| opendevreview | inspurericzhang proposed openstack/election master: Adding Eric Zhang candidacy for Venus https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/941175 | 00:55 |
|---|---|---|
| *** clarkb is now known as Guest8709 | 02:38 | |
| *** jroll09 is now known as jroll0 | 08:45 | |
| *** ralonsoh_ is now known as ralonsoh | 10:21 | |
| *** ralonsoh_ is now known as ralonsoh | 14:00 | |
| elodilles_pto | hi TC, thanks for proposing the 2025.2 runtimes patch o/ i've created the py3 job templates updating patches based on it, please review and/or feel free to push another PS if needed: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:2025.2 | 14:06 |
| *** Guest8709 is now known as clarkb | 15:23 | |
| *** elodilles_pto is now known as elodilles | 16:21 | |
| gouthamr | elodilles: nice! thank you! | 16:34 |
| elodilles | np :) | 16:37 |
| slaweq | gouthamr: hi, sorry for the late notice but I won't be able to attend today's meeting because I have a flu and don't feel well. | 16:47 |
| fungi | i hope you get to feeling better quickly! | 16:48 |
| gouthamr | slaweq: ack, sorry to hear that, echo fungi | 16:48 |
| slaweq | Thx | 16:57 |
| gouthamr | tc-members: a gentle reminder that our weekly meeting will be on this channel in ~59 mins | 17:02 |
| gmann | elodilles: thanks, will check after TC meeting | 17:54 |
| gouthamr | #startmeeting tc | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Feb 11 18:00:50 2025 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 | 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. | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | #topic Roll Call | 18:01 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 18:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 18:01 |
| gtema | o/ | 18:01 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:01 |
| frickler | \o | 18:01 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | noted absence: s l a w e q | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | courtesy ping: bauzas cardoe | 18:03 |
| cardoe | apologies. I'm here. | 18:03 |
| bauzas | \o | 18:03 |
| cardoe | Staring at a dump out of OVN and spaced. | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | :) good stuff | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | that's everyone | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | let's get started | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | #topic Last Week's AIs | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | Following up on openstackdocstheme review permissions | 18:04 |
| gmann | there is some progress on this. we discussed it in oslo meeting and oslo team members agree on the proposal to add gtema in openstackdocstheme core list | 18:05 |
| gtema | thanks gmann | 18:05 |
| gmann | project-config change for ACl setup is merged | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | nice, thank you gmann.. | 18:05 |
| gmann | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-config/+/940845 | 18:05 |
| gmann | and I pinged daniel in oslo channel to add gtema in gerrit ACl group. I will follow up on that in coming meeting if not done before that | 18:06 |
| gouthamr | ah, assumed you had permissions too? | 18:06 |
| gtema | for ref: so far it was not done | 18:06 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:07 |
| gmann | I will wait for daniel to do that | 18:07 |
| gmann | gtema: api-ref also can be discussed as separate but I do not think there will be any objection but just for formalities, it is good to discuss in oslo meeting | 18:07 |
| gtema | perfect, thanks | 18:08 |
| gouthamr | ack, oslo is still DPL - i think its worth discussing stuff, but, if the team was in agreement, i think you can make the changes, gmann | 18:08 |
| gmann | it is in PTL appointment state, we are hoping PTL nomination this week or so | 18:09 |
| gmann | I will add api-ref explicitly also in oslo meeting agenda just in case | 18:09 |
| gouthamr | what is PTL appointment state? :D | 18:09 |
| gmann | it is in PTL leadership model as DPL state is already reset | 18:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | actually I'm super concerned about amount of supplied PTLs nominees | 18:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | not saying there're zero candidates for TC so far | 18:10 |
| fungi | note that ~75% (ballpark) of ptls nominate themselves in the final 48 hours or so | 18:11 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: usually it comes at the end even we start early :) | 18:11 |
| bauzas | yeah, nominations usually arrive late | 18:11 |
| gouthamr | gmann: sorry, i know you mean well and this effort is for visibility and to drive consensus publicly.. but, hear me out - waiting for the next oslo meeting feels like process :) | 18:11 |
| fungi | i think everyone's hoping someone else will volunteer, before they give up and run again | 18:11 |
| gouthamr | ^ next AI is about this | 18:12 |
| gmann | gouthamr: yeah, I know its more of paper work but I will followup it in olso meeting and get it done | 18:12 |
| gouthamr | nomination period began on 5th Feb, and is ending on 19th Feb at 23:45 UTC | 18:12 |
| spotz[m] | I think PTLs either know who's up next or in the case no one has been in training folks restep up | 18:12 |
| noonedeadpunk | I guess I was just a bit concerned about rumors going around of one huge contributor pulling out in no time | 18:12 |
| spotz[m] | ?? | 18:13 |
| gouthamr | oh? | 18:13 |
| gmann | ? | 18:13 |
| spotz[m] | Spill! | 18:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | though they were all coming from not-so-trusted sources, but heard that like 3 times during last 2 weeks | 18:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | nah, it's good that there're plenty of question marks - means it only me hearing that :D | 18:14 |
| gouthamr | probably :) | 18:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | so doesn't matter, lets go on! | 18:14 |
| fungi | rumors can often be false-flag misinformation intended to sow doubt | 18:14 |
| gouthamr | regarding this AI, this is a reminder that 5 seats are up for election on the OpenStack TC - and so far there are no nominees | 18:14 |
| gouthamr | i intend to self-nominate after some introspection, just procrastinating on the nomination | 18:15 |
| spotz[m] | I'm in the same stage, I was waiting to see if anyone step up to speak for the non-technical aspects of the community before I re=run | 18:16 |
| gouthamr | i think the other thing about elections is the AC deadline that's coming up this week | 18:17 |
| gouthamr | we don't have any extra ACs to add on behalf of the TC | 18:17 |
| gouthamr | i did notice however, that the roll generation script doesn't look at technical-committee-repos .. feels like deja vu | 18:18 |
| gmann | good point, maybe we should send it on ML to remind community leaders/extra ACs also | 18:18 |
| gouthamr | but also a pbkac moment because we've discussed this in the pact | 18:18 |
| gouthamr | past* | 18:18 |
| gouthamr | so i have a patch coming for that, and will chat with sla weq and ian | 18:18 |
| gmann | I mean sending extra ACs deadline to ML | 18:19 |
| gouthamr | ++ | 18:19 |
| gouthamr | it was called out in ttx's email, but we can send a separate email | 18:19 |
| gouthamr | #action send an email regarding the extra AC deadline | 18:19 |
| gmann | yeah, separate email might be good. I tried added it in one of steps for election official as email template but that time election officials did not agree on this. | 18:20 |
| gouthamr | ack, i'll send this after our meeting | 18:20 |
| gmann | but having it a step like other email communication will be good idea | 18:20 |
| gmann | thanks | 18:20 |
| spotz[m] | Make sure to target the SiGs so they know it's them as well, I've got the only WG | 18:20 |
| gouthamr | ++ | 18:20 |
| gouthamr | alright, anything else about the election? | 18:21 |
| gouthamr | next AI: ensure Freezer and related repos are included in the coordinated release | 18:21 |
| gouthamr | i think this may have come up in the release meeting | 18:22 |
| gouthamr | don't know if there's anything else we need to do now | 18:22 |
| noonedeadpunk | I can recall talking to release team last week and some placeholder patches were proposed for that | 18:22 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/940768 (Add freezer deliverables to 2025.1 Epoxy) | 18:23 |
| gouthamr | i think elodilles left some questions for you | 18:23 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk ^ | 18:23 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah... I missed it obviously | 18:23 |
| fungi | related, we discussed in the last release meeting that it might be nice if the emerging/inactive lists were machine parseable in some way (maybe built from projects.yaml content) | 18:24 |
| gouthamr | the questions subsume my own question about the launchpad tracker for freezer-web-ui | 18:24 |
| gouthamr | fungi: ah, good idea | 18:24 |
| fungi | the release team feels like they have a hard time keeping track of what's inactive from cycle to cycle | 18:25 |
| fungi | and would rather just integrate some automation for that | 18:25 |
| gouthamr | these projects are already in projects.yaml - so just another property to tag the inactive/emerging ones? | 18:25 |
| gmann | we discussed in past and to show the Inactive state in project yaml as well as in project doc main page also | 18:25 |
| gmann | but we did not update those | 18:25 |
| fungi | yeah, just something for the wishlist while it was fresh in my mind | 18:26 |
| gmann | gouthamr: to show 'INACTIVE' state in project.yaml | 18:26 |
| gouthamr | +1 | 18:26 |
| gmann | and also it will be helpful or more visible to show same state in project doc page | 18:26 |
| gouthamr | any volunteers who want to make this change? | 18:26 |
| * gouthamr holds gmann's hand down and looks around :D | 18:27 | |
| fungi | if it's tracked in projects.yaml, that would solve the release team's need | 18:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | I totally agree that this should be some readable list | 18:27 |
| bauzas | unfortunately I don't have time for this :( | 18:27 |
| gmann | :) | 18:27 |
| fungi | also not at all urgent, of course | 18:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | um. I will not able to commit with a fixed deadline... | 18:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | but overall - would be interesting to do | 18:28 |
| ttx | Could be next cycle at this point | 18:28 |
| gmann | ++ | 18:28 |
| ttx | We only check that very periodically | 18:28 |
| gmann | If no one then I can do but next month or so when I get some time | 18:29 |
| gouthamr | +1 thanks for the suggestion, i'll add it to the tracker | 18:29 |
| gmann | yeah, that will be helpful if we forgot. thanks | 18:29 |
| fungi | thanks! | 18:29 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: ++ | 18:30 |
| gouthamr | anything else on this AI? | 18:30 |
| gouthamr | next one: EOL transition for the "unmaintained/wallaby" branch | 18:30 |
| gouthamr | think this one would be non-controversial to pursue, barring the ~70 repos that elodilles has omitted from the unmaintained/victoria branch | 18:31 |
| gouthamr | frickler: was this something you planned on pursuing, or needed someone else to look into? | 18:32 |
| frickler | well I certainly wouldn't object if someone else would propose a patch for that, since then I can review with my release hat on | 18:32 |
| cardoe | Do we have any helpful script to help automate it? | 18:32 |
| frickler | but if nobody volunteers I'll get to do that myself eventually | 18:33 |
| frickler | cardoe: we have the "new-release" script, but you need to feed it with the list of repos to deal with | 18:33 |
| frickler | you'd have to extract that list from the victoria patch that was merged | 18:33 |
| gouthamr | would this be the one? https://github.com/openstack/releases/blob/master/tools/transition_series.sh | 18:33 |
| frickler | gouthamr: that script would transition everything. but we cannot eol stuff in w that is still active in v | 18:34 |
| gouthamr | ack, maybe if we could tweak it to have an exclude list | 18:35 |
| frickler | but amending that script with these restrictions might also be a good investment | 18:35 |
| cardoe | hrm. I'm going to have to plead ignorance here. frickler, if ya teach me how to fish so to speak I'll help ya in the future | 18:35 |
| bauzas | https://releases.openstack.org/reference/using.html#using-new-release-command | 18:36 |
| bauzas | but I dunno if we can eol a release using this command | 18:36 |
| frickler | cardoe: yeah, I can do some initial thing and document it in an etherpad I guess | 18:36 |
| gouthamr | ++ thanks frickler | 18:37 |
| frickler | bauzas: iirc that's what I used for the victoria patch, yes | 18:37 |
| bauzas | I don't see any type for eol, but meh | 18:37 |
| gouthamr | alright, we've spent some time on AIs and veered off into related discussions here.. lets get through the agenda | 18:37 |
| frickler | the other related topic that could use a volunteer is check the non-eoled v repos | 18:37 |
| gouthamr | but real quick, are there any other AIs that you're pursuing that we didn't discuss? | 18:38 |
| frickler | like look at the remaining zuul issues and followup with elodilles or other unmaintainers | 18:38 |
| gouthamr | frickler: we thought of deferring that to the upcoming PTG | 18:38 |
| frickler | gouthamr: that's some longer term task, I don't see how it could be handled only at the PTG | 18:39 |
| frickler | and I also don't see any advantage in waiting until then | 18:39 |
| gouthamr | that = discussing the state of the Unmaintained Core Group | 18:39 |
| frickler | like ... discussing to get rid of it? | 18:40 |
| gouthamr | maybe not, but checking the pulse on it - since its been a couple of release cycles since we started that effort | 18:40 |
| frickler | ok, but that's then a different topic than what I was talking about | 18:41 |
| gouthamr | i see | 18:41 |
| frickler | which is enforcing the policy that were not yet retired yet at the promise of elodilles caring about them | 18:42 |
| frickler | *... policy for those repos that ...* | 18:42 |
| gouthamr | ^ i am under the impression that this is under the purview of the unmaintained-core group | 18:42 |
| frickler | I don't see any real activity from that group, but maybe that's just my ignorance | 18:43 |
| frickler | so yeah, maybe it is a bit related | 18:43 |
| gmann | As per process, those unmaintained branches/repo goes to EOL like frickler proposed for V and volunteer caring about any will be kept as unmaintained. | 18:43 |
| bauzas | if we don't have anyone, it's not a problem | 18:43 |
| bauzas | given we could EOL indeed | 18:43 |
| gmann | we do not need to monitor unmaintained-core group or repo as those are going to EOL by default unless opt-in | 18:44 |
| frickler | well ... we have a single person claiming to care ... but failing to follow up with approriate action afaict | 18:44 |
| spotz[m] | That's no help then | 18:44 |
| gmann | frickler: is your concern about the repo which are opt-in but not in good state? | 18:45 |
| gouthamr | folks, time check, there are a couple of fresh topics to look at; we should talk about this, but, i'd defer it to next week since it didn't figure in the agenda.. | 18:45 |
| frickler | we allowed the opt-in to happen although the conditions we formulated to keep repos alive were not yet satisfied, yes | 18:45 |
| gmann | I see | 18:45 |
| gouthamr | #topic Strategic consideration for OpenInfra Foundation joining the Linux Foundation | 18:45 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openinfra.org/archives/list/foundation@lists.openinfra.org/thread/3B7OWPRXB4KD2DVX7SYYSHYYRNCKVV46/ | 18:45 |
| gmann | I added this but most of you know about this topic | 18:45 |
| gouthamr | #link https://board.openinfra.org/en/strategic-consideration | 18:46 |
| gmann | and most of you might have attended community meeting also today | 18:46 |
| gouthamr | if you missed that one, the next one is Thursday, Feb 13, 01:00 UTC / 9am China Standard Time / 5pm Pacific (Wed, Feb 12) | 18:46 |
| gmann | I do not intend to have any specific discussion over it but just to make sure it is well checked by the tc-members and start the discussion in ML or community meeting | 18:46 |
| gmann | which gouthamr already stated last week | 18:46 |
| gmann | gouthamr: ++ | 18:47 |
| gouthamr | https://board.openinfra.org/strategic-consideration/faq states something jonathan bryce mentioned in the call as well | 18:47 |
| spotz[m] | First community meeting took place already the second is tomorrow at 1:00 UTC | 18:47 |
| gouthamr | "Projects will retain their independent governance, principles (e.g., The Four Opens), project infrastructure, and communication channels and will continue to receive the same Foundation services from the same people. Contributor workflows, systems and infrastructure will stay the same. " | 18:47 |
| jbryce | I'm listening here too and always happy to chat with anyone if there are questions or feedback | 18:47 |
| gmann | as per step, there is no official votes we need from TC on this but ack and feedback from TC is good things to do. | 18:47 |
| spotz[m] | And pleas ask questions on the FOundation thread to keep everything in one place | 18:48 |
| * gouthamr hey there jbryce | 18:48 | |
| gmann | jbryce: ++ thanks | 18:48 |
| gouthamr | i think i got a question regarding teh ICLA | 18:48 |
| gouthamr | if that's expected to change, and impact on existing contributors | 18:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | I guess one of main things I'm a bit concerned about - is that LF has aleready released a recommendation to limit accepting contributions from some countries | 18:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | which kind of... kind of... already weird for 4opens | 18:50 |
| fungi | yeah, i brought that up a while back, it sounds like there's an expectation that no icla revision will be required, but if there is then it's a good time for us to look at finally switching to dco (since the board okayed it some years ago) | 18:50 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: ohk, is there any official lin/info on that? | 18:50 |
| jbryce | I will follow up with our legal counsel but my current understanding is existing ones woukd transfer. In the event we merge, we would need to update the entity defined as the "manager" in the CLA. I will get official confirmation though | 18:50 |
| noonedeadpunk | gmann: was reffering to https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2024/dec/12/linux-banned-russian-contributors-do-i-need-to/ | 18:50 |
| gmann | fungi: ++ on switching to dco | 18:50 |
| jbryce | And yes we can use it as an opportunity to make potential changes, e.g. DCO | 18:51 |
| noonedeadpunk | so getting under US legislation umbrella, right now... when main users are actually outside of US... | 18:51 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: I see, that is really a important point to discuss | 18:52 |
| noonedeadpunk | and basically one of main strong points of openstack - being an alternative in EU for digital soverignity... | 18:52 |
| fungi | well, the openinfra foundation is already incorporated in the usa, that's not necessarily a change | 18:52 |
| gouthamr | DCO would be a significant change - a lot of gerrit churn initially, but hopefully short term | 18:52 |
| jbryce | Unfortunately sanctions apply to us (and companies and individual developers) in any case, whether there's a move or not | 18:52 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: but now foundation has regional branches kind of? | 18:52 |
| fungi | so does lf, as i understand it? | 18:52 |
| jbryce | There are a lot on non-US sanctions as well | 18:52 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, could be... | 18:53 |
| jbryce | Correct, LF also has regional branches | 18:53 |
| jbryce | If anything I'm hopeful we can have a bigger impact on getting these regulations to view open source properly | 18:53 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think my biggest concern, with ongoing uncertanty and some kind of "trade war" starting - that EU (which I care most about), were able to consume and contribute... | 18:54 |
| jbryce | This is something that happened previously around export controls which have a special recognition for publicly available software | 18:54 |
| bauzas | :( | 18:54 |
| gmann | I think foundation as a org is one thing which has to be corporated in some country but being a Open Source model/license , it is not restricted to who all can contribute/use etc | 18:54 |
| noonedeadpunk | (but also other regions, ie East) | 18:54 |
| * bauzas is really a sad panda due to the world change | 18:54 | |
| jbryce | The LF actually has spent a lot of effort on these topics and shared the output with us previously, thankfully | 18:55 |
| fungi | also with openinfra (and me) being in the usa, it hasn't stopped me getting elected to the specification committee for the open regulatory compliance working group (under the eclipse foundation) to guide compliance requirements for the eu cra | 18:55 |
| fungi | these sorts of things can still happen across national borders | 18:55 |
| jbryce | https://openinfra.org/export | 18:55 |
| jbryce | I hope to advocate for a framework like that but for other use cases | 18:55 |
| noonedeadpunk | I gues it depends on what crazy sanctions could be made to whom... | 18:56 |
| noonedeadpunk | but yeah, I got that now it's not different | 18:56 |
| noonedeadpunk | (unfrotunatelly) | 18:56 |
| fungi | yes, different countries are constantly sanctioning one another and declaring that their citizens can't interact with citizens of certain other countries, unfortunately | 18:56 |
| noonedeadpunk | I was just under a false impression that regional presence is a some way around | 18:57 |
| knikolla | the future is looking quite unpredictable :( | 18:57 |
| fungi | open source is global, but everyone has to live somewhere | 18:57 |
| gmann | though it is good point but if that is cmg then it will be same concern for current OpenInfra also. not only when Openinfra going in LF umbrella | 18:57 |
| noonedeadpunk | really sad that globalisation era has ended - that was really great time :( | 18:57 |
| bauzas | I'm afraid they don't know the difference between opensource and IP | 18:58 |
| noonedeadpunk | as borders feel somehow stupid limitation... | 18:58 |
| gmann | well, not ended maybe just paused for sometime.... | 18:58 |
| jbryce | I'm going to keep fighting for open source for everyone, everywhere no matter what | 18:59 |
| bauzas | fwiw, I'm working for a global company operating many local subsidiaries | 18:59 |
| gmann | true, and if it is not global then it is not open source | 18:59 |
| knikolla | now if only we could get k8s off github and onto opendev :) | 18:59 |
| noonedeadpunk | and what happens with foundation members? | 18:59 |
| noonedeadpunk | bauzas: I wonder what would happen with this org prices in case some export tariff would be applied.... | 19:00 |
| gouthamr | knikolla: off of prow and onto zuul, off of slack and onto IRC, off of google meet and onto Jitsi - the number of head shakes with k8s | 19:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, let's not exxaturate with slack -> irc. slack -> matrix would be already a win | 19:01 |
| gouthamr | :D we're over the time we have had.. but its not like we need to vacate the room | 19:02 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: your question is for 'foundation members organization' or 'foundation staff' ? | 19:02 |
| knikolla | noonedeadpunk: that's an interesting point. would foundation membership be subject to tariffs? | 19:02 |
| gmann | yeah, we can continue the discussion after meeting also as it is going on | 19:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | members organizations | 19:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | for staff I saw reply in a thread | 19:02 |
| ttx | In my understanding, tariffs apply to importing goods | 19:02 |
| ttx | But then I'm no expert | 19:03 |
| bauzas | we don't produce materials | 19:03 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: some answer to that in question 9 https://board.openinfra.org/strategic-consideration/faq | 19:03 |
| bauzas | I mean, at least for myself :) | 19:03 |
| fungi | also the faq is a living document, so as people raise more questions we'll try to get them answered there for reference | 19:03 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 19:03 |
| * gouthamr will keep the meeting open for a bit longer for the minutes' sake.. | 19:04 | |
| gouthamr | ++ in general, this seems like a great new/big step.. i'm curious, and excited around increased avenues/opportunities to collaborate with adjacent communities, a significant number of who are within LF.. | 19:04 |
| gmann | ++ | 19:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | ttx: ah, well. ok, importing tarif in EU could be a response to some other thing | 19:05 |
| spotz[m] | I do think collaboration with adjacent communities will hopefully become easier. | 19:05 |
| bauzas | what kind of imported goods are we talking about ? | 19:05 |
| bauzas | again, I probably missed a point | 19:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, I was thinking if IP could be part of that, for instance | 19:06 |
| bauzas | my brain isn't made of steel, I'm not superman | 19:06 |
| noonedeadpunk | anyway, it's a complete offtop, to be discussed under beer and not in a meeting :) | 19:06 |
| bauzas | noonedeadpunk: YAY, definitely :crossed_fingers_emoji: | 19:07 |
| bauzas | but again, I do understand the concerns | 19:07 |
| knikolla | noonedeadpunk: yay beer | 19:07 |
| gouthamr | alright, last call to post any further thoughts for the meeting :) | 19:07 |
| bauzas | about the TC impact, I guess given there is no difference, we don't need to vote on any governance resolution, right? | 19:07 |
| gouthamr | +1 no | 19:08 |
| bauzas | we may have bylaws changes, but that's not something we havez to vote, right? | 19:08 |
| gmann | bauzas: yes, no vote needed as resolution or so | 19:08 |
| fungi | sounds like no, unless the parts of the foundation bylaws that require a tc vote need altering in some way | 19:08 |
| knikolla | i liked the analogy of project themselves being virtualized and not knowing the difference between bare metal (separate foundation) and VM (under LF) | 19:08 |
| gouthamr | "lift and shift" | 19:08 |
| bauzas | fungi: that's my question, is there a bylaws change that requires a TC approval ? | 19:08 |
| gmann | yeah bylaw changes we need to vote anyways as foundation members | 19:08 |
| fungi | but i think maybe we don't have any parts of the bylaws that need a tc vote any longer? | 19:09 |
| spotz[m] | There shouldn't been any changed to the bylaws but when there are everyone votes not just TC | 19:09 |
| bauzas | that was my assumption, bylaws changes are requiring foundation members approval, not TC approval AFAICR | 19:09 |
| spotz[m] | Correct | 19:09 |
| gmann | there were some section still need feedback from project governance but not as a formal vote maybe. | 19:09 |
| fungi | well, we did have sections of the bylaws that required permission from the openstack tc to change, but we may not as of the most recent revision | 19:09 |
| gmann | but if anything comes up for TC, spotz[m] or I will keep eyes on that and bring it here | 19:10 |
| bauzas | do we then want to support the Foundation by providing a resolution saying "yeah, we do support this change ?" | 19:10 |
| gmann | I think not needed but jbryce what ^^ you say? | 19:10 |
| gmann | or it can be a reply to ML from chair about support/agreement | 19:11 |
| bauzas | I don't think this is needed but if that can help... | 19:11 |
| gmann | s/chair/TC chair | 19:11 |
| khyr0n | also... if we "join forces" there is a way to undone that? and also, is there a way to share with the community all the small letter on the contract? | 19:12 |
| bauzas | yah a formal resolution is maybe too firm | 19:12 |
| bauzas | khyr0n: look at the FAQ, there is no community impact | 19:12 |
| knikolla | bauzas: a celebratory party? | 19:12 |
| bauzas | knikolla: don't ask me about any physical meetup, I'm pretty burned about virtual PTGs | 19:13 |
| gmann | yeah, resolution is not required as such but a summarized agreement or no objection from OpenStack governance can be done in ML reply | 19:13 |
| fungi | khyr0n: the announcement said that draft documents would be forthcoming | 19:13 |
| ttx | Right, we'll share the documents as they get finalized | 19:13 |
| ttx | gmann: +1 | 19:14 |
| bauzas | fwiw, I trust the Foundation for the legal documentations... | 19:14 |
| fungi | khyr0n: as i understand it, once we "join forces" it would be hard to untangle later, as the lf would own the project trademarks and hold the contracts | 19:14 |
| jbryce | https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/nW1jCOVT | 19:15 |
| fungi | if projects desperately wanted to exit the lf, their communities could fork them under new names i guess | 19:15 |
| jbryce | Ha sorry... Unintentional pastebin message | 19:15 |
| opendevreview | Andrey Kurilin proposed openstack/election master: Add Andriy Kurilin candidacy for Rally https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/941292 | 19:15 |
| gouthamr | with that note, thank you all for participating.. lets wrap this meeting up.. i'll follow up with gmann's suggestion; but if there are any other comments, please feel free to post them to the ML! | 19:15 |
| fungi | which is of course why we need to get feedback from the community and projects | 19:15 |
| khyr0n | bauzas: let me explain a close friend issue with the CNCF as part of LF, he was born in Cuba but now lives in Miami, and wanted to just go to Cuba to talk about Kubernetes and made it official, as is there is not procedure on how to do that, he contacted the "legal" department, answer was a 100% no to that, impossible to do, no way that CNCF can approve that | 19:15 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openinfra.org/archives/list/foundation@lists.openinfra.org/thread/3B7OWPRXB4KD2DVX7SYYSHYYRNCKVV46/ | 19:16 |
| gouthamr | #endmeeting | 19:16 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Feb 11 19:16:26 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:16 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-02-11-18.00.html | 19:16 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-02-11-18.00.txt | 19:16 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-02-11-18.00.log.html | 19:16 |
| bauzas | fungi: tbc, by projects, we talk about OpenStack, StarlingX, Kata Containers | 19:16 |
| fungi | yes | 19:16 |
| khyr0n | that's one of my concerns, I'm and live in LATAM, so the future is blurry | 19:17 |
| spotz[m] | The goal is to make sure this is what's best for the communities and the foundation. More voices bringing up potential questions we didn't think to ask so we can get answers | 19:17 |
| bauzas | we had problems in the past with contributors not able to join us due to visa issues | 19:17 |
| bauzas | that's not an easy problem to solve | 19:17 |
| bauzas | but at least the Foundation can provide visa letters | 19:18 |
| gmann | true, invitation or so is what event organizer/foundation can do as max and rest is all country wise policies. | 19:18 |
| spotz[m] | Only the countries involved can deal with Visas when it all comes down to it | 19:20 |
| fungi | no matter what country we've hosted events in over the years, there's always someone who has trouble getting an entry visa from somewhere else | 19:20 |
| knikolla | ugh, visas... | 19:20 |
| bauzas | exactly, that's a NP problem | 19:20 |
| gmann | and it is not only the case for OpenSouce community/foundation, visa/travel challenges are for organization employee also to travel to their own organization subsidiary in other country. | 19:20 |
| bauzas | oh yeah, I recently faced the experience (not me, a colleague) | 19:21 |
| bauzas | for a business trip | 19:21 |
| khyr0n | I don;'t know if you read a kolla-ansible issue about somebody having issues with the registry... if quay is block from China (a redhat thing and understandable) but it was the solution to docker issues... it seems to me that the foundation should address that providing solutions for all users, not for just a few | 19:21 |
| bauzas | so I think this is unrelated to the merger proposal | 19:21 |
| bauzas | maybe even the LF could help more the visa things because the foundation is larger and more known | 19:22 |
| gmann | yes, it is separate topic and problem to solve but I do not think foundation staff can do anything on that especially anything on country wise policies | 19:22 |
| bauzas | but eventually, all goes to where the event is landed... | 19:22 |
| spotz[m] | Even the LF can't influence travel VISas | 19:22 |
| gmann | yeah | 19:22 |
| fungi | khyr0n: kolla's images are unofficial testing materials, not intended for production use. they should be rebuilt ideally, in order to meet the regulatory requirements for the location where they'll be operated | 19:22 |
| khyr0n | if LF can fix that, what do the openinfra foundation to do that? it seems to me that is doable, it's only something we dont have access | 19:22 |
| gmann | any ideas on how 'that is doable'? I might be missing some point here | 19:23 |
| khyr0n | fungi: cool answer but again, not for everybody, no matter is it's for prod or not | 19:23 |
| fungi | khyr0n: github also can't be reached from normal ip addresses within mainland china. people there use (sometimes backdoored) copies | 19:24 |
| bauzas | gmann: ditto, I misunderstand the point here | 19:24 |
| fungi | i don't think lf "fixes" that | 19:24 |
| knikolla | we're going to see a lot of geopolitical roadblocks arise in the next few years, and the solution to each of those is going to look different. from websites being simply blocked, bypassable with VPNs or other mechanisms, to full blown sanctions that enter into illegal grounds if you try to bypass. | 19:24 |
| fungi | i don't think openinfra can fix it either | 19:24 |
| knikolla | I think this makes the regional hubs of the foundations more important into helping solve this | 19:25 |
| fungi | basically, countries are free to tell their people what resources they're allowed to access. we can't and shouldn't encourage people to circumvent or break laws for the places where they live | 19:25 |
| bauzas | we had connectivity problems in the past and we'll continue to have them | 19:25 |
| gmann | exactly, this is out of scope from community or any foundation | 19:25 |
| bauzas | I don't again see what's the point with the merger | 19:25 |
| gmann | bauzas: ++ | 19:26 |
| bauzas | tbh, my main concern was budget-wise but that's been answered in the FAQ | 19:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | so we kind of trade our "independency" and trademarks for lawyers? | 19:27 |
| bauzas | as gmann said, there would also be great opportunities to reach other communities with the merger | 19:27 |
| khyr0n | noonedeadpunk ++ | 19:27 |
| bauzas | noonedeadpunk: hah, your concern is about the IP ? | 19:27 |
| bauzas | if not the budget or whatever else | 19:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, point that it would be impossible to quit makes me extra nervous | 19:28 |
| gouthamr | wouldn't that be unfounded given the collective fate of a number of really popular projects rests with LF? | 19:29 |
| bauzas | I see, a governoral change ? | 19:29 |
| bauzas | that's surely a concern, but I hope the foundation has safebelts | 19:29 |
| fungi | like i said, this is why the board of directors wants feedback from the projects, it's a mostly one-way proposition (also why it's important that our members get to elect board representatives, to represent their concerns in governing these assets) | 19:29 |
| bauzas | reading hard the FAQ | 19:31 |
| bauzas | I see there will still be a board after the merger | 19:31 |
| fungi | yes, with the same basic makeup and electoral process | 19:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | gouthamr: well. I think plenty of projects were small enough and foundation indeed could give them a good start. While I ack that our communities have shrink significantly... I somehow biased towards LF a bit | 19:32 |
| fungi | and this will be encoded into documents similar to our current bylaws, which will be hard for lf to simply change without cooperation from the board | 19:32 |
| bauzas | so, again, my main concern is not about the governance itself, it's about the funding of the governance | 19:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | well | 19:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | true then | 19:33 |
| bauzas | but I hope the budget will then be fully separated | 19:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | and pretty much events/promotion/etc | 19:33 |
| spotz[m] | Funding will still come from our members(platinum, gold, silver, etc) | 19:33 |
| * bauzas speaks with a second thought about his own company | 19:33 | |
| * knikolla goes back into hiding. Nice to see you all. | 19:34 | |
| bauzas | spotz[m]: I'm not used to US accounting rules, but I assume there is a specific budget for operating needs | 19:35 |
| bauzas | and that will slighly change | 19:35 |
| bauzas | but if that's the sole change, I can accept that | 19:35 |
| spotz[m] | Yes and that comes out of the membership fees. There is the hope that we can share some resources. In the earlier community meeting Jonathan talked about combined events for example | 19:36 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think my most concern was that not to get project become a hostage state | 19:36 |
| noonedeadpunk | but if there're safety belts against it... | 19:36 |
| clarkb | the ultimate safety belt for all open source is the license | 19:36 |
| knikolla | we can always fork and become LibreStack | 19:36 |
| noonedeadpunk | haha, lol | 19:37 |
| frickler | is there some public data about the budget of the OIF and how it is being spent? | 19:37 |
| spotz[m] | It would be the trademarks we'd no longer have, but I'd rathather ttx or jbryce speak on that | 19:37 |
| bauzas | viva la vida. | 19:37 |
| fungi | frickler: our financial statements, yes | 19:37 |
| clarkb | some board meetings go over the budget as well | 19:37 |
| spotz[m] | The budget was discussed and voted on in the December board meeting or possibly the January one | 19:37 |
| bauzas | woaw, pardon my ignorance but after 10 years, I never thought the statements were public | 19:38 |
| bauzas | I'm now very curious about those financial statements | 19:38 |
| spotz[m] | Yep they are | 19:39 |
| gmann | budget is always discussed/approved by board in board meeting which are open for anyone to join. | 19:39 |
| bauzas | yeah, that totally makes sens | 19:40 |
| bauzas | sense* but I never thought a second about it | 19:40 |
| fungi | usa irs 501(c)(6) non-profit organizations, as part of their tax-exempt status, are required to file an irc form 990 annually, and those are public record | 19:40 |
| fungi | s/irc/irs/ (finger memory!) | 19:40 |
| bauzas | fungi: ah, gtk | 19:40 |
| bauzas | I can talk about loi 1901 | 19:41 |
| fungi | for example, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460618689/202432749349301208/full | 19:41 |
| bauzas | but I guess that won't help our needs :) | 19:41 |
| frickler | https://board.openinfra.org/meetings/minutes/12102024BoardMinutes mentions the budget as Exhibit B, but that document itself isn't linked? | 19:42 |
| spotz[m] | I'm not sure who's in charge of that page frickler but can ask | 19:47 |
| frickler | spotz[m]: thx, I assume the degree of detail would be similar to what fungi posted? | 19:48 |
| spotz[m] | Let me look, but I think it was a spreadsheet | 19:49 |
| fungi | i think the budget spreadsheets contain more detail | 19:49 |
| bauzas | I unfortunately need to stop now, my brain is pretty fried after something like ~7 hours of meetings for today | 19:49 |
| spotz[m] | That's the gist of it yes | 19:50 |
| fungi | the irs form 990 really just contains the things the usa government cares about knowing, whereas the budget spreadsheets cover things the board and finance committee care about knowing | 19:50 |
| clarkb | I wanted to call out https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tacker/+/941115 a single patchset (the first one) used 403 test nodes by my calculations (others are welcome to check my math and my numbers are in comments on the change) | 19:50 |
| spotz[m] | Like the 990 doesn't care how much is for marketing each month, but we do:) | 19:51 |
| clarkb | I think that illustrates the concern with certain projects consuming large quantities of resources all at once. I also tried to leave a couple of suggestions on how this might be mitigated witout giving up on the testnig | 19:51 |
| fungi | also the budgets are projections, while the irs filings are retrospective (and there's a window of time after the end of the year before they're due) | 19:51 |
| fungi | so if you want something more recent than 2023 final numbers, the budget is way more useful | 19:52 |
| noonedeadpunk | clarkb: one thing I found not very helpful - is fail-fast. as you can set it only on pipeline as a whole, but not specific job | 19:57 |
| noonedeadpunk | ie - I wanted to fail-fast on linters or tox test early instead of running long-time devstack (or whatever), but quickly realized I can't do that | 19:58 |
| clarkb | noonedeadpunk: I think the reason for that is aborting all jobs is considered a pipeline action. But you can kind of approximate the behavior you describe with job dependencies. That said its completely orthogonal to my example as my example passed all of the cheap quick jobs | 20:19 |
| clarkb | in my example it was the integration testing that went crazy | 20:19 |
| clarkb | my point was less to try and throw blame around and instead to illustrate how well meaning but flawed ci configuration leads to problems | 20:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, true,I got that root cause was quite different. | 20:20 |
| clarkb | ideally we refactor ci configurations like that to avoid this problem (hence my suggestion that devsatck not run in pre-run when devstack behavior is affected by the changes) and | 20:20 |
| clarkb | er and maybe to refactor the tests themselves so that we're not doing a bunch of jobs that are an hour of setup for 1-5 minutes of test cases | 20:21 |
| clarkb | in theory we can collapse those together | 20:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | still, it might save quite some resources everywhere if it was possible to cancel long-running jobs if basic sanity checks are failing | 20:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | but yeah, true enough, running devstack in pre is risky | 20:21 |
| clarkb | the risk with failing fast as you describe is linter errors are often non fatal and you save more resources if you run the linter (and fail) and teh unittests and the integration tests then fix all errors on the next patchset | 20:22 |
| clarkb | but a lot of that has to do with human behavior | 20:22 |
| fungi | most of my linter failures are non-semantic whitespace issues, not e.g. missing parentheses or mistyped variable names | 20:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, but if you fail fast on some unit tests - it makes way more sense/ as even if devstack is fine - still you need to publish new patchset | 20:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | I was thnking mainly as ansible molecule tests - if they fail I'm not interested in rest tbh | 20:25 |
| clarkb | then you can set them up as dependencies for the other jobs | 20:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | oh, huh... | 20:25 |
| fungi | but if unit tests and devstack failed for different reasons, you have the opportunity to fix them both in the next patchset rather than wasting even morre resources with yet an additional round of testing | 20:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | can I set a project template as a depndency? | 20:26 |
| clarkb | noonedeadpunk: no | 20:26 |
| fungi | you can set dependencies in a project-template though | 20:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | and it's not requires/provides? | 20:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | (yeah, I think it's different) | 20:27 |
| clarkb | no requires/provides indicate artifact production and consumption | 20:27 |
| clarkb | job dependencies are job A must run before job B and pass. A soft dependency will only be considered if it is scheduled. A hard dependency is required and if not scheduled the other job won't run | 20:27 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, I that was the only dependncy thing I had in mind and disregarded itback in the days for this purpose | 20:28 |
| fungi | requires/provides are more about relationships between buildsets/queue items too, rather than within a single buildset | 20:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah | 20:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, need to read and think about dependencies, thanks! | 20:29 |
| clarkb | I think this also speaks to why efficiency in setup tools (like devstack) is also worthwhile and people have poked at that over time. I think the last major pushes there were parallelization and also using a persistent openstackclient (thank you dansmith) | 20:31 |
| * dansmith takes a bow | 21:10 | |
| cardoe | I've noticed that Canonical projects have been pivoting away from Launchpad for bug tracking. I know we're using it heavily and just wondering if anyone's heard anything from Canonical on why it might be. | 21:36 |
| fungi | cardoe: no clue, i hadn't noticed that myself, but maybe jamespage has some idea? | 21:39 |
| cardoe | I just went to report an issue in cloud-init and found myself steered to GitHub for issues. Just don't wanna let us be surprised by any shift is all. | 21:41 |
| clarkb | I think software development for some things (like cloud-init and microk8s etc) may be on github for code and issues. But the distro effort is still in launchpad | 21:44 |
| clarkb | and that is/was due to people wanting to use git but lp didn't support git for a long time. Then it added git and by then it was probably too late for some efforts? | 21:47 |
| spotz[m] | I could swear I saw something and they said to report it on Launchpad, but can't remember the what or where | 21:50 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!