| gmann | clarkb: I think sending email is good. | 01:51 |
|---|---|---|
| gmann | gouthamr: i used retire-<projectname> but governance changes needs to be formal-vote as it is retiring not just project-updates | 01:51 |
| gmann | gouthamr: oh you already merged them as project-updates? | 01:52 |
| gouthamr | gmann: yes; i was reading this: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/house-rules.html#other-project-team-updates | 01:53 |
| gouthamr | and the context we have had here: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.2-leaderless#L72 | 01:54 |
| gmann | gouthamr: ohk, I think we should make it clear about complete retirement/shutdown of project should ne formal-vote and rest all including single repo retirement as project-update | 01:55 |
| gmann | I think we have used it in mixed way in fast | 01:56 |
| gmann | anyways I think this cover it if any objection comes on ML or gerrit If a technical committee member disagrees with the addition or retirement of a project, they can propose a revert which would then be discussed by our usual formal-vote rules. | 01:56 |
| gmann | "If a technical committee member disagrees with the addition or retirement of a project, they can propose a revert which would then be discussed by our usual formal-vote rules." | 01:56 |
| gmann | gouthamr: all good for now. I will propose change in house rule to make explicit differentiation of retirement of projects vs its some repo. | 01:57 |
| gmann | because we use formal-vote to mark project inactive so it make sense to do same to retire also | 01:58 |
| gouthamr | yes; these retirements have been deliberated in multiple places; so even a formal-vote would have been quick i think.. i considered these a blocker for the long line of patches you have for each of these projects | 01:59 |
| gouthamr | and yes, as it reads, if we have a disagreement, a revert can be proposed by anyone here... and i'll bring the 2-by-4 to whack myself :) | 02:01 |
| gmann | more I am waiting for reviews is this one, so that we can close the DPL model item well before next election starts https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833/5 | 02:02 |
| gmann | gouthamr: i think our script also broken as these governance changes should not merge until we cleanup the repo content. I will fix that too. but as you are here, can you please review and merge these https://review.opendev.org/q/remove+repo+content+owner:gmann@ghanshyammann.com+status:open | 02:07 |
| gmann | it need 2nd +2/+A | 02:08 |
| gmann | basically governance-validate-legacy should have fail as repo content still there | 02:16 |
| gmann | for example it is failing for d-g retirement https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/919629 | 02:18 |
| gouthamr | oh; ack will look at these | 02:41 |
| gouthamr | gmann: since we dropped the jobs; gerrit's marking these "Ready to Submit" - is that the norm? can I "submit"? | 02:43 |
| gouthamr | oh wait | 02:44 |
| gouthamr | my bad | 02:44 |
| gouthamr | i used V+2 --- am not used to seeing that :| | 02:44 |
| gmann | gouthamr: yes, no jobs to you can verfiy it an submit | 02:52 |
| gmann | yeah, you already did. thanks | 02:53 |
| gouthamr | you've spent a ton of time on these; thank you gmann | 03:05 |
| gmann | gouthamr: yeah :) and more to do when removing the ref. hopefully there should not be much but do not want to introduce any new zuul error | 03:13 |
| frickler | one thing to consider is how to update documentation. like IMO https://docs.openstack.org/senlin/2023.2/ should give an indication of the retirement status. is this what gtema's AI is meant to handle? | 06:33 |
| gtema | Lol, actually yes | 06:35 |
| frickler | ah, no, this is already handled by https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/919356/ | 06:37 |
| frickler | things not handled yet afaict: retiring IRC channels or at least amending their topic. updating projects on launchpad and pypi | 07:58 |
| frickler | (and storyboard, e.g. https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/927) | 08:00 |
| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/governance master: Neutron: Retire networking-ovn https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/919700 | 09:27 |
| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/governance master: Neutron: Retire networking-ovn https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/919700 | 09:28 |
| fungi | clarkb: if you're asking why retired repos move from projects.yaml to legacy.yaml, that's because contributions to projects before they were retired count toward voting rights in elections for up to a year later, so we need somewhere the election scripts can still find them. these days it would be easier to just count contributions to anything in the openstack/ git namespace on opendev, | 13:07 |
| fungi | but attempts to phrase that in the charter in a way that satisfies all tc members has yet to succeed | 13:07 |
| fungi | frickler: yeah, i've just been trying to track retirements of anything using storyboard and then manually updating the descriptions and setting their inactive flag in the database | 13:09 |
| clarkb | fungi: there is a separate retirement accounting that happens for requirements and I think something else as well. I was mostly commenting that maybe it is ok to do it once rather than multiple times then source the info from that location instead of accounting it everywhere | 15:02 |
| fungi | clarkb: yeah, that's another thing that's sort of been on the long-term to do list | 15:05 |
| fungi | though in the past there's also been a bit of backpressure against turning the governance repo into a project metadata registry tracking things that aren't necessarily relevant to governance of openstack itself (though for this case tracking retired repositories does at least seem related to governance) | 15:06 |
| gmann | frickler: gtema: yeah, we have that step written in doc too https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/repository.html#step-7-remove-docs-openstack-org-content | 21:04 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!