| *** tosky_ is now known as tosky | 07:33 | |
| *** jroll08 is now known as jroll0 | 07:36 | |
| bauzas | gouthamr: I need to skip today's TC meeting | 15:43 |
|---|---|---|
| gouthamr | ack bauzas ty for letting me know | 16:00 |
| gouthamr | tc-members: a gentle reminder that our weekly meeting will happen here in ~59 minutes | 16:01 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Make Eventlet removal deadlines more acceptable for operators https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/952903 | 16:56 |
| gouthamr | #startmeeting tc | 17:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Jul 22 17:00:19 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gouthamr. 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 |
| 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. | 17:00 |
| gouthamr | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 17:00 |
| gouthamr | #topic Roll Call | 17:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 17:00 |
| gtema | o/ | 17:00 |
| cardoe | o/ | 17:02 |
| gouthamr | courtesy-ping: gmaan, frickler, spotz[m], mnasiadka | 17:03 |
| gmaan | o/ | 17:03 |
| gouthamr | noted absence: b a u z a s | 17:03 |
| gouthamr | alright, looks like a small crowd today | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | lets get started | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | #topic Last week's AIs | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | We took an AI to catch up on the eventlet timeline change proposal.. | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | hberaud reviewed the change, as had many of you.. so i went ahead and clicked buttons, it's now merged | 17:06 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/952903 | 17:06 |
| * gouthamr ah mn asiad ka is on PTO | 17:07 | |
| gouthamr | the next AI was to discuss the state of Monasca with its maintainers | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | that's happening here: | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953671 | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | summarizing the last few comments, the current PTL mentioned still being interested in the project, yet lacking time to maintain it | 17:08 |
| gouthamr | he volunteered thuvh, who expressed interest to continue the maintenance of the project.. | 17:09 |
| gmaan | yeah, I saw that. it seems it is same response as last cycle but we have seen no improvement in this cycle. | 17:09 |
| spotz[m] | oh here! o/ | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | i think we can keep the project in its "inactive" state through this release, and pose the question again next cycle | 17:10 |
| gtema | and again, and again, and again, ... I am really wondering - why? | 17:10 |
| gmaan | 'continue the maintenance' ? it is inactive means no maintenance till now. are they volunteering to spend some time to start maintianing it? | 17:10 |
| fungi | how long has it been inactive at this point? | 17:10 |
| gmaan | yeah, I am not seeing any reason of repeating the same things in this cycle and next | 17:11 |
| gmaan | I remember exact response that 'we will maintain' and then disappear | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | one thing we could suggest is to take it out of the "openstack" namespace.. | 17:11 |
| fungi | looks like it's been missing from the coordinated release since caracal, bobcat was the last release it was included in | 17:11 |
| gmaan | inactive since 2024.1 | 17:12 |
| gmaan | 1.5 years ? | 17:12 |
| gmaan | if I counted correctly | 17:12 |
| fungi | approximately, ye | 17:12 |
| fungi | s | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | says so on the inactive projects page: | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#current-inactive-projects | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | users/operators want to continue their usage of this, but can't commit to the maintenance expected of an OpenStack (service) project team.. | 17:14 |
| gmaan | and it should have been asked for inactive extension like freezer asked before when noonedeadpunk needed more time | 17:14 |
| gmaan | even maintainers are not doing that | 17:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | should we give the very last warning to them? | 17:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | and be explicit that next cycle it will go out if no changes are made? | 17:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | as I'm not sure if/how we communicated last cycle | 17:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | was it - we grant it to you but you must release next time, or oh, you need more time - okay | 17:16 |
| noonedeadpunk | if it makes sense | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | yeah, unless they were plugged into the discussions here (or the ML), i don't know if they knew what needed to be done cycle-to-cycle | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | i recall sending Hasan Acar this: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#exit-criteria | 17:16 |
| fungi | sticking to current policy, the next step if not extending their inactive status again would be to retire the project | 17:17 |
| fungi | then if anyone wants to continue it outside openstack they could fork it somewhere and revert the retirement change(s) | 17:17 |
| gouthamr | true | 17:18 |
| fungi | wouldn't even need to deprecate it since none of the releases they were included in are maintained any longer | 17:18 |
| fungi | (bobcat is eol, antelope is unmaintained) | 17:18 |
| fungi | so basically if anyone is still *using* monasca they're doing so on openstack versions that are no longer officially maintained upstream anyway | 17:19 |
| gouthamr | okay, we can remind thuvh this, and if they don't contest the PTL election, this can head to retirement soon after? | 17:19 |
| gouthamr | afaiu, we can retire the project by the end of this release too.. because of the reason fungi mentioned abobve | 17:19 |
| gmaan | I do not think we should make PTL election as thing they "we are ok" | 17:20 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think it's not about current usage, but returning project to protfolio if wqe find it valuable and people who stepped in are serious enough | 17:20 |
| gmaan | we should have all the checks and if not become inactive by m-1 (or before) or so then it must be retired | 17:20 |
| gouthamr | yes | 17:20 |
| fungi | restoring the project in openstack would be as "simple" as reverting the retirement changes in-place | 17:20 |
| gouthamr | i agree, i think the upcoming PTL election is just the first of those things in the checklist | 17:21 |
| gmaan | if no PTL, then ayways we can retire but if PTL still we cannot trust that factor as that did not worked out in past | 17:21 |
| spotz[m] | Sounds like a decent enough plan | 17:21 |
| gmaan | fungi: ++ | 17:21 |
| spotz[m] | I agree having a PTL isn't the end, they need to do the rest of the checklist | 17:21 |
| gmaan | but I really would like us to make this exception with formal vote for transparency and fairness to any other project | 17:21 |
| gmaan | exception to the process of "after project inactive status timeline, project needs to be retired" | 17:22 |
| fungi | maybe the inactive and emerging projects list should include information on extensions, so that the tc can formally vote on changes which add or renew an extension | 17:23 |
| gmaan | I think we added that | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | yeah, we didn't track this in 2025.1 | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | (and 2025.2) | 17:23 |
| gmaan | and monasca failed to ask for extension means they are eligible for retirement | 17:23 |
| fungi | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#current-inactive-projects doesn't seem to list the extensions | 17:23 |
| fungi | if extensions were explicitly added entries in the rst file in gvernance, then the tc members would de facto need to vote on any changes updating them | 17:25 |
| gmaan | I tried to add here but we can improve doc | 17:25 |
| gmaan | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/923441/1/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.rst | 17:25 |
| fungi | aha, yes | 17:26 |
| fungi | maybe instead list the retirement deadlines in the document? that way extending them each cycle would be necessary, which forces a tc vote | 17:26 |
| gmaan | If we continue with monasca for another cycle, I am ok but for having same process for all other projects in future, my suggestion is to grant this exception as resolution or any ohter formal way | 17:26 |
| fungi | "...will be officially retired on yyyy-mm-dd unless explicitly extended by a vote of the technical committee" (or maybe that's too wordy) | 17:27 |
| spotz[m] | Could we do the date as r-? That way we don't have to constantly up date the doc | 17:28 |
| gouthamr | +1 i think that's explicit, and can be used in the doc warning as well | 17:28 |
| fungi | spotz[m]: the point would be to constantly update the date in the doc, because that forces a tc vote | 17:28 |
| gmaan | yeah, having retirement date is good idea | 17:29 |
| spotz[m] | Ahh, I read as if we have it more explicit in the doc we have to vote:) | 17:29 |
| gmaan | I expect and we can document also that 'project needs to apply for extension not TC' | 17:29 |
| fungi | solving the expressed problem of the tc implicitly allowing inactive state to continue without explicitly granting an extension every cycle | 17:29 |
| gouthamr | > I expect and we can document also that 'project needs to apply for extension not TC' | 17:30 |
| gouthamr | +1 | 17:30 |
| fungi | also havign a clearly stated deadline might light a fire under people interested in helping out (probably not, but you never know) | 17:30 |
| gouthamr | okay sounds like a good plan, i can ask monasca folks chatting on the gerrit change to propose this.. | 17:31 |
| gouthamr | still hoping we can have that big beautiful warning (sorry :P) on the doc asap | 17:32 |
| gouthamr | anything else on this AI? | 17:32 |
| gouthamr | noonedeadpunk: you took an AI to explore a review dashboard, would you like to share any updates? | 17:33 |
| noonedeadpunk | yes, I did, and unfortunatelly I did not have good progress. | 17:34 |
| noonedeadpunk | But I will get it ready for the next week | 17:34 |
| noonedeadpunk | or well, at least for the review/discussion | 17:35 |
| gouthamr | ah.. thank you.. that's all the AIs I see, was anyone working on anything else? | 17:35 |
| noonedeadpunk | sorry :( | 17:35 |
| gouthamr | no problem! i suspect summer break is still underway? or we're in the thick of it.. there's no rush reall | 17:35 |
| spotz[m] | As of right now the TC Forum session did not get accepted. There's a chance more slots will open but I don't remember offhand where the session was on the list | 17:36 |
| gouthamr | ack ty spotz[m] | 17:36 |
| gouthamr | yeah, it was tough competition.. | 17:36 |
| gouthamr | but, there's a session on contributor experiences that i hope the TC can participate in | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | Sun, October 19, 2:45pm - 3:15pm | Alfred Sauvy | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | Improving Contributor Experience in the OpenStack Community | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | can;t deep link, sorry: | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | #link https://summit2025.openinfra.org/a/schedule/ | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | lets move to the next topic | 17:38 |
| gouthamr | #topic A check on gate health | 17:39 |
| fungi | if memory serves, there was room in the schedule to accept ~50% of forum submissions | 17:39 |
| gouthamr | ack, there were very good submissions.. | 17:39 |
| gmaan | nothing on gate. ceph job was broken and failing test is skipped for now | 17:40 |
| gouthamr | oh, was this in a job running against nova? | 17:41 |
| gmaan | yeah nova has ceph jobs and devstack seph plugin job also | 17:41 |
| gmaan | ceph | 17:41 |
| gmaan | sean-k-mooney is trying to run ceph job on debain but not sure how far that is. but that is good idea too | 17:42 |
| fungi | opendev has fully moved everything off nodepool as of late last week. there are still a smattering of multi-node jobs that were getting split between providers when we got obscure boot failures from nova under heavy load (mainly during periodic jobs), but there's a fix merging to zuul now that should basically eliminate that behavior entirely | 17:42 |
| gmaan | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/955179 | 17:42 |
| gouthamr | ty for the link | 17:43 |
| gouthamr | ty fungi | 17:43 |
| fungi | we also dropped ubuntu-bionic-arm64 labels, but very little was using those (ancient unmaintained branches that never really worked on arm to begin with) | 17:44 |
| gouthamr | i'd suggest running the parent job on devstack-plugin-ceph with debian, lest there's something in the plugin that would break things | 17:44 |
| clarkb | one thing to keep in mind switching to debian from ubuntu is the support term is much shorter | 17:45 |
| gouthamr | true, we struggled to keep up with fedora | 17:45 |
| fungi | oh, and yeah i think the debian-trixie nodes should be usable now? just keep in mind that it's not yet fully released so could still see a little churn (but it's in freeze preparing to release in a few weeks) | 17:45 |
| clarkb | I mentioned this a week or two ago but we need to be better bout proactively removing stuff that is ancient | 17:45 |
| spotz[m] | Debian is shorter then Ubuntu? | 17:46 |
| clarkb | spotz[m]: yes debian is ~2 years (its a bit nebulous and based on when the next release occurs) and ubuntu is 5 | 17:46 |
| clarkb | or maybe its ~3 years? something like that | 17:46 |
| clarkb | its definitely less than 5 | 17:46 |
| fungi | debian and ubuntu produce releases every 2 years, but debian drops official upstream support at about the 2.5-year mark and then the debian lts team takes over to unofficially support it after that | 17:46 |
| sean-k-mooney | gmaan: i got it mostly working it pass the issue with qemu-image and failed on other volume tests but i did not ahve time to debug | 17:47 |
| fungi | i should say debian and ubuntu *lts* release about every 2 years | 17:47 |
| gmaan | sean-k-mooney: ack | 17:47 |
| fungi | (though with the advent of the debian lts team, it's arguable that they have approximately similar maintenance levels any more) | 17:48 |
| spotz[m] | Yeah I just remmber running really old versions of Debian at one job so always think of it as slower moving | 17:48 |
| noonedeadpunk | I would say Ubuntu also has a more settled relase schedule | 17:48 |
| noonedeadpunk | so you can kinda prepare a bit in advance | 17:48 |
| noonedeadpunk | and less aggressive in going forward as well... | 17:48 |
| fungi | yes, debian doesn't do timed releases, debian's release criteria depend on bug counts mainly | 17:48 |
| sean-k-mooney | when ever we get debain 13 avaible (trixie) it would be interesting to enable that in oen of our nova jobs although hopefully ubuntu will fix there lts ceph regression shortly | 17:48 |
| clarkb | anyway this isn't an argumetn against debain ist moer of a "please don't make the current situation where we never delete anything old worse and dump more work on the opendev team when they try to remove old platforms" | 17:49 |
| fungi | so how fast they release is somewhat related to how fast people fix release-critical bugs that are filed | 17:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | well our os policy for debian is we supprot the latest stabel release that is release beofre the start of a cycle | 17:49 |
| sean-k-mooney | simialr to ubuntu right | 17:49 |
| clarkb | openstack needs to be far more proactive when branching stable branches to claer out things that aren't going to be supported for 5 years | 17:49 |
| noonedeadpunk | oh, yes, suere, debian is great, just ubuntu gives a little more room to breathe when already stretched on resources, imo | 17:50 |
| fungi | sean-k-mooney: https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/image/debian-trixie | 17:50 |
| fungi | it's there | 17:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | fungi: i saw there were patches in flight but didnt see they merged thanks for the link | 17:50 |
| sean-k-mooney | per our testing runtime the first release that it would be a candiate to supprot would bve 2026.1 | 17:51 |
| sean-k-mooney | right? | 17:51 |
| fungi | trixie is scheduled to release on august 9 so, yes | 17:52 |
| sean-k-mooney | that would be the release where we support debian 12 and 13 for upgrade and in 2026.2 we can stop testing with 12 | 17:52 |
| fungi | (a little over 2 weeks away now) | 17:52 |
| fungi | we just have the images available early since it's stable enough during the final hard freeze | 17:53 |
| gmaan | and frickler is working on devstck support | 17:54 |
| gmaan | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/954653 | 17:54 |
| fungi | thanks frickler! | 17:55 |
| gouthamr | ++ | 17:55 |
| gouthamr | alright, since we have ~5 mins, lets switch to Open Discussion | 17:55 |
| gouthamr | #topic Open Discussion | 17:56 |
| gouthamr | we had a governance proposal stuck due to the OIF->LF transition and changes to the OIF Bylaws: | 17:56 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949432 | 17:56 |
| gouthamr | i'm leaning towards gmaan's suggestion of defining what corporate affiliation means within the TC charter | 17:57 |
| gouthamr | will try and propose a patch with that "charter-change".. any objections? | 17:58 |
| gmaan | and it does not need to be very legal I mean what TC want about diversity and how to check should be ok | 17:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | my personal take on that is effecitly are you paid to work on openstack by a specific comany or not | 17:58 |
| gmaan | it is not going to be in bylaw or any legal doc. it can be in TC own defined charter | 17:58 |
| sean-k-mooney | anything more complex and highly technical is off putting and hard to express | 17:58 |
| gmaan | sean-k-mooney: ++ and without any min amount | 17:58 |
| gouthamr | ty, i was leaning towards that as well | 17:58 |
| * gouthamr takes that AI | 17:59 | |
| gouthamr | alright, anything else to add to teh minutes this week? | 17:59 |
| gmaan | and TC candidates need to mention their affiliation in election or after elected as offical doc in TC | 17:59 |
| gouthamr | oh yeah, that was another thread in the same proposal | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | will address it, thanks gmaan | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | okay, we're at the hour.. thank you all for participating | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | this meeting returns next week, but see you/tty on this channel in the meantime! | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | #endmeeting | 18:01 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Jul 22 18:01:33 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:01 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-07-22-17.00.html | 18:01 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-07-22-17.00.txt | 18:01 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-07-22-17.00.log.html | 18:01 |
| spotz[m] | Thanks all! | 18:01 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!