tonyb | It'd be great if we could understand why several projects missed the election process altogether | 09:31 |
| opendevreview | Tony Breeds proposed openstack/election master: Simplify and update-governance https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/888209 | 09:34 |
| frickler | tonyb: yes, I commented similarly on the sahara application. one idea would be whether translating the documentation and possible also the related emails could help | 09:50 |
| tonyb | sure, something like that could help | 09:51 |
| frickler | TheJulia: ^^ seems at least three affected applications are from inspur, maybe also the OIF board could help which seems to include a member from inspur, too | 09:56 |
| fungi | some companies also seem to put forth "candidates of last resort" when it's c | 11:39 |
| fungi | lear nobody else is going to run for ptl seats | 11:39 |
| fungi | i'm on the fence about whether it's better to have volunteer caretakers for projects which are no longer being developed, vs initiating deprecation/retirement process for the project's deliverables | 12:01 |
| frickler | if the caretakers not even produce a single commit in one year, I'm very much in favor of looking at retirement | 12:04 |
| frickler | in particular looking at the state of the CI and open release commits and zuul config errors for most of the affected projects | 12:04 |
| fungi | i guess one situation to look out for is if there are people trying to contribute but the ptl and other core reviewers are clearly absent. doesn't matter how many changes someone proposes to fix things in the project, if nobody is around to review and approve their changes they'll have no commits in any of its deliverables and so cannot officially run for election to take it over and | 12:10 |
| fungi | correct that problem | 12:10 |
| frickler | fungi: yes, but in all cases that I've seen (at least two this cycle), the candidate in question was the current PTL and thus should not have had this issue | 12:13 |
| fungi | makes sense, yes | 12:13 |
| TheJulia | frickler: There are definitely multiple facets. I do concur with the overall idea that projects which just have a PTL for the position, which are not actually getting the overall care/attention they need, ought to be evaluated for retirement | 13:19 |
| TheJulia | Defining that, is the hard part, because what is fair/equitable/etc. | 13:20 |
| TheJulia | The other issue is a communications/comms barrier, some emails in English don't get attention *and* it seems like we're seeing more loss with emails getting send to folks in China. Specifically I had a board member reach out recently indicating to not use their qq address because some lost emails in the mix and other issues with transport/delivery and calendaring (?!). | 13:22 |
| frickler | oh, so i18n of election documents would also need to cover different calendars, good point. seeing that today is 4721-08-07 could indeed explain some delta in following election timeframes | 13:30 |
| TheJulia | ... possibly. Might be worthwhile putting together a list of ideas, and if we could get a succinct problem statement as well, and then see if the board has thoughts/input. | 13:58 |
| TheJulia | The issue seemed to be more, while the calendar item was on their calendar, and a reminder was set, it wouldn't remind them | 13:59 |
| knikolla | o/ | 14:20 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Rename user survey analysis files to match year of survey https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/893158 | 14:40 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Add octavia k8s charm https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895247 | 14:44 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Add designate k8s charm https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/894291 | 14:44 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Add python-observabilityclient https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/894915 | 15:11 |
| -opendevstatus- NOTICE: The lists.openinfra.dev and lists.starlingx.io sites will be offline briefly for migration to a new server | 15:32 | |
| gmann | frickler: thanks, congratulation to you too | 16:05 |
| gmann | frickler: yeah, we can do the election retrospective in PTG which we did many time in past and tried many things to improve those but nothing did not solve it completly | 16:06 |
| gmann | frickler: feel free to update the 13 members example, it was just a example so we did not updated those but it is good to update it for 9 if that is easy to read | 16:07 |
| *** blarnath is now known as d34dh0r53 | 16:19 | |
| frickler | tc-members: cc: tonyb: prometheanfire: this might require your attention https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/896018 | 16:31 |
| gmann | tc-members: also, TC chair nomination is open for 3 business days (till Sep 25, 2023 23:45 UTC if I calculated correctly), process for chair nomination and election is here https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tc-chair-elections.html | 16:32 |
| jamespage | bah - I managed to not put forward my PTL candidacy for Sunbeam - ETOMANYPLATES | 16:34 |
| JayF | I'd strongly prefer at least one more run as vice-chair before nominating for chair. | 16:34 |
| gmann | humm IMO either is ok, I did served chair without being vice-chair and it was smooth. we have documented a very clear list of Role & Responsibility for chair - https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/CHAIR.rst | 16:36 |
| JayF | I am going to try very hard to get someone else in Ironic community to PTL for "D" cycle which would free up more time to make sure I'd have sufficient time to do a good job. | 16:37 |
| JayF | In lieu of other interested candidates, I will do it; but that's not my preference :) | 16:37 |
| gmann | +1, time is the key for Chair role. | 16:38 |
| gmann | jamespage: that is ok, feel free to add PTL appointment change on top of it https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895998 (example https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/878065) | 16:40 |
| opendevreview | Kristi Nikolla proposed openstack/governance master: Added dir and placeholder for 2024.1 chair election https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/896144 | 16:40 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Format members.yaml with yamltools https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895997 | 16:59 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Add results from the 2024.1/Caracal election https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895998 | 17:01 |
| frickler | three business days is pretty short, I was looking at https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tc-guide.html#after-the-election earlier and it says 2 weeks :-S | 17:08 |
| knikolla | Ah, that needs to be updated to reflect https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tc-chair-elections.html | 17:09 |
| gmann | frickler: ah, that needs to be updated, we modified it for 3 business days in last election but forgot to update this doc | 17:11 |
| gmann | frickler: idea behind 3 days is to have chair as soon as possible and 2 weeks are little longer time without chair | 17:11 |
| gmann | even I think I modified in charter to be explicit that previous chair will server as chair until next chair is selected so it will not be without chair | 17:13 |
| knikolla | In the case of a TC chair whose terms both as chair and as a election are expiring, it would leave the role vacant for those 2 weeks. 3 days of nominations + 1 week of possible elections is still pretty close to 2 weeks. Though I'm not opposed to increasing the nomination period to 1 week. | 17:15 |
| knikolla | as an elected TC* | 17:15 |
| dansmith | you might way one week for elections amongst six people is also longer than it needs to be | 17:17 |
| dansmith | so maybe 3 days for noms plus 3 for election would seem reasonable for me | 17:17 |
| dansmith | only thing might be vacations, but... | 17:17 |
| fungi | or let the 6 people who are involved say if that's not enough time for them? | 17:17 |
| dansmith | yeah | 17:17 |
| knikolla | We can close the CIVS poll early if everyone votes even same day. | 17:17 |
| dansmith | something more optimized than two weeks I hope :) | 17:18 |
| gmann | chair election timeline are seven days or until all the TC members have voted. | 17:18 |
| dansmith | ack, so if the "7 or sooner" words are there that seems okay, so it could be one day if everyone votes | 17:19 |
| gmann | yes | 17:19 |
| frickler | but the period for vice-chair nominations is still 7d after the chair has been elected? or has this also been changed? | 17:22 |
| JayF | > The elected TC chair will seek another TC member to volunteer to serve as vice chair until the next chair election is held | 17:22 |
| gmann | vice-chair is kind of self-nomination or chair select one, either is ok for me | 17:22 |
| JayF | is what our charter says and how it was done in practice the last two chair elections I've been here for | 17:23 |
| knikolla | it's more of an appointed position | 17:23 |
| frickler | so https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tc-guide.html#after-the-election is also wrong on that | 17:23 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Fix the tc-guidefor chair election process https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/896145 | 17:23 |
| frickler | so many hidden surprise here ... ;) | 17:23 |
| gmann | ^^ fixing the tc-guide for chair election | 17:23 |
| knikolla | frickler: not exactly wrong on the vice-chair, as people still need to nominate themselves. And that section is silent on the selection process. | 17:25 |
| knikolla | But it could be enhanced by mentioning the decision of the chair on the selection of the candidate. | 17:25 |
| knikolla | Thank you for raising all of these documentation issues. | 17:26 |
| gmann | frickler: tc-guide might go outdated many time as most of time new tc-members read those and make correction like you did. thanks for noticing all those doc fixes | 17:27 |
| knikolla | Highlights the need for new eyes :) | 17:27 |
| gmann | and in between we change the process we forget to update it | 17:27 |
| gmann | so adding more and more references there will avoid it to be outdated | 17:28 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Clarify the vice-chair appointment in tc-guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/896147 | 17:38 |
| gmann | frickler: knikolla JayF dansmith ^^ clarifying vice-chair with what we follow | 17:38 |
| knikolla | I have updated the tech-committee gerrit group to reflect the election results. | 17:42 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Clarify the vice-chair appointment in tc-guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/896150 | 17:46 |
| gmann | ^^ updated it to mention in chair election doc and ref in tc-guide | 17:47 |
| gmann | so that we do not need to change multiple doc if we change process in future | 17:47 |
| frickler | knikolla: thx, I was about to ask about that, seems to be working :-) | 17:53 |
| knikolla | go wild :) | 17:54 |
| frickler | so the custom is just to do RV+1, since it counts like CR+2, and not do an additional CR+1 vote, right? | 17:59 |
| gmann | right, if code change you can do both or CR -1 if need update | 18:00 |
| gmann | RV-1 is more of not agreeing on the idea as motion/change | 18:00 |
| gmann | so if I agree on the idea but need some doc/code change for more clarification/correction the I do CR-1 | 18:01 |
| frickler | ok, thx. do you have a dashboard you are using or are you simply looking at open changes on the governance repo? | 18:02 |
| gmann | I usually simply use this for governance repo https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open+NOT+reviewedby:self and all TC repo | 18:03 |
| gmann | https://review.opendev.org/q/(project:+openstack/api-site+OR+openstack/constellations+OR+openstack/election+OR+openstack/goal-tools+OR+openstack/governance+OR+openstack/governance-website+OR+openstack/governance-sigs+OR+openstack/ideas+OR+openstack/openstack-manuals+OR+openstack/project-team-guide+OR+openstack/service-types-authority)+status:open+NOT+owner:gmann%2540ghanshyammann.com+NOT+label:Workflow%253E%253D1+NOT+label:Wor | 18:03 |
| gmann | kflow%253C%253D-1+NOT+reviewedby:self | 18:03 |
| frickler | oh, cool, will add those to my redirector | 18:06 |
| gmann | frickler: also, you can RV+1 on your change itself also so that even you are author, your vote also get counted in that motion merging criteria. | 18:09 |
| gmann | there are some house rule where author vote does not get counted for merging which is clearly mentioned in house rules and our check-review-status tool also take care of those | 18:10 |
| gmann | but for formal-vote motion author vote is counted and required | 18:11 |
| frickler | ack | 18:15 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Fix the tc-guidefor chair election process https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/896145 | 18:35 |
| knikolla | tc-members: I will not be nominating myself for another cycle as chair of the TC. If anyone is considering running but has questions with regards to the role, process, and responsibilities, please reach out. It was an honor to serve as your chair for the Bobcat cycle and I have learned a lot in the process. | 18:40 |
| TheJulia | knikolla: Thank you for your efforts as chair! | 18:48 |
| TheJulia | As always, change in leadership is considered good in our communities. | 18:49 |
| JayF | ++ absolutely | 18:57 |
| spotz[m] | One thing we tried to do with the UC is have the co-chair move up as they've been in training so to speak. | 19:45 |
| spotz[m] | I also wanted to say thank you jayf for your email about not running next term and offering to answer questions and maybe have someone 'shadow' you :) | 19:46 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: to be blunt, the reality is I was having those conversations in private all this cycle and was disappointed that it didn't work out so I decided to say something more definitive publically in hopes of changing that | 19:48 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: Ironic isn't hurting for people who have leadership knowledge and ability, and we mostly work together on the logistics as well. It's just a matter of someone being able to justify the time to take the baton AFAICT. | 19:48 |
| spotz[m] | JayF I get it but I do hope you stepping up and posting that will help us find others | 20:17 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!