| gmann | yeah, nomination process we still need to do even single candidate | 00:24 |
|---|---|---|
| gmann | commented earlier in this change but agree with JayF that this can be merged now after nominations in separate change https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/896465/comments/e84f03e4_4371f5bc | 00:25 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-manuals master: [glossary] Add 2024.1 Caracal https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/896400 | 04:33 |
| opendevreview | gnuoy proposed openstack/governance master: Add OpenStack Keystone LDAP K8S charm. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/896487 | 06:23 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-manuals master: [www] Setup 2024.1 Caracal and add project data to Bobcat https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/896401 | 08:36 |
| knikolla | tc-members: Congratulations JayF on becoming chair of the TC. | 13:42 |
| TheJulia | JayF: Wow, congrats! | 13:42 |
| slaweq | JayF congrats!!! | 13:42 |
| fungi | congratudolences | 13:42 |
| knikolla | His -W is preventing merging for now. But I've already added him to the Gerrit group and sent the email announcements, so it's official. | 13:45 |
| TheJulia | knikolla: Ack, got your email. Thanks! | 13:46 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: JayF for TC Chair https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/896465 | 14:12 |
| *** ralonsoh is now known as ralonsoh_afk | 14:14 | |
| JayF | knikolla: so am I chair effective today's meeting or will you run today's meeting and hand off a baton | 14:25 |
| dansmith | whichever of you is, FYI I have to miss today's meeting | 14:34 |
| JayF | Thank you for the heads up | 14:38 |
| elodilles | hi TC, in Release Management process we have a task for this week that says: "Notify the TC (Technical Writing SIG - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation) that it should be safe to apply the process to create the new release series landing pages for docs.openstack.org" | 14:47 |
| elodilles | i've proposed the necessary patches: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:www-bobcat-final | 14:47 |
| elodilles | i'm not sure if there is anything else that needs to be taken care of | 14:48 |
| *** ralonsoh_afk is now known as ralonsoh | 15:24 | |
| knikolla | You are chair effective as of this morning so you can run the meeting if you feel ready JayF | 15:26 |
| *** ralonsoh is now known as ralonsoh_afk | 16:49 | |
| knikolla | tc-members: reminder for weekly meeting in ~50 minutes | 17:09 |
| * JayF adds that reminder to his list of things he needs to have reminders set for | 17:10 | |
| knikolla | It’s reminders all the way down | 17:27 |
| frickler | remind me to write a reminderbot | 17:30 |
| JayF | Honestly that's how I'm hoping to manage the workload of chair, going to try and up-front a lot of reminders, pre-reserved meetings to get the work done, etc | 17:32 |
| JayF | to be honest this will be a stretch of my executive capabilities | 17:32 |
| gmann | ++, JayF one good way is to keep looking or add calendar tasks check for chair.rst https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/CHAIR.rst | 17:34 |
| JayF | That is on my list for today | 17:34 |
| gmann | I mainly had reminder of each section of this file and weekly summary email which helped me for almost all the tasks on time | 17:34 |
| gmann | and if you find any new activity chair does and not in this file, feel free to add as it will be helpful for next chair. This file is the fundamental for Chair :) | 17:37 |
| JayF | That is my intention; tbh my biggest shortcoming in this area is time management, so I think by putting many items in the chair doc as recurring meetings on my calendar I'll be less likely to miss something | 17:39 |
| JayF | but will be leaning on chairs-emeritus to set me straight if I miss anything :D | 17:39 |
| gmann | ++ | 17:39 |
| JayF | #startmeeting tc | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Sep 26 18:00:12 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is JayF. 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 |
| JayF | #topic Roll Call | 18:00 |
| JayF | #topic Roll Call | 18:00 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:00 |
| JayF | Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct. Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 18:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:00 |
| frickler | \o | 18:00 |
| JayF | We have one noted absence: Dan Smith. | 18:00 |
| rosmaita | o/ | 18:01 |
| jamespage | o/ | 18:01 |
| JayF | We seem to have quorum; moving to agenda items. | 18:02 |
| JayF | #info There are no action items from Sept 19, 2023 meeting to follow up on, skipping agenda item. | 18:02 |
| JayF | #topic Gate Health Check | 18:02 |
| JayF | How's CI? | 18:02 |
| gmann | it is better this week and no such frequent or blocking failure | 18:03 |
| gmann | it is good it is going smooth during release time, hoping no surprise in this week :) | 18:03 |
| JayF | Wonderful; that matches my experience as well. Going to give a couple minutes for additional observations. | 18:03 |
| slaweq | not everywhere. I know that in neutron we have pretty broken CI jobs | 18:03 |
| gmann | trunk live migration tests was failing frequently but that is skipped for now with open bug | 18:04 |
| slaweq | ykarel suspects that it may be related to the latest release of the os-vif but it's still under investigation | 18:04 |
| gmann | slaweq: oh, live migration tests or other failure | 18:04 |
| knikolla | o/ | 18:04 |
| gmann | i see | 18:04 |
| slaweq | gmann other | 18:04 |
| JayF | Thank you slaweq for that update; if there's any assistance that can be provided please ask. | 18:04 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 18:04 |
| JayF | Any further CI updates? | 18:04 |
| gmann | devstack and greande branches cut are in progress | 18:05 |
| gmann | once they get merged then we will setup those for stable/2023.2 and master but till then both test the same thing | 18:05 |
| gmann | that is all from my side | 18:06 |
| JayF | Thanks for the update on devstack and grenade. Anything further before we move on? | 18:06 |
| fungi | we've been avoiding making any significant changes from the opendev side of things until the release is done | 18:06 |
| JayF | Thanks for that; I believe we can move on from CI now | 18:07 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:07 |
| JayF | #topic Leaderless projects | 18:07 |
| frickler | count: 13 | 18:08 |
| frickler | I have some questions about this, too | 18:08 |
| gmann | it seems we have many late/invalid candidacy which is case in every election | 18:08 |
| frickler | is there a time until the PTL appointments have to be made? | 18:09 |
| gmann | we should create the etherpad and start tracking those | 18:09 |
| JayF | Does someone want to take ownership of this item, to document the leaderless projects and report status on them? | 18:09 |
| gmann | frickler: it should be done asap we find the leaders. there is no deadline as such | 18:09 |
| gmann | JayF: I can do | 18:09 |
| frickler | my idea would be to have some preconditions, like zuul errors fixed, release patches merged ... | 18:10 |
| JayF | We do already have a process for that, somewhat, via voting on the PTL nomination patches. | 18:11 |
| JayF | I encourage all TC members to make an effort to ensure that volunteer PTLs are active in the project with a history of being responsive to issues and reviewing code from common contributiors. | 18:11 |
| gmann | yeah, we can block the appointment if project does not seems active and gate failing or so and PTL not fixing those but just volunteer to apoointment | 18:11 |
| gmann | and even in etherpad also we can check and add our finding about project | 18:12 |
| frickler | o.k., so I'll collect some date to add to the etherpad | 18:12 |
| frickler | *data | 18:12 |
| gmann | not all project has to have leaders and if they are inactive and we do not get commitment from incoming PTL we can think of retiring those | 18:12 |
| gmann | frickler: ++ | 18:12 |
| spotz[m] | or DPL | 18:12 |
| JayF | Thanks for that; I look forward to seeing what you all get put together. | 18:13 |
| gmann | DPL does not help here, PTL or DPL is different situation where nobody want to be PTL but have many maintainers to share PTL tasks | 18:13 |
| gmann | will create etherpad with all possible options | 18:13 |
| JayF | The main goal, I think, is to ensure every project has one or more attentive cores who can land projects; I think it's clear there are cases where that's not true today and we should avoid that in the future. | 18:13 |
| JayF | regardless of if the projects are PTL or DPL | 18:14 |
| JayF | **land patches | 18:14 |
| gmann | true | 18:14 |
| gmann | DPL cannot be excuse to keep project inactive | 18:14 |
| frickler | but I also have a question regarding DPL: this states that a per-cycle activity check should happen, is this still happening? https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20200803-distributed-project-leadership.html#liaison-assignment-duration | 18:14 |
| JayF | #action gmann To create leaderless projects etherpad with information about leaderless projects | 18:14 |
| gmann | frickler: as we do not have liaison mdoel now, we have not done this explicitly but there are only few DPL project and we know the status of those. | 18:16 |
| gmann | but it will be good thing to do a check in PTG or right after election | 18:16 |
| JayF | frickler: since my tenure on the TC, now about a year, I have not been privvy to any systemmatic checking of project status, outside of what is happening now-ish around ensuring all projects are able to be released with upper-constraints + updated oslo libs | 18:17 |
| gmann | only three 1. oslo 2. release management 3. requirement and all are actove | 18:17 |
| gmann | active | 18:17 |
| gmann | triepleO also but that is already deprecated | 18:17 |
| frickler | the release team is fine, but I'd consider all three other DPL projects questionable | 18:17 |
| JayF | I would ask if there's further discussion on this topic, can we please hold it for open discussion? | 18:18 |
| gmann | oslo have some maintainers but yes we need more | 18:18 |
| JayF | I'd like to continue through the agenda before getting too far down the road on a tangent. | 18:18 |
| JayF | (that's literally one item away) | 18:18 |
| JayF | #topic Call for volunteers for Vice-Chair | 18:18 |
| JayF | As the new chair, I have to appoint a vice-chair. I'd like to request any interested volunteers to please speak up now, or to me in private. | 18:19 |
| frickler | is there some nomination period for this? | 18:19 |
| JayF | As documented; once a vice-chair is appointed by me, I push up a change to mark their role as vice-chair. | 18:19 |
| JayF | It is an appointed, not elected position. | 18:19 |
| JayF | In practice, someone volunteers to learn about chair responsibilities and gets in a position to hold the chair in the future. | 18:20 |
| gmann | yeah, it can be done anytime chair find vice-chair | 18:20 |
| frickler | yes, but maybe if I say I'd need to think about it for a week, would that be too long? | 18:20 |
| knikolla | That is up to the chair to decide. | 18:20 |
| knikolla | We don't have an official period that requires a vice-chair selection. | 18:21 |
| JayF | frickler: that is dangerously close enough to volunteering yourself that the likelyhood of others stepping up just went down ;) | 18:21 |
| fungi | at times there have also been more than one vice-chair. also there's probably nothing stopping the chair from adding and removing vice-chairs throughout their term, at their discretion | 18:21 |
| spotz[m] | hehe | 18:21 |
| JayF | frickler: I think you'd be a good vice-chair, I'm willing to wait a bit for you to decide for sure, but lets have a chat together during that week at least? | 18:21 |
| gmann | yes, its appointment and can be changed within cycle | 18:21 |
| frickler | JayF: ack | 18:22 |
| JayF | I mainly dislike the idea of not having backup, personally, that's the rush for me. | 18:22 |
| gmann | frickler: ++ | 18:22 |
| rosmaita | JayF: we all got your back! | 18:22 |
| JayF | Either way, going to move on topics because I think there's not a lot of discussion left here. | 18:22 |
| JayF | #topic Open Discussion and Reviews | 18:22 |
| JayF | two items noted here | 18:22 |
| knikolla | I can act as backup until we have a formal volunteer. | 18:22 |
| JayF | #info TC members and all interested OpenStackers need to register for the PTG. | 18:23 |
| JayF | #link https://openinfra.dev/ptg/ | 18:23 |
| JayF | Also, we have a small number of open reviews, please ensure to look over them. | 18:23 |
| JayF | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open | 18:23 |
| spotz[m] | Anyone can cover running the meetings I think, no worries JayF | 18:23 |
| JayF | frickler: This would be a good time to continue down the previous discussion path, as we are at the end of the agenda | 18:24 |
| JayF | frickler: if you have any desire for further discussion on DPL-based projects, and their status | 18:24 |
| JayF | Same for others; now is a good time to bring topics up that didn't make the agenda. | 18:25 |
| frickler | yeah, so one issue I have with tripleo is the number of zuul config errors | 18:25 |
| frickler | is there a plan yet for actual retirement? | 18:25 |
| rosmaita | triple-o should only be running on stable/wallaby, i thought | 18:27 |
| fungi | except for all their single-branch deliverables | 18:27 |
| fungi | things like like tripleo-ci | 18:27 |
| gmann | yeah, that is deprecated and we just kept it for stable/wallaby | 18:27 |
| fungi | i suppose we could delete zuul configuration out of all the other branches on the branched projects though | 18:28 |
| gmann | we should retire it asap stable/wallaby move to EOL which can be done immediately as per the new EM/EOL branch model | 18:28 |
| gmann | once we enforce the new model for stable branches of EM->unsupported then it should get cleanup | 18:29 |
| frickler | https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/config-errors?project=openstack%2Ftripleo-ci&project=openstack%2Ftripleo-upgrade | 18:29 |
| fungi | keep in mind that you're effectively telling them to take maintenance of the wallaby version completely downstream at that point (not that i think that's a bad thing) | 18:29 |
| JayF | So, to restate and ensure the understanding is correct before I put it in the minutes; tripleo only supports stable/wallaby. It's going to get cleaned up when unsupported resolution is implemented as we'll retire stable/wallaby and the single branch projects which only exist to support that stable/wallaby tripleo | 18:29 |
| JayF | The only way this could/would change is if tripleo PTL opts-in to unmaintained | 18:29 |
| JayF | which requires them to fix CI and zuul config errors | 18:30 |
| gmann | yes | 18:30 |
| fungi | and i think also requires them to also keep all newer branches open? | 18:30 |
| gmann | if they opt-in for stable/wallaby then it should be fixed all | 18:30 |
| JayF | so post-release, it seems we'll have a forcing function to resolve CI either through deletion | 18:30 |
| fungi | does the new model allow them to opt into unmaintained stable/wallaby but eol xena etc? | 18:31 |
| JayF | I was going to say "or opt-in to unmaintained/" but I guess that's a good point, fungi, that would generally require the project to support newer branches | 18:31 |
| JayF | > No SLURP branches may be skipped between the oldest unmaintained branch and the current maintained releases. This makes sure operators have an upgrade path from one SLURP to the next all the way to maintained releases. | 18:31 |
| gmann | humm this makes tripleO case complicated | 18:31 |
| JayF | per https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20230724-unmaintained-branches.html | 18:31 |
| gmann | they clearly mentioned that they cannot maintain any other branch than wallaby | 18:31 |
| knikolla | They won't have any releases, so technically they're not missing any releases | 18:32 |
| fungi | well, it doesn't make the tripleo case complicated if you tell them any continued maintenance has to happen downstream so that we can eol it all upstream | 18:32 |
| knikolla | And can keep maintaining Wallaby. | 18:32 |
| JayF | I suggest someone take an action to contact tripleo PTL, ask about their intentions, and we follow-up next meeting? | 18:32 |
| gmann | that is what retirement is but they want wallaby to maintain in upstream | 18:32 |
| JayF | Lets find out the actual likely outcome before exploring the entire problem space; that might save us some time? | 18:32 |
| JayF | e.g. if tripleo PTL and team are OK with retirement at this point; this is a much simpler question | 18:33 |
| frickler | it's DPL ;) | 18:33 |
| gmann | if we enforce requriement of all newer branches then it has to be retire | 18:33 |
| gmann | yeah no PTL for them | 18:33 |
| JayF | frickler: "email the PTL" for a DPL project, in my opinion, is effectively to email all the DPLs IMO | 18:33 |
| fungi | or at least the release management dpl in this case | 18:34 |
| gmann | we already discussed this a lot and got their view. it came up that they cannot maintain anything other than stable/wallaby | 18:34 |
| JayF | The question is not that gmann; it's "do you wish to continue maintaining stable/wallaby after this release, if permitted?" | 18:34 |
| gmann | it is up to us to retire it completely if that does not fit in our policy | 18:34 |
| fungi | right, the question is whether they still plan to continue maintaining stable/wallaby (but also when pressed they realized that they have projects they need to maintain master branches on as well() | 18:34 |
| JayF | if the answer is yes, we have the question about if policy allows it | 18:34 |
| gmann | JayF: last time they mentioned they have customer and want to maintain until wallaby is EOL | 18:35 |
| JayF | Wallaby is EOL if they don't opt in to unmaintained branches. EOL is decided project by project in this model. | 18:35 |
| fungi | it's entirely possible their desire to keep maintaining stable/wallaby upstream has changed now that they've released their replacement for tripleo | 18:35 |
| gmann | if we do wallaby EOL for all other projects then they might be ok to do so and retire completly | 18:35 |
| gmann | yeah, that is possible | 18:36 |
| JayF | I have a concrete proposal: contact TripleO DPLs, ask if they wish to continue maintaining stable/wallaby TripleO *and* the master-branch projects it relies on, use that information to continue to the next step. | 18:36 |
| JayF | In lieu of volunteers or alternate actions; I will take this action item and bring information back next week if they are responsive. | 18:36 |
| JayF | Is there any objection or alternative proposal? | 18:37 |
| knikolla | ++, good plan. | 18:37 |
| fungi | for that proposal, i would clarify that it shouldn't make promises that they'll be able to do that, just that the tc will use that information in the decision-making process | 18:37 |
| gmann | I think we should have our new model documented/enforce so that they understand it clearly | 18:38 |
| noonedeadpunk | (and that not only limited to specific projects) | 18:38 |
| gmann | as per current documented and release page stable/wallaby is still EM | 18:38 |
| JayF | That's a good point. We likely need a TC member to step up and update those documentation items before we can consider enforcement. | 18:39 |
| gmann | they should not think it will continue as EM and so they can say we will keep it open | 18:39 |
| fungi | oh, i see, you mean adjust the releases.openstack.org site to match up to the new policy | 18:39 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:39 |
| fungi | not that there are missing parts of policy documentation | 18:39 |
| JayF | Although, for purposes of contacting triplo DPLs, I think https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20230724-unmaintained-branches.html will suffice | 18:39 |
| gmann | yes, that also need to update | 18:39 |
| JayF | but I appreciate you bringing up a needed action we shuld take, and likely soon | 18:39 |
| knikolla | I am working on those actions. | 18:40 |
| * slaweq needs to leave a bit earlier today. Sorry and see You online o/ | 18:40 | |
| knikolla | Updating docs/releases to reflect new Unmaintained policy. | 18:40 |
| JayF | #action knikolla To work on updating releases.openstack.org to reflect new unmaintained branch policy ( https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20230724-unmaintained-branches.html ) | 18:40 |
| knikolla | Thanks for noting that down :) | 18:41 |
| JayF | #action JayF to contact TripleO DPLs to determine their desired state for TripleO maintenance next cycle | 18:41 |
| JayF | frickler: I will ensure that contact includes a link to the zuul-config-errors that are impacting | 18:42 |
| frickler | JayF: ack, thx | 18:42 |
| JayF | Any additional topics for Open Discussion? | 18:42 |
| knikolla | PTG :) | 18:42 |
| knikolla | We need to book slots, decide on number of slots and prepare agendas. | 18:43 |
| JayF | knikolla: Do we even have an etherpad for it yet? | 18:43 |
| JayF | I am not up to speed yet on PTG planning for TC in Caracal. | 18:43 |
| knikolla | Not as of yet. | 18:44 |
| JayF | I'm going to create one real quick so we at least have a place to gather information; then I'll ensure it's a top level agenda item for next meeting. | 18:44 |
| JayF | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-ptg-october-2023 | 18:45 |
| gmann | ++ | 18:45 |
| knikolla | Great! | 18:45 |
| JayF | thank you for getting that on the radar knikolla | 18:46 |
| knikolla | np, you can use the etherpad from prior PTGs as a rough template. I'm happy to help. | 18:46 |
| JayF | Thank you, I appreciate it and will absolutely take you up on that offer. | 18:47 |
| JayF | Any other items for discussion? | 18:47 |
| frickler | I'd also like to see other members' opinion on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895160 , not sure whether to continue in the review or here, maybe next time | 18:47 |
| frickler | python3.8 deprecation/EOL/support | 18:47 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:47 |
| gmann | it will be good to add feedback in gerrit | 18:48 |
| knikolla | With the incoming PTG not too far that seems a good topic for a session with the community. | 18:48 |
| gmann | IMO, we can continue py3.8 in this release also | 18:48 |
| gmann | until it is EOL | 18:48 |
| JayF | I'll note, 3.8 is scheduled to be supported through October, 2024. So supporting it for Caracal means we'd support it for the full 2023.1->2024.1 slurp | 18:49 |
| JayF | which potentially seems like it could bring value | 18:49 |
| JayF | I do not know enough detail to have a strong opinion though. | 18:49 |
| JayF | re: https://peps.python.org/pep-0569/#lifespan | 18:49 |
| JayF | frickler: gmann: I think we should continue in that gerrit review; I will add putting a vote on that to my todo list. | 18:50 |
| JayF | Please other tc-members; take notice of the discussion in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895160 | 18:50 |
| JayF | Anything further on that, or other topics for open discussion? | 18:51 |
| rosmaita | i think we should discuss this at the PTG: https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-September/035183.html | 18:52 |
| rosmaita | gmann handled the short-term issue, i think | 18:52 |
| JayF | I added that link to the PTG etherpad; we can expand on the topic async. Good callout. | 18:52 |
| rosmaita | but we should probably give the larger issue some consideration | 18:52 |
| frickler | ack, I also wanted to discuss the reqs team in that context | 18:52 |
| rosmaita | cool | 18:52 |
| frickler | short term, all needed reqs patched have merged | 18:53 |
| JayF | Yeah, I appreciate the work releases and oslo team do even more now; after trying to get oslo.messaging fixes out. | 18:53 |
| JayF | You really get a birds-eye view of the multiplicative complexity that can surface | 18:53 |
| gmann | yeah, those change merge is just small part but I agree we should discuss it broadly and give enough time | 18:53 |
| gmann | rosmaita: thanks for brining up | 18:54 |
| JayF | Approximately five minutes left; anything else on this or any other topic? | 18:54 |
| JayF | Have a nice day everyone o/ | 18:57 |
| JayF | #endmeeting | 18:57 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Sep 26 18:57:15 2023 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:57 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-09-26-18.00.html | 18:57 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-09-26-18.00.txt | 18:57 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-09-26-18.00.log.html | 18:57 |
| knikolla | Thanks JayF! | 18:57 |
| rosmaita | frickler: got a few minutes for some zuul consultation? | 18:58 |
| frickler | rosmaita: not today, opendev meeting coming up right now | 18:58 |
| rosmaita | ah, ok | 18:58 |
| rosmaita | i will ask in infra channel later | 18:58 |
| frickler | ack | 18:59 |
| gmann | tc-members: created the etherpad for leaderless project with some data. feel free to add more data and your feedback https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.1-leaderless | 19:15 |
| gmann | it seems 3 projects are without candidacy, 6 with late candidacy, and 3 with invalid candidacy | 19:16 |
| gmann | total 12, I hope I did not miss anything, frickler you mentioned 13 in meeting? | 19:16 |
| frickler | I'll check tomorrow in detail | 19:18 |
| gmann | sure, no rush | 19:18 |
| jamespage | thanks gmann | 19:21 |
| gmann | jamespage: for sunbeam, feel free to propose gerrit change also for appointment and we can discuss there too example: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/878286 | 19:24 |
| jamespage | gmann: will do | 19:24 |
| jamespage | I still can't quite believe I managed to miss that | 19:25 |
| opendevreview | James Page proposed openstack/governance master: Appoint James Page as PTL of Sunbeam https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/896585 | 19:28 |
| jamespage | gmann: done ^^ | 19:28 |
| gmann | jamespage: thanks | 19:28 |
| JayF | jamespage: serious suggestion; from someone who is terrible with forgetfulness: set a reminder now for when the nomination period is set for D | 19:28 |
| jamespage | JayF: top-tip thanks! | 19:29 |
| JayF | if something is not on my calendar or todo list, it does not exist :D | 19:29 |
| spotz[m] | I think the best is me forgetting to do git review for the TC | 20:28 |
| fungi | we had a whole special election just for you! | 20:58 |
| fungi | good times | 20:58 |
| JayF | Is there a way, currently, to view rendered release notes for projects' 2023.2 release? | 22:00 |
| JayF | https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/ironic/2023.2.html is 404 (based off https://docs.openstack.org/releasenotes/ironic/2023.1.html ) and current series is empty | 22:01 |
| JayF | I assume this is some kind of intermediate state, but I'd like to see those release notes *and* wouldn't mind someone telling me this is expected and Ironic RNs are not broken :D | 22:01 |
| clarkb | JayF: the creation of the tag in git is what creates those paths. You can see them locally by tagging the repo and building release notes | 22:24 |
| clarkb | I think | 22:24 |
| JayF | that makes sense; so essentially this is an expected middle state until we actually land the release | 22:25 |
| * JayF solved his other problem with tools other than release notes | 22:25 | |
| clarkb | what you should be able to confirm are taht you have in development release notes all of those get proimoted to the release when the release release notes are built | 22:26 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!