| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Add option to move leaderless project to Inactive status https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914726 | 03:07 |
|---|---|---|
| *** elodilles_pto is now known as elodilles | 07:01 | |
| *** gthiemon1e is now known as gthiemonge | 07:46 | |
| slaweq | gouthamr hi, I just want to let you know that I will not be able to attend today's meeting because I have dentist appointment with my daughter at the same time | 14:13 |
| gouthamr | slaweq: hey, thanks for letting me know! | 14:50 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Move distributed-project-leadership model into doc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916822 | 17:43 |
| opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: Re-add project data for 2023.1 Antelope https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/916823 | 17:43 |
| opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: Re-add project data for 2023.1 Antelope https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/916823 | 17:47 |
| JayF | gouthamr: I'm going to forward you an email which contains the hostkey + meeting link for the OpenStack TC zoom meeting room | 17:49 |
| fungi | closest thing to an actual sceptre you had, as it turns out | 17:50 |
| JayF | yeah but it's weird because I had a personalized sceptre the whole time (zoom pro acct) | 17:50 |
| fungi | shh, don't let anyone hear you. they'll ask you to host more meetings! | 17:51 |
| * gouthamr :D yikes | 17:52 | |
| gouthamr | JayF thank you.. | 17:52 |
| gouthamr | i think i goofed up the reminders | 17:58 |
| JayF | I've also invited gouthamr to be an owner of the openstack-tc YT channel as well | 17:59 |
| JayF | I'll note myself, knikolla, and gmann also retain owner privs on that account is backup is ever needed | 18:00 |
| gmann | thanks, I was going to do that. | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | ^^ ++ | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | #startmeeting tc | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Apr 23 18:00:15 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gouthamr. 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 |
| gouthamr | hello everyone; welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee | 18:00 |
| gtema | O/ | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | JayF kindly set me up with a bunch of notes to run this meeting; but he's here in person and i'll throw in a #chair just in case | 18:01 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | #chair JayF | 18:01 |
| opendevmeet | Current chairs: JayF gouthamr | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct | 18:01 |
| dansmith | o/ | 18:01 |
| JayF | o/ | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | #topic Roll Call | 18:01 |
| frickler | \o | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | slaweq is away today | 18:02 |
| JayF | o/ | 18:02 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | i haven't seen any other absences here, on the ML or on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | so a reminder, that you can use these forums to tell us you can't be here during these meetings | 18:03 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 18:03 |
| * gouthamr does mental math.. | 18:05 | |
| gouthamr | quorum checks out; lets continue | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | #topic TC vPTG 2024.2 | 18:06 |
| gouthamr | thank you JayF for compiling a summary for the openstack-discuss mailing list | 18:06 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/MHP3MMS7Z6DJK7EAXAIDWDK3DU4ZXELK/ ([tc] TC vPTG 2024.2 Summary / Notes) | 18:06 |
| gouthamr | we have identified several action items; and we can start checking on these during this meeting, and in future meetings | 18:07 |
| gouthamr | several governance changes are being proposed, and many of these are follow ups from the TC discussions at the PTG.. | 18:08 |
| gouthamr | i'll take note to revisit this until we have ack'ed all our AIs | 18:09 |
| gouthamr | does anyone want to bring up anything specific wrt $topic | 18:09 |
| frickler | I want to mention the unmaintained transition for zed | 18:09 |
| gouthamr | +1 | 18:10 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/WIEIJVVBD36RBHP2MP4BWW4F5SFPK4FA/ ([PTL][release][stable] Transition Zed to Unmaintained) | 18:10 |
| frickler | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22zed-unmaintained%22 | 18:10 |
| frickler | didn't we want to decide about eoling the older branches first? | 18:10 |
| spotz[m] | o/ Sorry! | 18:11 |
| gmann | I think, we should but giving some time of around 1-2 months after the announcement in ML | 18:12 |
| frickler | I haven't seen any response to elodille1's mail yet and my impression is that the current unmaintained team is too small to really get the current bunch of branches and repos into a good shape | 18:12 |
| gmann | I think elodilles already made the ML announcement about that ? | 18:12 |
| frickler | gmann: so should we delay transitioning zed until after that period? | 18:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | we just started looking on current unmaintained branches after the ptg | 18:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | s/we/in osa we/ | 18:12 |
| gmann | frickler: I am ok either way delay or go in parallel | 18:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | and capacity of unmaintained team is also really a question | 18:13 |
| fungi | it's still unclear to me why control of "unmaintained" branches would need to be so restricted | 18:13 |
| fungi | thought that was part of the point of saying they're unmaintained | 18:13 |
| dansmith | me too | 18:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | +1 | 18:13 |
| frickler | the point is to eol them once they are no longer cared for | 18:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | though, I also miss a process for teams to "subscribe" for caring for | 18:14 |
| gouthamr | +1 i would support the idea that unmaintained-core can help push patches even when project maintainers are unresponsive in case we need security fixes in | 18:14 |
| frickler | and thus to get rid of broken CI jobs and zuul config errors | 18:14 |
| gmann | NOTE: these all old unmaintained branches we kept for migration to new model otherwise they have been in EM state for long right | 18:14 |
| spotz[m] | I'm assuming because it has to pull off a list from somewhere? | 18:14 |
| frickler | and I don't see that happening | 18:14 |
| fungi | there still seems to be a hesitance to just eol things when nobody responds | 18:15 |
| gmann | I am ok to get rid of these old EM->unmaintianed branches to EOL soon if no clear interestr | 18:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: well, user survey is not least factor in that I guess | 18:15 |
| JayF | fungi++ | 18:16 |
| gmann | and from SLURP moving to unmaintained we anyways will keep them for 1 year at least by default unless explicitly opt-out | 18:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | Like Yoga is still one of the biggest used versions | 18:16 |
| frickler | user survey says "yes, please keep giving us support for old branches, so we don't need to update", but who is doing that? | 18:17 |
| fungi | branches lacking maintainers are dead. it's a question of officially acknowledging that by tagging them eol or pretending someone might still happen along and want to take them over (which clearly isn't happening) | 18:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | with 2023.1 being jsut 7% | 18:17 |
| JayF | We have to remember there's a supply/demand element to this. Many companies who consume OpenStack would still be using Kilo (or worse) if we didn't, at some point, force a move forward. | 18:17 |
| gmann | we should modify this question now to convey the unmaintained model to them | 18:18 |
| JayF | If we keep supplying the feeling of supported branches (even when, as fungi indicates, they are dead if unmaintained), we remove some of that pressure to upgrade from users. | 18:18 |
| gouthamr | ^ +1 | 18:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | frickler: I guess I more meant - that we need more time to spread information about changed process | 18:18 |
| gmann | and there is no such thing called 'community support' for older branches | 18:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | Like 6 month ago we had rocky in EM and today we're EOLing Zed | 18:18 |
| JayF | We are the leaders of OpenStack; sometimes that means leading by showing the good path and EOL'ing the bad paths. | 18:18 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk: clarification, no we aren't EOLing Zed | 18:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | Regular people not really reading all TC decisions | 18:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | gouthamr: sorry, moving to unmaintaned | 18:19 |
| JayF | noonedeadpunk++ | 18:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | Like for some it's still supririse that OOO died :D | 18:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | (not saying we should care for those, jsut pointing out communication issues) | 18:20 |
| gmann | whole idea of unmaintained model was interested people come forward to maintain them as long as they want. if no one is interested then no harm in EOL | 18:20 |
| fungi | i agree that it's unlikely the broader userbase realizes we've basically started calling "extended maintenance" something else (to acknowledge the fact that its name was a bit of a lie) | 18:20 |
| frickler | what I see is people saying "we want to maintain this" and then nothing happening in terms of actual work | 18:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | there's not much point maintiaining Glance when Nova is EOLed | 18:21 |
| gouthamr | true; can we make the call to EOL victoria atm? and put out a proposal suggesting a faster EOL for other branches? | 18:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | Well, I guess I'm just saying we've become too agressive in eoling too quickly | 18:21 |
| fungi | my expectation is that if nova's unmaintained/yoga branch doesn't have caretaker volunteers, it's unlikely glance will either | 18:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | that's probably what I don't really like. As I personally still trying to establish a good process to move things I'm responsible for to unmaintained and document that and adopt basically | 18:22 |
| fungi | and the new policy is to eol unmaintained branches with no explicit volunteer caretaker opt-in | 18:22 |
| spotz[m] | I think it would be more a fly by fix from someone using it | 18:22 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Add DPl model & liaison reset policy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833 | 18:23 |
| gmann | ok, we have two quesions here | 18:24 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: I think the idea of a fly-by maintenance of a project branch is not something that works out well in reality. Especially in light of what happend with Murano. | 18:24 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: not to mention recurring items like CI maintenance :/ | 18:24 |
| gmann | 1. any objection to move zed to unmaintained | 18:24 |
| gmann | 2. EOling the existing unmaintained | 18:24 |
| * gouthamr sets a ticker on this issue.. | 18:24 | |
| noonedeadpunk | JayF: I have some doubts who outside of old Fuel-based Mirantis deployments were really using it... | 18:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | Though 21% of deployments being on Yoga specifically is quite evidential data | 18:25 |
| spotz | jayf Oh no I agree - I'm just thinking that's how a fix might get submitted in the Nova/Glance example given | 18:25 |
| gmann | for 1 (moving zed to unmaintained ), i think there should not be any blocker as per the timelines | 18:25 |
| spotz[m] | FYI Matrix and IRC are out of sync:) | 18:25 |
| * gouthamr ohmergod | 18:26 | |
| gmann | and whether we EOL older unmaintained or not can wait more if we see any response on elodilles email | 18:26 |
| gouthamr | i like gmann's proposal here.. 1) moving zed to unmaintained follows our existing process since we have yet-another-stable-branch that showed up | 18:26 |
| gouthamr | and i support disconnecting it from (2) - which is also an opportunity to give ourselves less work given we have a mess of unmaintained branches | 18:27 |
| JayF | Something that might help bring clarity here | 18:27 |
| JayF | we talk about EOL'ing older branches as a unified thing, but many projects may have already EOL'd them in some cases | 18:27 |
| JayF | If we were explicit about what projects still had active branches, it might act as a stronger call to actions to contributors who affiliate closely with those projects | 18:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | actually. talking about that. it;s also a bit annoying, that not all projects follow same releasing process despite being on the same release policy | 18:29 |
| gouthamr | different problem? | 18:29 |
| gmann | which has been case for long time or since starting | 18:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | like one would expect to have EOM and EOL tags for, say, Yoga when no unmaintained/yoga exist? But it's not always a case | 18:29 |
| gouthamr | ah; that seems like an omission.. | 18:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | nah, it's just project moved to EOL before we made EOM... | 18:30 |
| gmann | and one thing I would like to see that TC less force/policy/discuss about unmaintained things :) and leave it to unmantained liaisons or maintainers | 18:31 |
| JayF | gmann++++++ extremely agree with that | 18:31 |
| gouthamr | haha; that seems like a nice way to move on to other discussion items here and take this to long form | 18:31 |
| gouthamr | frickler: we don't have a conclusion here, but, i would like to encourage a discussion on the channel or the ML once we wrap up | 18:32 |
| gmann | I thought we wanted to setup the model/policy and hand over to unmaintained group/liaison and not decide when and which branch goes to unmaintained/EOL | 18:32 |
| frickler | I would agree if there were no zuul config errors | 18:32 |
| frickler | but I also agree that we should move on for now | 18:32 |
| gouthamr | any other PTG concerns that can't wait? i promise a structured check-in on AIs soon; but anything else that you'd like to note? | 18:33 |
| gouthamr | going once.. thrice.. | 18:33 |
| gouthamr | #topic 2024.2 TC Tracker | 18:33 |
| gouthamr | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2024.2-tracker (Technical Committee activity tracker) | 18:33 |
| gouthamr | ^ the vast emptiness of our tracking :) | 18:33 |
| gouthamr | /jk | 18:34 |
| gouthamr | please help throw items in that we'd care about for this release cycle (and a bit beyond) | 18:34 |
| gouthamr | i will take some items out of our PTG AIs as well, but feel free to correct things along the way; this will be a recurring item in our meetings | 18:35 |
| gouthamr | since you'll share your thoughts directly on the etherpad | 18:35 |
| gouthamr | #topic Ongoing business | 18:35 |
| gmann | ++ | 18:35 |
| gouthamr | i'd like to close out on things that JayF (and others) kicked off a formal-vote on | 18:36 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22formal-vote%22+status:open (Open Formal Vote items) | 18:36 |
| gouthamr | i'd like us to tackle the attention that the freezer items have been getting | 18:37 |
| spotz | I wouldn't mind working through https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915021 so we can move forward | 18:37 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915727 (Assign Dmitriy Rabotyagov as Freezer PTL) | 18:37 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914911 (Transition Freezer project to DPL) | 18:37 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk: would you like to share anything wrt these? | 18:38 |
| gouthamr | are you leaning towards dropping https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915727 yourself? | 18:38 |
| noonedeadpunk | well... I've discussed it for a while now | 18:38 |
| gouthamr | yes, you have the plank for 30 more seconds :) | 18:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | And I think that DPL model might be more beneficial right now to onboard new core team | 18:39 |
| gmann | I prpoposed the DPL liaison monitoring things in this #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833/1 | 18:39 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: ++ | 18:39 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833/ | 18:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | though I see not everyone agree, so I did pushed alternative, that I don't like but for the sake of the progress ok with it as well | 18:39 |
| gmann | but irrespective of that I do not see why we are not giving go ahead to freezer DPL mode | 18:40 |
| gtema | I honestly doubt dpl have any impact on onboarding new cores, neither is ptl | 18:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | I was just reading thorugh it | 18:40 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk: ah; ty... i'm hoping JayF will pitch into gmann's proposal here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833/ | 18:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | you can make ppl more important and repsonsible by giving them dedicated roles in project | 18:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | and keep involved | 18:40 |
| gmann | and having DPL model or PTL model does not means we can move it from Inactive state. that need a lot other activities to check | 18:40 |
| JayF | Please don't not-merge a thing just because a single tc-member (me, in this case) has a -1 on it | 18:41 |
| noonedeadpunk | (or me) | 18:41 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk: you'll be first among equals whether you're PTL or leader of DPLs (lol, just introduced a new governance category) | 18:41 |
| JayF | and I suspect, after reading gmann's proposal, that I'll likely flip the vote on that DPL proposal once his gets momentum and some feedback | 18:41 |
| gtema | You can't motivate non existing ppl interested in project | 18:41 |
| gouthamr | perfect; ty for looking | 18:41 |
| noonedeadpunk | gtema: so who told you they're non-existent? | 18:41 |
| gtema | Otherwise this would not end in the current situation | 18:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | I do have communication with couple of orgs about their participation | 18:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | not all of them just decided about migration to openstack. and having DR is quite a contributing factor to that decision | 18:43 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk++ good stuff; i understood gtema's remark to be general | 18:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | It won't happen overnight, but well | 18:43 |
| gouthamr | thanks for persisting.. | 18:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | there's interest at least | 18:43 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: interesting. I have done PoC on freezer long back in 2018 i think. but that time it was not so ready or perfect | 18:44 |
| gmann | and it did not fit in our customer requirements | 18:44 |
| noonedeadpunk | I did around same time as well.... | 18:45 |
| gmann | but do not know the current status and seeing interest in this is good | 18:45 |
| noonedeadpunk | Eventually, most "interest" is around some scheduler for cinder-backups more or less as well as lifecycle | 18:45 |
| gouthamr | i suspect the rest of the open patches need some eyes.. tc-members, i'll expect us to look and timebox our reviews here.. if you think something shouldn't be merged, please let us know with a -1... | 18:45 |
| JayF | gmann: that two lines, is exactly the reason I care so much about project activity: I've had many conversations where experiences like that have led people to be suspicious of all openstack projects being mature at the task they claim to do | 18:45 |
| noonedeadpunk | not client agent part | 18:45 |
| JayF | gmann: re: POC of a project just not fulfilling requirements | 18:46 |
| gouthamr | if you intend to abstain from a vote, please let us know again by commenting as such | 18:46 |
| gouthamr | if you don't already use it, there's a link to this useful dashboard in our TC documentation | 18:47 |
| gmann | JayF: yeah but we should give new people chance or more time to see if things can be improved. but I got what you are pointing to which make sense too | 18:47 |
| gouthamr | #link | 18:47 |
| gouthamr | https://review.opendev.org/dashboard/?title=Technical+Committee+Inbox&foreach=project%3Aopenstack%2Fgovernance+is%3Aopen&My+proposals=owner%3Aself&Formal+Vote+Items+I+have+not+voted+on+yet=topic%3Aformal-vote+NOT+(+label%3ARollCall-Vote%2B1%2Cself+OR+label%3ARollCall-Vote-1%2Cself+)&Has+at+Least+One+Objection=(+label%3ARollCall-Vote%3C%3D-1+OR+label%3ACode-Review%3C%3D-1+)&Quickies=(+topic%3Atypo-fix+OR+topic%3Acode-change | 18:47 |
| gouthamr | +OR+topic%3Adocumentation-change+OR+topic%3Aproject-update+)&Formal+Vote+Items=topic%3Aformal-vote&Goal+Items+I+Haven%27t+Voted+On=path%3A^goals%2F.*+NOT+(+label%3ARollCall-Vote%2B1%2Cself+OR+label%3ARollCall-Vote-1%2Cself+)&I+Haven%27t+Voted+on+this+Draft=NOT+(+label%3ARollCall-Vote%2B1%2Cself+OR+label%3ARollCall-Vote-1%2Cself+)&Everything= (Governance reviews dashboard) | 18:47 |
| gouthamr | ugh | 18:47 |
| fungi | that's one heck of a url | 18:47 |
| spotz[m] | eww | 18:47 |
| JayF | I'll note many of those dashboard links (even when not mangled by IRC) require login to work | 18:47 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: ohk, I was looking more on client-agent things | 18:47 |
| noonedeadpunk | this part is very questionable still.... | 18:48 |
| gouthamr | true | 18:48 |
| gmann | k | 18:48 |
| gouthamr | spotz[m]: i didn't ignore your link earlier | 18:49 |
| spotz | I'm so out of sync following on IRC and Matrix:) | 18:49 |
| gtema | Yeah, matrix today sucks | 18:50 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915021 (Update to include docs and miscellaneuos repos for AC status_ | 18:50 |
| gouthamr | ^ i'll copy some folks; but please ack this review as well.. | 18:50 |
| gmann | I think I left comment there which is still not answered or resolved | 18:50 |
| gmann | ;et me check | 18:50 |
| gmann | let | 18:50 |
| gouthamr | i'll follow up on this channel with some more review concerns | 18:50 |
| spotz | You were answering a lot of the concerns gmann so if I missed one you had let me know | 18:51 |
| gouthamr | moving on.. | 18:51 |
| gouthamr | #topic 2025.1 Elections | 18:51 |
| gmann | gouthamr: many of them might be eligible to merge | 18:51 |
| gouthamr | gmann: ack; i'll catch up and help move these | 18:51 |
| gouthamr | sooooo, sorry to drop this topic in this early | 18:52 |
| * JayF wonders if gouthamr has been introduced to `tox -echeck-review-status` :D | 18:52 | |
| gmann | spotz: I think discussion going on there. other also have some point. I need to check if anything pending on me answer/reply | 18:52 |
| fungi | well, 2025.1 elections will be happening in 2024 ;) | 18:52 |
| spotz | Yeah it's gotten a bit confusing | 18:52 |
| gouthamr | but, i realized that a while ago frickler added election deadlines to the Caracal release schedule; and i thought, why don't we do this all the time | 18:52 |
| gmann | JayF: I think yes. this is great help for chair and magic script | 18:52 |
| gouthamr | but, we crawl before we walk | 18:52 |
| JayF | gmann: did you make the magic script? If so consider this a belated thanks :D | 18:53 |
| gouthamr | i was going to put out an early call seeking election officials for the 2025.1 elections | 18:53 |
| fungi | the earlier the better with election scheduling | 18:53 |
| spotz | So we can keep reminding folks to submit | 18:53 |
| gouthamr | ++ | 18:53 |
| JayF | Are those election dates set yet? It's hard to know if I can volunteer without being able to compare to a calendar | 18:53 |
| gmann | JayF: not me. I think doug or ttx or mnaser maybe and later on it was fixed/amend it to improve. | 18:54 |
| gouthamr | or point them to it when they say they were only looking at the [$project] emails on openstack-discuss and missed [election] | 18:54 |
| spotz | JayF: A lot of them are hard coded in with the release schedule | 18:54 |
| JayF | ack, I'll check offline | 18:54 |
| gmann | on election, we need TC member to liaison to monitor election deadlines/etc | 18:54 |
| spotz | Well you have to tell the script the date to base it's dates off of but.. | 18:55 |
| JayF | I may be willing to be that volunteer need to check schedules as I have a busy second-half of the year | 18:55 |
| mnaser | check-review-status was blessed to me by doug :) | 18:55 |
| gmann | I am, not sure if anyone volunteer fot that | 18:55 |
| gmann | ++ | 18:55 |
| JayF | spotz: even doing like "what were this election deadlines +6months) | 18:55 |
| gmann | mnaser: ++. that is really helpful to all chairs | 18:55 |
| spotz | jayf yeah it should be able to, it won't send generate emails but we can get the dates from it to publish ourselves | 18:55 |
| gouthamr | Elections last time were in the R-2 week | 18:57 |
| gouthamr | and per our charter, its the latest we can hold them | 18:57 |
| fungi | at least gives you an opportunity to see if it's falling across events or majoy holidays | 18:57 |
| gmann | deadline as per charter is election to be held between R-3 to R-8 (i will confirm again) | 18:57 |
| gouthamr | These elections are collectively held (from the nomination start date until the voting end date) no later than 2 weeks prior to each cycle final release date (on or before ‘R-2’ week) | 18:57 |
| gouthamr | ^ excerpt from https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#election-for-ptl-seats | 18:58 |
| gmann | (between ‘R-8’ and ‘R-2’ week). gouthamr ++ | 18:58 |
| gouthamr | So extrapolating that, Sep 16-Sep 20th can be a candidate for the election week; once we have election official volunteers we can finalize this | 18:59 |
| gouthamr | we're T-1 minute to wrapping this up | 19:00 |
| gouthamr | haha | 19:00 |
| frickler | don't we have 2 week elections now? | 19:00 |
| gouthamr | alright we're at time; but we can continue the after-discussions in this channel and ML | 19:00 |
| gmann | yes, 2 week nomination and 2 week poll | 19:01 |
| gouthamr | sorry we didn't have open discussion today | 19:01 |
| spotz | Weel for campaigning and a week to vote | 19:01 |
| gouthamr | thank you all for attending and for the spirited discussion | 19:01 |
| gouthamr | #endmeeting | 19:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Apr 23 19:01:33 2024 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:01 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-04-23-18.00.html | 19:01 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-04-23-18.00.txt | 19:01 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-04-23-18.00.log.html | 19:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | thanks gouthamr ! | 19:01 |
| gmann | two week to vote not 1 week | 19:02 |
| gouthamr | +1 | 19:02 |
| gmann | thanks | 19:02 |
| gouthamr | tc-members (and everyone): if you'd like to volunteer to be election officials, please let me know | 19:02 |
| * gouthamr cross posts this on #openstack-dev | 19:03 | |
| gmann | gouthamr: there are two thing 1. TC member liaison to monitor if election are happening on time or any blocker/issue 2. election official who can be TC or any non-TC and any number of election official is ok. | 19:04 |
| gouthamr | frickler spotz gmann: https://governance.openstack.org/election/process.html has more of the specifics on selecting election dates.. i think we've favored combined elections | 19:04 |
| gouthamr | so there's an overlap that we'd work out | 19:04 |
| gmann | TC member liaison can be election official though if not running in that election | 19:04 |
| fungi | having spent years officiating elections after i stepped back from the tc, i'm happy to help mentor volunteers for it too | 19:05 |
| spotz[m] | I need to figure out work travel for August/September first. And yeah we've been doing combined the last 3 years atleast | 19:05 |
| fungi | keep in mind that the openinfra summit in korea is happening around that timeframe too | 19:05 |
| gouthamr | i missed this | 19:06 |
| spotz[m] | I think Ian might be the only current/recent Election Official who's done the CIVS part | 19:06 |
| gmann | gouthamr: yes and I have modified the election tooling to make sure generated dates by election scripts are as per charter | 19:06 |
| gouthamr | gmann nice | 19:06 |
| gmann | gouthamr: so both are in sync for now and most of time with combined election | 19:06 |
| gouthamr | ++ definitely more convenient | 19:06 |
| gmann | but considering spotz propose for AC modification need them to update | 19:06 |
| fungi | gouthamr: if you mean you missed the summit announcement, it's september 3-4: https://openinfra.dev/summit/ | 19:07 |
| gouthamr | fungi++ ty | 19:08 |
| fungi | but maybe you mean you missed that we started combining tc and ptl election schedules. yes very convenient | 19:08 |
| gouthamr | nope the summit dates | 19:09 |
| spotz | And the CFP is open:) | 19:09 |
| gouthamr | like you suggested, we can consider this when planning the election dates and allow an extra week with whatever we're doing during that week | 19:09 |
| gmann | once we started combined election, we continued that in all elections and did not have separate one. this is good considering election officials number and work. | 19:09 |
| fungi | okay, yes, so summit is in suwon which is basically a suburb of seoul | 19:10 |
| fungi | but anyway, with longer nomination and polling periods, event dates and holidays are less of a concern | 19:11 |
| gouthamr | agreed | 19:29 |
| spotz | And PTO quite a few missed deadlines because they were away | 19:30 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Add DPL model & liaison reset policy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833 | 19:37 |
| gmann | JayF: noonedeadpunk tc-members ^^ updated DPL reset timeline to 6 months. Initially I wanted it to be 1 year but 6 months make sense especially seeing inactive projects are being detected very late. | 19:38 |
| gmann | at least provide less window for project to misuse DPL model to hide their inactivity | 19:41 |
| JayF | I wouldn't even ascribe any deliberateness to it. Just people get busy and openstack is often the least-squeaky wheel in their job :/ | 19:42 |
| opendevreview | Elod Illes proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: Re-add project data for 2023.1 Antelope https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/916823 | 20:44 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Add DPL model & liaison reset policy https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833 | 22:14 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!