| opendevreview | Slawek Kaplonski proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Add info about recheck comments with "unrelated failure" info https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/914065 | 08:24 |
|---|---|---|
| bauzas | JayF: thanks for abandoning the adjudication patch because of my above comment, but maybe you could open it again in a few days (maybe with another name, but I dunno yet) | 16:15 |
| JayF | Just trying to track, in writing, the current state of things. :) | 16:16 |
| bauzas | all cool and thanks for understanding my concern, I had sleepless nights since Friday | 16:16 |
| fungi | anyone should be able to restore an abandoned change, fwiw | 16:37 |
| fungi | also, sleepless nights sound like a community-wide failure. we should be working on these things because it helps us feel fulfilled and complete. please don't ever let it keep you up at night | 16:40 |
| spotz[m] | We definitely failed on this, while I thought we had the same policy as the Board we don't. Even so for those who care elections are stressful | 16:47 |
| noonedeadpunk | I really would see a resolution without personalities written down to it | 16:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | and yeah, looking at the ballot I was pretty much afraid of smth like this happening | 16:51 |
| fungi | i think i know what you mean, but i'm having trouble parsing that | 16:51 |
| fungi | the first comment, that is | 16:51 |
| bauzas | like I already said, I'd love a new charter paragraph explaining what to do in case of a affiliation issue | 16:51 |
| fungi | aha, you want an impersonal resolution (one without referring to a specific situation or set of identifiable people) | 16:52 |
| bauzas | and not wait for the TC to address it thru a waiver or waiting for the affiliated members to say who to punt | 16:52 |
| bauzas | imagine a situation where some company would send a majority to the TC, the TC not accepting the waiver and then all the affialiates not wanting to punt someone | 16:52 |
| bauzas | we could be blocked | 16:52 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: yeah, exactly. As I don't think it's last time we're falling into this trap | 16:54 |
| fungi | bauzas: yes, and it can certainly happen outside of elections too, as we've observed with the openinfra board of directors (which has a far more strict affiliation limit than the openstack tc, for those unfamiliar with the bylaws) | 16:54 |
| noonedeadpunk | so doesn't make sense to solve this one without covering future | 16:54 |
| noonedeadpunk | I would even say that in case of affilation limit is reached, last X of elected members affilated with org Y that reached the limit, should be withrawn in favor of next X un-affilated members. | 16:57 |
| fungi | spotz[m]: the bylaws of the openinfra foundation also don't encode a specific process for how to deal with affiliation limit violations as an election outcome, other than to say they're disallowed unless approved by a 2/3 vote of the board members (similar to what the tc charter says) | 16:57 |
| bauzas | yeah I read the bylaws and I can't find where those are better than our charter | 16:58 |
| bauzas | (for automatically resolving the affiliation problem, I mean) | 16:58 |
| fungi | the bylaws are slightly more specific in cases where affiliation changes outside an election, since they say the director whose affiliation has changed will resign from the board | 16:58 |
| bauzas | noonedeadpunk: the fact is, there are different possibilities to tell who would be withdrawn | 16:59 |
| fungi | the openinfra board of directors does have some precedent for election results which would violate their affiliation limit, but those specific incidents don't seem to have resulted in any amendment to the bylaws | 16:59 |
| noonedeadpunk | bauzas: not sure what you meant? | 17:00 |
| bauzas | this could be per the election numbers, per the longest period they are already elected, per something else (like being elected as PTL) | 17:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | I'd say per election numbers? | 17:01 |
| bauzas | that's your own opinion, people could have others and that's the point | 17:02 |
| bauzas | that's why the resolution isn't that easy to write | 17:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | Yeah, I'm not saying generic opinion, more how I see that | 17:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | But I guess electorate has chosen their favorites so to say | 17:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | and then if they for some reason are disqulified, this should be aligned with electorate will | 17:03 |
| bauzas | that's one way to see it | 17:03 |
| noonedeadpunk | (in my opinion) | 17:03 |
| spotz[m] | fungi: It does for the Board Article iV, section 4.15 | 17:03 |
| spotz[m] | Now whether that applied as well to the TC before we removed the TC from the bylaws no clue so it might not apply here anyways | 17:04 |
| bauzas | noonedeadpunk: but for example, and that's why I got sleepless night, I only won against goutham by one vote, amy by one against me, and you against me by 2, iirc | 17:04 |
| bauzas | so the numbers are very close | 17:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | (we had only 54 ppl who voted) | 17:04 |
| bauzas | particularly when you have 57 voters, it's hard to tell about the electorate will | 17:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, 57, sorry :) | 17:05 |
| bauzas | heh, jinxed | 17:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | but I mean. If we reffer to US elections in 2020 - negectable small amount of votes determined the POTUS | 17:06 |
| noonedeadpunk | or, current TC should say by 2/3 that it's fine this time | 17:06 |
| spotz[m] | Slawek beat me by 14, I beat Dmitryi by 3, Dmitryi bean Sylvain by 2, Sylvain beat Goutham by 1, Goutham beat Artem by 7, Artem beat James by 1 | 17:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | Slawek to judge then :D | 17:08 |
| spotz[m] | But beyond me the loses to Slawek are a bit confusing to me | 17:08 |
| bauzas | spotz[m]: if you look at the matrix, you'll see that the ranking is actually pretty close to be very different | 17:08 |
| fungi | spotz[m]: thanks, yes looks like ยง4.15(c) might actually cover it for the board; if we're talking about generally elected (individual member representative) seats, it says "the individual having the next highest number of votes whose admission would not cause a violation of the Director Diversity Requirement shall be become the new director instead of the individual whose election would | 17:09 |
| fungi | cause a violation" | 17:09 |
| fungi | the tc could in theory adopt a similarly-worded policy if they agree | 17:10 |
| spotz[m] | fungi: I don't know if it ever applied to the TC though | 17:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, pretty much super close to my view :) | 17:10 |
| JayF | We already have policies around filling empty seats; that would apply and has very similar logic. | 17:10 |
| fungi | noonedeadpunk: having lived all my my life in the usa, i would hate for my country's election processes to inform anyone on due process, except perhaps as a cautionary tale | 17:11 |
| spotz[m] | I admitedly suck at reading the rankings, but with just 1-3 votes different everywhere yeah it's close for everyone but Slawek | 17:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: well, I'm not encouraging electoral college process, but that each vote counts more or less :D | 17:13 |
| bauzas | (on a chat, can't reply) | 17:14 |
| fungi | oof, i'll accept that for those not living here it might seem that way. but no, the electoral college model was designed for a time when news travelled by train and collecting everyone's vote was inefficient | 17:14 |
| fungi | but it's a model that's more easily gamed/influenced by the ruling parties than counting all votes equally, so there's a lot of political resistance to modernizing it | 17:15 |
| fungi | politicians prefer to play the game they know than introduce new variables they might have less control over | 17:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | and you can focus more on "winning" states as well | 17:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, anyway, didn't intend to bring politics here | 17:19 |
| fungi | understood. and yes i don't get the impression any of our community leaders are playing political games, we've all got the best interests of openstack in mind, we just need to figure out a safe way forward that doesn't set us up with an increased chance of getting exploited in the future by someone who doesn't have openstack's best interests in mind | 17:21 |
| JayF | In a strange way, I think this would be less messy if more people were thinking politically instead of trying to think of governance as code. | 17:21 |
| JayF | (myself included) | 17:22 |
| noonedeadpunk | I guess it really depends | 17:22 |
| fungi | we're developers, we don't know how to think any other way ;) | 17:22 |
| noonedeadpunk | (and treat politicians as evil :D) | 17:22 |
| JayF | a bunch of non-lawyers trying to read bylaws and charters like they are python code :D | 17:23 |
| spotz[m] | I think we're trying to use governance to not upset anyone, trouble is folks (myself included) are already upset, feeling targeted, etc | 17:23 |
| fungi | i don't think politicians are evil, any more than i think the rats i'm trying to get out of my attic are evil | 17:23 |
| fungi | and i definitely don't want anyone feeling "targeted" which i think was noonedeadpunk's point with preferring an impersonal resolution | 17:24 |
| JayF | The thing is, inherently, there are going to end up being people who are hurt no matter the resolution. Making it impersonal sometimes can seem like ignoring that cost. I don't know where the correct balance is. | 17:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 17:25 |
| JayF | I think, honestly, I view a lot of this as people-stuff and not as code-stuff, it's been weighing extremely heavy on me -- and I'm not even one of the people who is as directly involved. | 17:26 |
| fungi | balancing impersonal and compassionate, yes that also makes sense | 17:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think it should be resolution which will also cover future then just dealing with current sirtuation | 17:26 |
| JayF | Maybe the first time in literally years I've disabled notifications in IRC to myy phone to detach for a weekend. | 17:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | as when we have process written - this can manage expectations in a way | 17:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | rather then be a "surprise-surprise" | 17:26 |
| fungi | JayF: i recommend that as a year-round practice ;) | 17:26 |
| fungi | granted, i don't have anything notifying my phone, and turn it off completely a lot of the time | 17:27 |
| JayF | fungi: I usually try to be available since we're an intl community, and I don't wanna force people to PDT just because I'm there | 17:28 |
| fungi | yeah, but you're allowed a regular sleep cycle as much as anyone else is | 17:28 |
| JayF | noonedeadpunk: I feel like that's the long term solution; ensure the charter no longer goes to a "deadlock" as a last resort which is sorta where we are now. I don't think changing the charter after the election is a valid resolution to this specific incident though. | 17:37 |
| noonedeadpunk | I guess that would really depend on when should current TC put down their mandate. As I assume it's only after new ones get in, which is when the patch lands? | 17:45 |
| JayF | Well, I'd put it more this way: It seems like a charter change to resolve the current situation would be an "ex post facto" change, changing the rules after they should've already applied. I have concerns about assuming a charter change voted in, for instance, April 2024, from applying to an election held in March 2024. | 17:47 |
| spotz[m] | I think we can come up with governance so it doesn't happen again the trouble is what about this time which is where we're stuck | 17:47 |
| JayF | So I want to fix the moving forward in the charter, but we do need a special case for the 2024.2 election imo | 17:47 |
| gmann | yes, charter change is needed but those should not be done or applied in this election. | 17:48 |
| gmann | zaneb: yes, you are right. I think release naming exxmple gives me more understanding of it. | 17:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, yeah, probably makes sense indeed... | 17:52 |
| noonedeadpunk | but still feels like it's worth put a wording in a way without graving individuals name in a stone | 17:53 |
| JayF | noonedeadpunk: I wrote the resolution Friday the way I did for a simple reason: I want someone asking "why was the TC for 2024.2 constructed this way?" to have all the evidence they need in git to know what happened. It's hard for me to see us creating that historical document without naming names to some extent. I'd be thrilled to have alternative suggestions which achieve the same goal (documenting outcome) with less harshness. | 17:55 |
| bauzas | (done with my meeting, scrolling up) | 18:04 |
| bauzas | agreed with the fact that the governance patch that'd modify the charter for resolving the affiliation problem should only be for *next* elections and not that one | 18:05 |
| bauzas | because forcing someone to resign with some governance patch isn't fair | 18:05 |
| bauzas | I'm just sad we (because anyone can propose a charter change, even if not part of TC, right?) failed at providing this *before* that election | 18:07 |
| bauzas | but ship has sailed and we now need to find a way to return | 18:07 |
| JayF | This "broken" charter code was actually landed this TC cycle, even. We missed the deadlock in review. Before the OIF bylaws change, and accompanying TC charter change, this would be a board issue. | 18:08 |
| fungi | basically, prior to the last cycle, it would have been up to the board to reject the results of the openstack tc election and try to mediate some compromise | 18:09 |
| bauzas | wow | 18:10 |
| bauzas | I haven't git blame the charter, I shall have done it :) | 18:11 |
| dansmith | I don't really think this is new, | 18:13 |
| dansmith | because the board told us they would not be the arbiter and they would just punt back to the TC | 18:13 |
| dansmith | so, that round-trip is gone but I don't think the outcome is actually different | 18:13 |
| gmann | yeah. bylaw and board way to handling (if i remember correctly how it was written) was also included to let TC resolve it within a specific timeline. if TC cannot come up with any agreement then it was the last option board impose the solution | 18:15 |
| fungi | yes, also some overlap between historical membership on the tc and openinfra board of directors. in the end it all lands on some slice of the same set of people | 18:15 |
| gmann | and NOTE it did not happen anytime in past so the situation TC is in today, board might have been also in the same situation | 18:15 |
| gmann | i think it is not matter of who handle it it is more of "we encountered the situation now and it is ok to improve or write the rules for better handling in future" | 18:16 |
| gmann | seeing lack in our policy/process, I do not want to be unfair to anyone which is why I am in favour of temporarily waiving off the requirement this time. which is best possible way to handle it | 18:18 |
| JayF | I disagree with the opinion that it's the best possible way to handle it, but I do understand where you're coming from :). | 18:19 |
| gmann | yeah, I should write *good* especially where we do not any better or best solution :) | 18:20 |
| bauzas | what actually got me sleepless nights is the fact that the 4 of us need to apply some rule which isn't written | 18:21 |
| gmann | unless RH candidates can come up with some agreement | 18:21 |
| bauzas | since I don't exactly know which rule prevails | 18:22 |
| dansmith | bauzas: I think it's unreasonable to act like this is a surprise.. we knew that this rule existed and we've talked about the looming conflict many times | 18:22 |
| dansmith | and I've mentioned it to you personally too | 18:22 |
| dansmith | even though there's no recipe for the way out of this box, | 18:22 |
| dansmith | I think it's clear that the "TC figures it out" would be something like this | 18:22 |
| dansmith | and TBH, making it fully prescribed doesn't leave as much room for the obvious and self-optimizing solution | 18:23 |
| fungi | like the governance equivalent of a lobster pot. it's there, you can see it, and it's easy to crawl into. the challenge is crawling back out | 18:23 |
| dansmith | like if one person really wasn't fully committed and acknowledges that they could step down instead of whatever the recipe provides | 18:23 |
| JayF | dansmith: you're right, but having a proscribed solution would've also saved a lot of stress for a half-dozen+ people, which is a nonzero benefit -- even if it could lead to unoptimized solutions in some cases. | 18:23 |
| * fungi realizes he may spend too much time on the northern atlantic coast | 18:24 | |
| bauzas | dansmith: the 'rule' I'm talking is not the affiliation one, this is the rule that defines who wouldn't be elected | 18:24 |
| bauzas | the recipe, to tell your name | 18:24 |
| dansmith | yeah, I mean you can say "well them's the rules so I don't have to worry" but I also think it's not necessarily lower stress to have some obviously-unideal situation play out because that's what the recipe says | 18:24 |
| dansmith | regardless, I'm just saying I'm not convinced we need more rules to solve this | 18:25 |
| dansmith | bauzas: I'm well aware | 18:25 |
| dansmith | fungi: all my analogies are ICE car-related, so I know how that goes :D | 18:25 |
| gmann | not sure if this is a good way or if I am putting TC to be in more worse situation but if RH candidates cannot/do not want to have any conclusion then how about current TC members vote on it in private voting and select 3 RH candidates to be in ? | 18:25 |
| dansmith | gmann: we still haven't been able to have a convo with everyone yet because of "circumstances" so we're not there yet.. not sure if that's clear yet | 18:26 |
| JayF | We don't really have a mechanism for private voting among TC members, nor does our charter permit any kind of secret balloting. In fact, last PTG, we were pretty well roasted by some members of the community for giving an impression of secrecy that didn't exist. | 18:26 |
| bauzas | JayF: the rule could give some time to the affiliated members to come to a agreement before it's applied | 18:26 |
| gmann | dansmith: yeah, I know. I think let's wait for RH candidates discussion first | 18:27 |
| gmann | private voting I mean "without detailed ballot reporting" like we do for chair election or so | 18:28 |
| fungi | i don't have a lobster in this fight, but do agree that retreading the same ground while we wait for folks who might withdraw or resign to have reasonable time to discuss their options is becoming increasingly harmful by applying more pressure on them than is warranted | 18:28 |
| bauzas | that's a fair point, but we need to resolve that blocker so this will always be a trade-off | 18:38 |
| bauzas | anyway, late for me and family dinner, so \o | 18:38 |
| fungi | have a good evening! (and get some sleep) | 18:42 |
| spotz[m] | Night | 18:56 |
| fungi | in unrelated news, red hat has announced they created a project named "nova" https://9to5linux.com/red-hat-announces-nova-a-rust-based-gsp-only-driver-for-nvidia-gpus | 19:04 |
| fungi | not surprised if this is resulting in all manner of disruptive internal debates | 19:04 |
| fungi | (another nouveau successor, for those who don't have time to read) | 19:05 |
| knikolla | Just want to voice my strong opposition to this "how about current TC members vote on it in private voting and select 3 RH candidates to be in ?" | 19:12 |
| dansmith | fungi: it's becoming a real problem.. we've got several name conflicts brewing right now.. I dunno how nobody noticed those | 19:13 |
| fungi | open source is so successful, we've run out of project names | 19:14 |
| dansmith | I wish it was that, but I think it's just lack of due diligence :) | 19:14 |
| fungi | open source is so successful, we've run out effort | 19:15 |
| spotz[m] | knikolla: It's not the worst suggestion I've heard today to be honest | 19:15 |
| fungi | er, out of | 19:15 |
| gmann | or so popular that everyone want OSS project names :) | 19:15 |
| fungi | they're collectables now | 19:15 |
| fungi | spotz[m]: wow, pretty sure i don't want to hear the worse suggestions in that case! | 19:16 |
| JayF | We have, downstream here, armadaproject.io -- which has an airship integration ... airship also has a component called armada, which is different /o\ (I think we also have something opendev named armada, too?) | 19:16 |
| fungi | airship armada is hosted in opendev (formerly an at&t/microsoft led effort) | 19:17 |
| spotz[m] | fungi: Well if the TC voted at least it would be coming from the community | 19:18 |
| gmann | when things are stuck of course TC needs to vote/agree on something to bread the deadlock. I do not think how worst solution that can be. | 19:20 |
| gmann | we are kind of doing the same in form of resolution or putting discussion/pressure on members to resign | 19:20 |
| gmann | anyways let's wait for the RH candidates to discuss and come up with their agreement if they can, rest all solutions are next step if there is no agreement. | 19:22 |
| JayF | I mainly feel fungi hit the nail on the head that right now, the best thing we can do is apply patience and just, let the issue lie until the redhat members/members-elect have a chance to complete their discussion. | 19:23 |
| bauzas | thanks all for your patience | 19:30 |
| gouthamr | ^ +100 on that - thank you for the patience, and giving us a chance to chat as well; you've heard about personal circumstances (getting better now, thank you all for the support in the meantime), and about how "disjoint" Red Hat's OpenStack engineering folks are (i.e., none of the TC members in this election were part of the same "team" downstream)... we're also far apart in time zones - much like the rest of the community :D i've | 19:39 |
| gouthamr | only | 19:39 |
| gouthamr | ever spoken to bauzas on OFTC and gerrit i think, and its always been async... | 19:39 |
| gouthamr | (grrr, i should stop composing long messages that my irc client sends out of order) | 19:39 |
| bauzas | gouthamr: you already physically discussed with me on a PTG :p | 19:40 |
| fungi | this whole courtroom is out of order | 19:40 |
| bauzas | but yay, playing the european timezone diversity :) | 19:41 |
| gouthamr | bauzas: oh yes :D | 19:41 |
| fungi | (sorry, "and justice for all" was from 1979, i'm probably showing my age with that quote) | 19:41 |
| gouthamr | fungi: hahahaa; /me was looking that up for digesting context | 19:42 |
| spotz[m] | Was that the name of the movie fungi ? Feels off but I think I know the movie:) | 19:42 |
| fungi | i guess it was technically "the whole trial is out of order" | 19:42 |
| fungi | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...And_Justice_for_All_(film) | 19:42 |
| bauzas | I was born on the year of "Empire stricks back", so, please people don't be afraid of me :) | 19:43 |
| fungi | one of al pacino's lines | 19:43 |
| spotz[m] | Ok not the movie I was thinking of, I was thinking 'You want the truth? You can't handle the truth' | 19:43 |
| fungi | bauzas: nothing to be ashamed of, empire was the best of the trilogy | 19:43 |
| bauzas | I'm not (yet) thinking to run as an emperor, rather hopefully be seen as Master Yoda :p | 19:44 |
| fungi | yeah, then you *definitely* don't want to know how that ends | 19:44 |
| gouthamr | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA0glbG6c-8 -- super dramatic; got to watch this movie now | 19:45 |
| fungi | it'll keep | 19:46 |
| bauzas | my preference goes for 12 Angry Men :) | 19:46 |
| bauzas | which would be quite identical to the situation we're facing now :) | 19:47 |
| JayF | I pitched a movie idea once of "A dozen pleasant fellows" and Hollywood didn't want it, something about conflict and drama selling tickets ;) /s | 19:48 |
| fungi | twelve angry men (the stage script) was required when i was in high school | 19:49 |
| *** dasm is now known as Guest3915 | 20:22 | |
| *** Guest3915 is now known as dasm | 20:30 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!