| opendevreview | Michal Nasiadka proposed openstack/contributor-guide master: Replace CLA instructions with DCO https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/950839 | 07:12 |
|---|---|---|
| mnasiadka | tc-members: updated ^^ | 07:12 |
| opendevreview | Michal Nasiadka proposed openstack/contributor-guide master: Replace CLA instructions with DCO https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/950839 | 07:13 |
| opendevreview | Michal Nasiadka proposed openstack/contributor-guide master: Replace CLA instructions with DCO https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/950839 | 07:14 |
| opendevreview | Michal Nasiadka proposed openstack/contributor-guide master: Replace CLA instructions with DCO https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/950839 | 07:15 |
| mnasiadka | spotz[m]: I assume your patch on top is not needed anymore | 07:16 |
| jrosser | mnasiadka: the example uses `Co-authored-by` yet there is no words at all about how that comes to be in the text about DCO | 08:26 |
| frickler | ttx: the image at https://docs.openstack.org/contributors/_images/map-of-OpenStack-projects.png is very outdated, iiuc this is vendored from the docs.openstack.org main site? would it be possible to update this every time the latter is updated? | 09:07 |
| frickler | tc-members: not directly related, but the description of the "Active * Contributor" roles also no longer seems to be up to date? someone might want to reword this, too? https://docs.openstack.org/contributors/common/governance.html#active-technical-contributor-atc ff. | 09:17 |
| fungi | frickler: looks like it doesn't match the latest version at https://www.openstack.org/software/ | 12:06 |
| fungi | yeah, an old copy is committed into the contributor-guide repo at https://opendev.org/openstack/contributor-guide/src/branch/master/doc/source/_assets/introduction/map-of-OpenStack-projects.png | 12:08 |
| fungi | presumably in order to avoid having the docs site pull assets from the www site | 12:08 |
| frickler | ah, yes, I meant "www.openstack.org main site", not docs.o.o, sorry | 12:08 |
| fungi | so from what i understand of the build process, whatever is generating the image is uploading it into vexxhost's swift-like ceph object store | 12:10 |
| fungi | and the www site links to that location | 12:10 |
| fungi | https://www.openstack.org/static/701e7555921f3cf2d34bf42a6ea94b10/openstack-map-v20250401.svg | 12:10 |
| ttx | There is a human in the loop | 12:44 |
| ttx | Image is manually generated by a designer and uploaded to vexxhost | 12:45 |
| fungi | i suppose a periodic zuul job could compare the original image to what's in the contributor-guide repo and then propose a change into gerrit if it has updated | 13:08 |
| fungi | though that seems a bit overengineered for something that changes maybe once a year | 13:08 |
| mnasiadka | jrosser: that's a valid question, but I don't know if there's a simple answer (that is currently known) | 13:19 |
| jrosser | with my "i have to put this in front of the lawyer" i feel i will fail straight away there without there being reasoning about what the co-authored part of the commit message means | 13:20 |
| jrosser | because naievely i would expect that to need to be two signed-off-by: lines in the new DCO world? | 13:20 |
| frickler | ttx: do you know if there is also a .png version somewhere? also could it become part of the workflow of said designer to submit an update for the contrib-guide, too? | 13:25 |
| opendevreview | Michal Nasiadka proposed openstack/contributor-guide master: Replace CLA instructions with DCO https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/950839 | 13:42 |
| ttx | frickler: yeah we could add that to the update process | 14:06 |
| gmaan | mnasiadka thanks for update, +2 | 15:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | tc-memebers - a weekly meeting is in ~55minutes | 16:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | doh | 16:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | tc-members: a weekly meeting is in around 55 minutes from now :) | 16:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | #startmeeting tc | 17:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Jun 10 17:00:04 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is noonedeadpunk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 17:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | 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. | 17:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 17:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | #topic Roll Call | 17:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 17:00 |
| gmaan | o/ | 17:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | noted absence: g o u t h a m r | 17:00 |
| gtema | o/ | 17:00 |
| mnasiadka | o/ | 17:02 |
| cardoe | o/ | 17:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | courtesy-ping: frickler spotz[m] bauzas | 17:04 |
| bauzas | o/ | 17:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | #topic Last Week's AIs | 17:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think the bigest AI on our plate as of today is switch to DCO | 17:06 |
| fungi | i'm at your disposal for greasing that wheel | 17:06 |
| noonedeadpunk | I saw a lot of patches being prepared for infra side of things | 17:06 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/hashtag:%22dco-signed-off-by%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) | 17:06 |
| fungi | i hope everything we can think of is covered now, but if anyone catches something else let me know or propose a patch yourself | 17:07 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/hashtag:dco-signed-off-by | 17:07 |
| fungi | also expect we'll miss some stuff we need to fix later, not the end of the world | 17:07 |
| fungi | and for people with approval rights on various repos, changes to add a signed-off-by/git commit -s should be safe to merge well in advance | 17:08 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 17:09 |
| fungi | gerrit already allows that in commit messages, it's just that we'll start requiring it at the end of the month | 17:09 |
| noonedeadpunk | yes, right | 17:11 |
| noonedeadpunk | also 2 things I was aware of in tooling seems to be patched (or well, patches were proposed0 | 17:11 |
| noonedeadpunk | so I don't have anything to add from top of my head at least | 17:11 |
| mnasiadka | I think jrosser raised that question, do we know how to treat signed-off-by in multi-contributor (co-authored-by) patches? | 17:12 |
| gmaan | I am also checking how co-author is done but could not find any concrete evidence from official DCO side | 17:13 |
| fungi | that can be a matter for tc policy, but it won't impact gerrit/automtion | 17:13 |
| fungi | co-authored-by was only ever a suggestion. if the tc wants to treat additional unneeded signed-off-by as equivalent they can say that somewhere | 17:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | From other side I personally very conserned about amount of potential blind spots in policies we might have right now, which can also negatively influence contributors (in terms of matching their internal rules and allowances) | 17:14 |
| jrosser | I am concerned that my legal advisor will go over all this with a microscope and any inconsistency or ambiguity may turn into a blocker for me continuing to contribute | 17:14 |
| fungi | noonedeadpunk: do you have ay examples? | 17:14 |
| jrosser | so the co-authored-by with no explanation seems a big red flag for me now | 17:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | well the example is above | 17:15 |
| fungi | jrosser: definitely make sure your legal advisor knows this documentation was composed by community volunteers and not other lawyers | 17:15 |
| gmaan | I am reading this and it seems both way is ok | 17:15 |
| gmaan | #link https://www.chef.io/amp/introducing-developer-certificate-of-origin/djUrUUdsTysxMW1TVzcxbDdaWGd0N3NUWVdRPQ2 | 17:15 |
| clarkb | I think it is common for everyone who touches the code to sign off on the commit. This would effectively make co authored by redundant? | 17:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | "Subsequent developers who co-author or otherwise help shepherd the contribution in some way also add their own attestation" | 17:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | so eventually, regardless of co-authored, sign off is expected I assume? | 17:16 |
| fungi | in theory co-authored-by could be used to record additional authors, while not all authors may have added a signed-off-by (just the committers), and not all committers are also authors, so the two sets could be considered disjoint | 17:16 |
| mnasiadka | expected by not required? | 17:16 |
| mnasiadka | s/by/but/ | 17:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | I'd guess that everyone who touches code require to sign-off actually | 17:17 |
| gmaan | ++ what fungi mentioned ^^ | 17:17 |
| clarkb | Gerrit enforcement only requires a single sign off from one of the author/committer/person pushing the code | 17:17 |
| mnasiadka | I think we need some guidance in the contributor-guide | 17:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | only except case when yopu're using some-one else code without any changes but with explicit allowance | 17:17 |
| fungi | consider the case of a patch submitted as a bug attachment where the author said in a bug comment that they were fine with the terms of the dco and so the person pushing that patch into gerrit (the committer) adds their own signed-off-by | 17:17 |
| noonedeadpunk | Gerrit - yes, but not legal | 17:17 |
| spotz[m] | We can add that in easy enough as long as I patch the right thing:) | 17:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | and we are all talking about quite legal things here without being lawyers, which is concerning | 17:18 |
| jrosser | I would just like the documentation to be unambiguous | 17:18 |
| jrosser | putting something uncertain i to the example commit message cannot be a good starting point | 17:18 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: yeah, this falls right under exception I mentioned :) | 17:19 |
| gmaan | but DCO does not say about co-author things so its up to us to define the guidelines. | 17:19 |
| fungi | the terms of the dco seem pretty clear, but obviously any of us concerned with legal implications should be consulting their personal/employer's legal counsel. the foundation has already conulted their own legal counsel who agreed that this was fine | 17:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think it was general guidance which is fine? | 17:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | unless we missuse it badly? | 17:20 |
| fungi | law is generally about intent and not technical deyai | 17:21 |
| gmaan | yeah, we do not need to check with legal things for this | 17:21 |
| fungi | detai | 17:21 |
| noonedeadpunk | as using someone's modified code without sign-off of that person can be violation? | 17:21 |
| fungi | ls | 17:21 |
| fungi | wow, this enter key is very poorly placed | 17:21 |
| fungi | i would not say that "we" don't need to consult lawyers. the foundation has consulted their lawyers, and anyone who is concerned about the current plan should consult their own (or their employer's) lawyers | 17:22 |
| noonedeadpunk | Yeah, could be. Just law system to which I used is all about technicalities and nobody ever cares about intent... | 17:22 |
| noonedeadpunk | Which is very different from US, so that's I guess I feel more concenred | 17:22 |
| fungi | i constantly hear the reverse, that software developers assume the law is like a deterministic computer algorithm, when it's quite the opposite and rather focused on what people are likely to assume or believe or intend | 17:23 |
| noonedeadpunk | so what you are saying, that just gerrit coverage is enough for us and if commit was allowed to checks - we don't need any more awareness about the daily review process? | 17:23 |
| gmaan | let's add 'each author/co-author need sign-off and additionally they can add co-author to indicate they are co-author" ? | 17:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: it really like a deterministic computer algorithm from where I am | 17:24 |
| fungi | proving "best effort" is typically sufficient, from what i've seen, but again i'm no lawyer so you should consult one you trust | 17:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | gmaan: sounds good to me | 17:24 |
| mnasiadka | Is Gerrit checking if there's any signed off by - or is it matching the author/committer email? | 17:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | it is, yes | 17:25 |
| noonedeadpunk | there's a logic to match if either author or commiter are in dco | 17:26 |
| fungi | it checks that at least the committer or author has added a signed-off-by (at least one of the two) | 17:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | but only 1 match is enough to pass | 17:26 |
| mnasiadka | well then can we require something that is not enforced? ;-) | 17:26 |
| spotz[m] | You can highly recommend:) | 17:27 |
| gmaan | yeah, recommended so that we have consistence way for everyone | 17:27 |
| mnasiadka | So let's highly recommend :) | 17:27 |
| fungi | typically they're the same person. if they're not and only the author has added a signed-off-by then you can assume the committer is implying they made no concrete changes. if only the committer and not the author has added a signed-off-by then the implication is that they checked with the author that the change meets the necessary terms | 17:27 |
| spotz[m] | My corner case which matches this is generally grammar changes. Valuable but still supporting the original | 17:28 |
| fungi | it would be ideal though for the tc to publish a document stating clearly what the openstack project assumes a signed-off-by in a commit message indicates, and that document can cover corner cases if it's deemed useful | 17:28 |
| noonedeadpunk | I'd say that this one is really a good start: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/950839 | 17:29 |
| fungi | # | 17:30 |
| fungi | gah | 17:30 |
| fungi | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStackAndItsCLA#The_Developer_Certificate_of_Origin covers some of this | 17:30 |
| fungi | written a decade ago by your predecessors | 17:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think we also might want to add recommendation for core reviewers to ensure that there was no significant part of code sumbitted by 3rd partiies without DCO | 17:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | heh | 17:31 |
| fungi | remember that the same could in theory have happened under the cla too | 17:31 |
| noonedeadpunk | not really? | 17:32 |
| fungi | and reviewers weren't typically too stressed about someone pushing changes written by others | 17:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | yes, but to push smth each need to sign CLA? | 17:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | otherwise gferrit won't allow you to update someone elses patch | 17:32 |
| fungi | and now to push something each will need to add a dco signed-off-by | 17:32 |
| noonedeadpunk | but this will not really be enforced, as if author has DCO it's enough for all committers to skip it | 17:33 |
| fungi | any opportunity to maliciously contravene either the cla or dco is similarly easy | 17:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | I'm just looking at a patch https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/octavia/+/558962 right now as some example of very collaborative effort through years (unsuccessfull though) | 17:34 |
| noonedeadpunk | anyway, I think it's time to move on | 17:34 |
| fungi | in fact, it's perhaps an even stronger protection because the committer only needed to agree to the icla once, while they need to attest to the dco with every commit they push to gerrit | 17:34 |
| noonedeadpunk | #topic Improving Contributor experience | 17:35 |
| mnasiadka | anyway, maybe we're stressing too much about it - and we just need to document that it's highly recommended that all authors (according to a) field in DCO) should do the sign off | 17:35 |
| noonedeadpunk | let's continue to discuss https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/950839 asynchronously for that | 17:36 |
| gmaan | mnasiadka ++ | 17:36 |
| noonedeadpunk | So improving experience. | 17:37 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2025-ptg-os-tc | 17:37 |
| noonedeadpunk | this was topic from the PTG which we seems to be still tracking | 17:37 |
| fungi | from the foundation community manager side of things, i'll note that we're in the process of doing per-team maintainer and contributor survey analysis and getting ready to do team-specific outreach to talk about more focused results | 17:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | that sounds really great | 17:39 |
| fungi | for now we're prioritizing teams who had multiple maintainer and contribiutor responses | 17:39 |
| noonedeadpunk | and totally in line with our intent to improve communication with contributors which was suggested on previous meetings | 17:39 |
| fungi | but also, if anyone wants to fill out the maintainer and contributor surveys for the epoxy cycle they can do so and we'll revisit the additional responses when possible | 17:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | also there was a good suggestion on asking teams to review their contributrors guide regarding communication channels and how to reach teams out | 17:40 |
| fungi | as well as planning to do a similar round after the flamingo cycle has wrapped up | 17:40 |
| noonedeadpunk | sounds good thanks! | 17:42 |
| noonedeadpunk | #topic A check on gate health | 17:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | Anyone want to share on the topic? | 17:43 |
| noonedeadpunk | I have seen just couple issues with Debian/Ubuntu mirrors last week, but infra team was on top of things as always | 17:44 |
| fungi | i don't recall any major disruption from the infrastructure side in the past week | 17:44 |
| fungi | yeah, there was an ubuntu mirror problem last week for a day or so | 17:44 |
| noonedeadpunk | (or maybe it was 1 week ago) | 17:44 |
| fungi | not a problem with our ubuntu mirrors, just the upstream ones | 17:44 |
| noonedeadpunk | there was smth with our mirrors as well for one of providers... | 17:45 |
| fungi | any jobs relying exclusively on the opendev mirrors would have been shielded from that issue | 17:45 |
| noonedeadpunk | I can't already recall which one, but it was a specific one | 17:45 |
| noonedeadpunk | it was solved within half a day as well from what I spotted | 17:45 |
| fungi | doesn't sound familiar, but i might have missed it | 17:45 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, so seems it all pretty much stable then | 17:47 |
| noonedeadpunk | #topic TC Tracker | 17:48 |
| noonedeadpunk | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2025.2-tracker | 17:48 |
| noonedeadpunk | does anybody have any updates on the topic to discuss? | 17:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | Contributor/Maintainer survey was already touched a little bit as part of the previous topic | 17:50 |
| noonedeadpunk | Eventlet removal seems actively in progress and projects working towards the goal | 17:51 |
| noonedeadpunk | Not sure about the completion rate or where we are exactly on the global scale though | 17:51 |
| noonedeadpunk | #topic Open Discussion and Reviews | 17:53 |
| fungi | yeah, i don't see anyone in here at the moment who i expect would provide an update on eventlet removal | 17:53 |
| gmaan | I would like to highlight cyborg project state and its gate status | 17:53 |
| gmaan | you might have seen email from sean | 17:53 |
| gmaan | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/IBW4TXON64U44TTRLKXQR24BPFDTZA2V/ | 17:53 |
| gmaan | this CI fix not yet merged #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cyborg/+/949772 | 17:53 |
| * noonedeadpunk have issues with ML loading | 17:54 | |
| gmaan | last changes merged in cyborg was ~2 month ago | 17:54 |
| gmaan | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/cyborg | 17:54 |
| gmaan | I think we need to discuss about it so that we can provide accurate status of this project to release team before deadline | 17:54 |
| fungi | "issues" like the list archive page isn't coming up? | 17:54 |
| noonedeadpunk | and the deadline is M-2, right? | 17:55 |
| fungi | (it popped immediately for me) | 17:55 |
| gmaan | yeah, m-3. around end of month | 17:55 |
| gmaan | sorry m-2 | 17:55 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, so there was no reply to the ML either | 17:55 |
| noonedeadpunk | yeah, it's not great to say the least. | 17:56 |
| gmaan | July 3rd #link https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html#f-2 | 17:56 |
| fungi | yeah, no reply on-list at the very least | 17:56 |
| noonedeadpunk | I also want to self-report about the Vitrage, as I failed to get the project enough love this cycle, so tempest is failing there at the moment. | 17:56 |
| gmaan | I will add it in next week meeting agenda and till then no response from project, at least we can disucss about next action | 17:56 |
| noonedeadpunk | Hopefully, I will take time during PTO at what is the root cause there | 17:57 |
| fungi | in the past the cyborg team tended to only respond over wechat/weixin | 17:57 |
| gmaan | at least they use to merge the changes even they are no active on ML, IRC etc | 17:57 |
| gmaan | but it seems no activity on gerrit also | 17:57 |
| fungi | i've sometimes leaned on horace (foundation's china community manager) to reach out to the cyborg maintainers, and can ask him if needed | 17:58 |
| gmaan | I am not sure we should make that a practice and bother foundation staff for asking project core to merge the things or being active | 17:58 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: that would be pretty much appreciated if possible | 17:58 |
| gmaan | it should be coming from project maintainer itself as self-motivation or self-responsibility at lease for PTL | 17:59 |
| noonedeadpunk | but also I think we are having some rules on communication channels here | 17:59 |
| fungi | get up with me after the meeting and we can work on specific outreach messaging, but i agree part of the message should be about monitoring standard project discussion channels | 17:59 |
| gmaan | I do not think communication is issue here. project cores are not active. It is not like they are missing things bcz of communciation | 17:59 |
| fungi | and, yes, we should be asking them whether the project is defunct or in search of new leadership | 18:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | well, absernt maintainers are not _that_concerning, given that a limited amount of patches are theres | 18:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | and besides broken CI - we won't be _that_ bothered usually | 18:01 |
| noonedeadpunk | but I think it still might be useful to reach through known to work channels for some insight if it's an accident or there's really nobody behind the project anymore | 18:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | ok, thanks for raising that gmaan! | 18:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | and we're out of time | 18:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | #endmeeting | 18:02 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Jun 10 18:02:23 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:02 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-06-10-17.00.html | 18:02 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-06-10-17.00.txt | 18:02 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-06-10-17.00.log.html | 18:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | and thanks everyone for taking time to participate in the meeting! | 18:02 |
| gmaan | thanks noonedeadpunk for chairing | 18:02 |
| spotz[m] | Thanks noonedeadpunk ! | 18:06 |
| gouthamr | ++ great discussion, thank you for chairing noonedeadpunk | 22:50 |
| gouthamr | thanks for the contributor guide updates mnasiadka spotz[m] and everyone that reviewed! | 22:50 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!
