| JayF | Reminder that I am in UTC/CEST for the next two weeks, and will not be in meetings or responsive during this time. If you all need me, just email or ping me and I'll check it in time. | 11:28 |
|---|---|---|
| gmann | tc-members: solum repo content fix: anyone would like to approve it https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/solum/+/920201 | 17:12 |
| spotz[m] | gmann done | 17:29 |
| gmann | thanks | 17:30 |
| gouthamr | tc-members: our weekly IRC meeting will happen here in ~20 mins | 17:40 |
| gouthamr | #startmeeting tc | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue May 28 18:00:18 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 | #chair frickler | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Current chairs: frickler gouthamr | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | 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. | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | #topic Roll Call | 18:01 |
| dansmith | o/ | 18:01 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:01 |
| gtema | o/ | 18:01 |
| frickler | \o | 18:01 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:01 |
| * frickler likes that extra ping, that's helpful ;) | 18:01 | |
| gouthamr | JayF and noonedeadpunk are away today | 18:02 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | perfect; lets get started.. | 18:02 |
| carloss | o/ | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | #topic AIs from last week | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/XU4TF7BZVYFD57ORCOE56UA6RTP2M2DP/ (Summary from previous week) | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | its been a quiet week, at least for me; i was out for most of the week :) | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | so i'm a bit slow on the two AIs we did take (both are on me).. | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | fungi will bring up PyPi maintainers cleanup in the #opendev channel in ~1 hour where we'll have a few other infra maintainers | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | we'll take it from there, and make some progress this week | 18:06 |
| gouthamr | i've an update incoming to https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/918488 (Show TC and SIG repos in projects page) | 18:06 |
| gouthamr | this should help with Amy's AC update change, which when we merge will allow us to make tooling changes for the elections | 18:07 |
| gouthamr | speaking of elections | 18:08 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/920092 (Add configuration for 2025.1/"E" elections) | 18:08 |
| gouthamr | we now have dates | 18:08 |
| gmann | this can give better view of dates #link https://governance.openstack.org/election/ | 18:08 |
| gouthamr | ah thank you | 18:09 |
| gouthamr | i'll address frickler's comments on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/920145 so we can display this on our release calendar as well | 18:09 |
| gmann | ++, that will be helpful. | 18:09 |
| gouthamr | that's the story with AIs; did i miss anything? | 18:10 |
| fungi | (technically the opendev meeting happens in #opendev-meeting) | 18:10 |
| gouthamr | nice; ty frickler | 18:10 |
| gouthamr | nice; ty fungi* | 18:10 |
| gouthamr | alright; lets move on.. | 18:12 |
| gouthamr | #topic 2024.2 TC Tracker | 18:12 |
| gouthamr | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2024.2-tracker (Technical Committee activity tracker) | 18:12 |
| frickler | regarding inactive projects, I'm concerned about freezer and monasca. both still prominent with zuul config errors | 18:13 |
| frickler | and the initial rush to avoid them getting retired seems to have cooled off | 18:13 |
| dansmith | I had a question about watcher too | 18:13 |
| gmann | I think we have time of m-2 for them to be active otherwise we can discuss the retirement | 18:14 |
| gmann | on leaderless projects, 5 project have been retired. 4 projects still pending on action. out of it Trove PTL proposal is there #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.2-leaderless | 18:14 |
| gmann | dansmith: yeah, watcher also have no clear plan | 18:14 |
| dansmith | I'm trying to evaluate if we care about watcher, and I'm up to three patches just trying to get it to finish devstack | 18:14 |
| gouthamr | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.2-leaderless (Tracking leaderless projects) | 18:14 |
| dansmith | AFAIK, there are no cores to approve those patches | 18:14 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/920462 (Appoint ChunYang Wu as PTL of Trove) | 18:15 |
| gmann | yeah, either it needs to be adopted by the existing team (like kuryr) or we can add new core members to maintain this project | 18:15 |
| dansmith | well, I don't want to commit to being a core, but we kinda need some temporary solution so we can at least merge patches to make it work | 18:16 |
| dansmith | I'm trying to evaluate if we care about it longer term than that, but kinda need to have it fixed to even make that determination | 18:16 |
| gmann | +1, we can add tc group as core there and that will help to merge and handover the core maintenance to new team if there will be any ? | 18:17 |
| slaweq | maybe all TC members should be added to the core team of such project (just in case we simply need to move it forward temporary) | 18:17 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:17 |
| dansmith | sure | 18:17 |
| gouthamr | what kind of move forward are we talking though? | 18:17 |
| frickler | I'd prefer to proceed with retirement if nobody wants to even be core, much less PTL | 18:18 |
| dansmith | well for watcher, I'm trying to determine if we want to adopt it | 18:18 |
| gouthamr | dansmith: noob q: were you trying to get its CI working, because you were interested to lend a hand in its maintenance so it can stay a moderately active project, and probably become active again? | 18:19 |
| dansmith | so IMHO, this needs to go before that hammer | 18:19 |
| gouthamr | ah; we here is the "nova" project team? | 18:19 |
| dansmith | gouthamr: I'm trying to get it running locally, so we can get it running in CI, so yeah, we could keep it on life support _if_ we decide to | 18:19 |
| dansmith | gouthamr: not necessarily nova, no.. | 18:19 |
| dansmith | gouthamr: but one of the other "we" groups I belong to :) | 18:20 |
| gouthamr | ah ty dansmith | 18:20 |
| dansmith | so if we could just add the tc to watcher-core for the moment, | 18:20 |
| dansmith | that would mean I could merge (or get someone else to merge) these fixes at least so the jobs will run and we can actually evaluate | 18:21 |
| gouthamr | ^ hold; no; i was hoping we could just add you and anyone else interested? because adding the tech-committee seems unorthodox no? | 18:21 |
| spotz[m] | It almost sounds like it might be beneficial to have the tc group added to any core group that is considered in danger? | 18:21 |
| dansmith | adding the tc in this scenario to all those projects makes sense to me | 18:21 |
| dansmith | (as slaweq and gmann and spotz[m] mentioned) | 18:22 |
| gmann | yes, it will help if we add TC group there to recover this project even there are more volunteer or other direction it goes to | 18:22 |
| gouthamr | ack; but hoping it doesn't send the wrong message that the TC has taken over the maintenance of a project? | 18:22 |
| frickler | I don't think adding the TC as a whole is helpful. if specific persons want to be added, why not do that? | 18:23 |
| frickler | gouthamr: +1 | 18:23 |
| dansmith | the TC is the backstop for all core teams technically right? | 18:23 |
| spotz[m] | My thought is it helps things to get through until we aren't needed or to aid in the retirement | 18:23 |
| frickler | but not to keep project alive on live support | 18:23 |
| gmann | yes, we do add it in many other places and retirement projects also so that we can handle the cleanup/activity in future | 18:23 |
| dansmith | whatever, this is not worth the time to argue about.. add me to watcher if that's the desire, but I see no reason not to just use the TC for convenience | 18:23 |
| gmann | well, adding individual can also leads to have that person be PTL or DPL model otherwise TC will retire it | 18:24 |
| dansmith | yeah, I think the TC being there is an easier "providing life support" indication than a single person, personally | 18:24 |
| fungi | we already grant the tc members submit rights on retired repos, fwiw | 18:25 |
| gmann | that is why I am saying until dansmith figure out that where it goes as maintenance, TC can help in intermediate direction/merges | 18:25 |
| dansmith | right | 18:25 |
| slaweq | +1 | 18:25 |
| gouthamr | ^ lets formalize this a bit; if you'll indulge me.. i want to ensure also that this isn't misconstrued | 18:26 |
| gouthamr | #vote should the TC be added to the gerrit approving group for inactive projects? yes no abstain | 18:26 |
| gouthamr | #startvote should the TC be added to the gerrit approving group for inactive projects? yes no abstain | 18:26 |
| opendevmeet | Begin voting on: should the TC be added to the gerrit approving group for inactive projects? Valid vote options are yes, no, abstain. | 18:26 |
| opendevmeet | Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. | 18:26 |
| spotz[m] | #vote yes | 18:26 |
| dansmith | #vote yes | 18:26 |
| gmann | #vote yes | 18:26 |
| slaweq | #vote yes | 18:26 |
| frickler | #vote no | 18:26 |
| gtema | #vote no | 18:27 |
| gouthamr | sigh | 18:27 |
| gouthamr | #vote no | 18:27 |
| opendevmeet | gouthamr: no is not a valid option. Valid options are yes, no, abstain. | 18:27 |
| gouthamr | lol | 18:28 |
| gouthamr | #vote no | 18:28 |
| gouthamr | #endvote | 18:28 |
| opendevmeet | Voted on "should the TC be added to the gerrit approving group for inactive projects?" Results are | 18:28 |
| opendevmeet | yes (4): slaweq, spotz[m], dansmith, gmann | 18:28 |
| opendevmeet | no (3): gtema, gouthamr, frickler | 18:28 |
| fungi | hung jury, mistrial? | 18:28 |
| dansmith | since I wasn't asked before, I think voting is too heavy a tool for this | 18:28 |
| dansmith | I have no idea why this is so controversial, but if it is, ffs, just add me and we can move on | 18:28 |
| spotz[m] | It's all good, and to be honest I can see both sides but I think this is a better option then a call out for people to be cores randomly like docs, refstack, etc | 18:29 |
| gouthamr | yeah; i can see that argument.. but, i would like to word this to be "the technical committee can approve critical procedural/release/gate fixes" | 18:30 |
| fungi | the tc effectively already can, by asking me or another gerrit admin to do so | 18:30 |
| gmann | " and hand over the core group to the next one when it is finalized" | 18:31 |
| gouthamr | +1 and in this case, help seed the core team ^ | 18:31 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:31 |
| spotz[m] | Yeah end goal is us not to remain permantently but help folks revive and then be removed or we retire it | 18:31 |
| slaweq | exactly, it shouldn't mean that "tc is now maintaining the project" | 18:32 |
| fungi | the longer term concerns (setting aside whatever needs doing to expedite a solution to the current situation), might be better addressed in a resolution | 18:32 |
| gmann | yes, it stays in leaderless list | 18:33 |
| dansmith | if you just add one person to an otherwise empty core team, it also means that person has to +2 their own fixes | 18:33 |
| gouthamr | yes | 18:33 |
| gouthamr | that's kinda useless | 18:33 |
| dansmith | it would be a lot nicer to add the tc so I can push up patches and ask gmann or frickler to approve them, since they're CI and requirements-related in most cases | 18:33 |
| dansmith | not only for that, but also to spread that around a bit... if you just add me and gmann then when gmann is sleeping (which never happens, granted) I'm stuck | 18:34 |
| frickler | I wouldn't want to do that. if gmann wants to, he can be added, too | 18:34 |
| fungi | as a workaround, feel free to get them to +1 and then ask me to elevate my privileges to add the required gating votes, if that works better for you | 18:34 |
| dansmith | I personally see no danger in implying that the tc is "maintaining" the project longer term than what we're discussing, personally | 18:34 |
| gmann | ok so do we have agreement here or still need more discussion? | 18:34 |
| frickler | agreement on what? | 18:35 |
| gmann | i think it is not big deal if we add TC or not but anyways I am ok with either | 18:35 |
| gmann | adding TC group there or not? | 18:35 |
| frickler | 4 vs. 3 doesn't sound like consensus to me | 18:35 |
| dansmith | I guess I'm confused.. gouthamr were you doing the vote and hoping for consensus? surely not since you voted no | 18:35 |
| gmann | so what is criteria for consensus in voting? 3/4 ? | 18:36 |
| frickler | consensus to me means no objection. a vote could be decided by a majority, but I wouldn't call that agreement | 18:37 |
| gouthamr | i would; because we have established precedence on granting the tc membership in groups for projects getting retired | 18:37 |
| gouthamr | i wanted to see how everyone felt about extending that to inactive projects that are on their way to retirement | 18:38 |
| dansmith | um, okay. | 18:38 |
| gmann | not just inactive but 'project with no maintainers' | 18:38 |
| gouthamr | if we were okay with the responsibility - i.e., folks ping you for help to land changes and to help get added to the respective core-team | 18:38 |
| gouthamr | you'd help; and when there are enough maintainers, we step away | 18:39 |
| fungi | finding a middle ground consensus on broader policy like that is usually handled through formal resolution | 18:39 |
| dansmith | can we move on? | 18:39 |
| fungi | since some stakeholders may object over specific nuances that can be reworded to refine the policy | 18:39 |
| gouthamr | ^ yeah i can see that argument... | 18:40 |
| gouthamr | dansmith: not right now; no, you started a fire.. lets put it :) | 18:40 |
| gouthamr | (out) | 18:40 |
| gmann | I do not think it need resolution, that will be too much and more blockers/time consuming for people like dansmith who is trying to help fixing the things and we are blocking him to do so | 18:40 |
| dansmith | I put it out when I said it wasn't worth discussing this at length, so if you want to keep the fire burning, it's yours | 18:41 |
| fungi | if there is a desire for recording a broader solution to address future cases, i don't think that has to hold up immediate solutions | 18:41 |
| gmann | I am ok to be added there help merging the things if those are CI/requirement related | 18:41 |
| slaweq | me too | 18:42 |
| gouthamr | yes.. the immediate solution is we add tech-committee to the watcher group; and pursue a resolution and air out concerns about the other projects | 18:42 |
| dansmith | I'm just going to do what was suggested and ping fungi to merge all the things I have once they're ready | 18:42 |
| gmann | slaweq: thanks | 18:42 |
| dansmith | so we don't need a resolution | 18:42 |
| fungi | dansmith: that works for me, please feel free | 18:42 |
| fungi | if this is something that is likely to come up for other projects in the future, taking time to put forth a resolution with a more concrete process makes sense | 18:43 |
| fungi | but that can presumably be done outside the meeting | 18:43 |
| gmann | gouthamr: leave about tech-committee. and adding me and slaweq will work here | 18:43 |
| gouthamr | okay; totally fine with that approach | 18:44 |
| gmann | thanks | 18:44 |
| gouthamr | because even with a working CI, if the project remains leaderless by M-2, it'll get on our retirement list - i'm hoping dansmith gmann slaweq succeed at seeding the core team ... | 18:44 |
| gmann | yes, those deadlines/next step stay same. | 18:45 |
| frickler | I'm still unsure about the m-2 deadline, the retirements should be finished by that to avoid issues with release team? | 18:45 |
| gmann | can I bring next item from tracker | 18:45 |
| fungi | yes, the tc needs to decide *by* milestone 2 week so that they can let the release team know no later than then | 18:46 |
| gouthamr | ack; i misspoke | 18:46 |
| fungi | but ideally they'd decide sooner | 18:46 |
| gouthamr | but lets move on, gmann | 18:46 |
| gmann | I think marking Inactive is what gouthamr means | 18:46 |
| gouthamr | +1 | 18:47 |
| gmann | yeah, this is hanging for long time, need more review on this DPL model change #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833 | 18:47 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833 (Add DPL model & liaison reset policy) | 18:48 |
| gouthamr | (^ for the logs) | 18:48 |
| gmann | if any question on this, we can discuss here or on gerrrit | 18:48 |
| gouthamr | yeah; would anyone like to abstain, you can do so with an explicit Roll-Call 0 vote | 18:48 |
| gmann | but I really want to close this DPL topic either we merge it or abandon it and leave DPL as it is | 18:48 |
| gouthamr | frickler's concerns may be addressed by the latest patch and its follow-up: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/917516/ | 18:50 |
| gouthamr | do you mind taking a look again, frickler | 18:50 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:50 |
| frickler | sure, will do | 18:50 |
| gmann | thanks | 18:50 |
| gouthamr | ty | 18:50 |
| gouthamr | frickler: you mentioned zuul config errors; were you only concerned about those only for the inactive projects? | 18:51 |
| gouthamr | or was it the number of these on "unmaintained" branches | 18:52 |
| frickler | unmaintained is not in a nice state, either, but that's another topic | 18:52 |
| gmann | yeah, unmaintained branches should not be in scope for project status as Active or Inactive | 18:52 |
| frickler | I commented regarding unmaintained on https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2024.2-tracker#L100 some time ago | 18:53 |
| gouthamr | ack; i remember | 18:53 |
| gouthamr | monasca has a PTL (no IRC); and noonedeadpunk is the TaCT liaison for freezer.. so we should probably poke them about the zuul config errors with these projects | 18:55 |
| * gouthamr takes that AI | 18:56 | |
| gouthamr | alright lets get a few mins in for open discussion | 18:56 |
| gouthamr | #topic Open Discussion | 18:56 |
| gouthamr | *crickets* | 18:58 |
| fungi | keep up the good work, everyone! | 18:59 |
| gouthamr | :) yes | 18:59 |
| gouthamr | thank you all for attending! i'll see you here next week | 18:59 |
| gouthamr | (here and on Video!) | 19:00 |
| slaweq | see you! | 19:00 |
| gouthamr | #endmeeting | 19:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue May 28 19:00:17 2024 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:00 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-05-28-18.00.html | 19:00 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-05-28-18.00.txt | 19:00 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-05-28-18.00.log.html | 19:00 |
| gmann | thanks | 19:00 |
| gmann | fungi: frickler: can either of you add dansmith slaweq and me in watcher core group to proceed there https://review.opendev.org/admin/groups/77cd139bd57514e98e5e694a82f7e261b4748a8a,members | 19:00 |
| gmann | tc-members: this is easy one to cleanup the retired projects from inactive list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/920146 | 19:02 |
| fungi | gmann: done | 19:05 |
| gmann | fungi: thanks | 19:05 |
| spotz[m] | Oh reminder I won't be here next week, if I'm still about when the agenda is up I'll add myself | 19:09 |
| gouthamr | ^ i'll add this for you spotz[m] | 19:10 |
| spotz[m] | Thanks gouthamr ! | 19:10 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Remove retired project from Inactive project list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/920146 | 20:52 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Mark migrate-ci-jobs-to-ubuntu-jammy goal completed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/920143 | 20:52 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!