| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-manuals master: Fix bug tracker link for heat https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/969020 | 06:33 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: Add bug tracker link for placement https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/969040 | 12:02 |
| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: Add bug tracker link for placement https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/969040 | 12:03 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-manuals master: Add bug tracker link for aodh https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/969039 | 12:06 |
| mnasiadka | spotz[m]: Would appreciate some help - mod_auth_mellon in EPEL10 hasn’t budged even a bit - I’m happy to do the extra mile of making it work - but I’m clueless about being a Fedora maintainer - but it seems Neil Hanlon has applied for being a co-maintainer without any answer - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326534 | 12:25 |
| mnasiadka | spotz[m]: If you can help a bit - I’d be grateful | 12:26 |
| spotz[m] | Yeah let me ping | 14:25 |
| spotz[m] | Pinged but might not be around yet, one is PST | 14:31 |
| mnasiadka | Thanks, no rush, it’s been waiting since July :) | 14:41 |
| spotz[m] | Well we're going into the holidays which means it could sit until next year depending on PTO, shutdown, etc | 14:54 |
| spotz[m] | mnasiadka: They said to ping on epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org or in the bug to increase visibility but that it's definitely had enough time. I'd also put in your offer to help | 15:00 |
| mnasiadka | Let me try both - thanks :) | 15:01 |
| spotz[m] | You're welcome | 15:17 |
| gouthamr | tc-members: a gentle reminder that our weekly IRC meeting will happen here in ~57 minutes | 16:03 |
| gouthamr | #startmeeting tc | 17:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Dec 2 17:00:21 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 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 17:00 |
| gtema | o/ | 17:01 |
| bauzas | o/ (but I'll barely pay attention) | 17:01 |
| cardoe | o/ | 17:01 |
| gouthamr | courtesy-ping: noonedeadpunk, frickler, mnasiadka | 17:02 |
| mnasiadka | o/ | 17:02 |
| gouthamr | noted absence: t o n y b | 17:02 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 17:04 |
| noonedeadpunk | sorry | 17:04 |
| gouthamr | no worries, lets get started.. | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | #topic Last Week's AIs | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | we chatted a bit about changing the FIPS goal | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/969145 (Move FIPS Compliance goal back to proposed) | 17:06 |
| gouthamr | there's a ton of content on the commit message - i tried capturing the concerns during the PTG | 17:06 |
| gouthamr | i can address the comments from frickler, but hoping this can get us started with whatever needs to be done regarding this | 17:06 |
| gouthamr | the next AI was around documenting the PTL appointments, and preserving them through leadership style switches | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | still assigned to to ny b; will follow up outside this meeting | 17:08 |
| gouthamr | gtema took an AI regarding passlib - i.e., to write to the list and chase some patches to the requirements | 17:08 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/SGMP7SKKBOCKIH2FPFH53HYHNCHSRABS/ ([tc][all][security] Supporting Post-Quantum Cryptography in OpenStack code (all projects)) | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | ^ the details are here | 17:09 |
| gtema | passlib change requires +w | 17:09 |
| gtema | others (chained) got it already | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | ack, ty for working on this | 17:11 |
| gtema | wlcm | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | the last AI i see is around the openstack-manuals patch regarding tracking metrics: | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/905614 | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | ^ we merged this with a comment, but, not against removing the tracking itself in teh future | 17:13 |
| gouthamr | that's all the AIs i was tracking, was anyone working on anything else? | 17:13 |
| cardoe | No. I've closed down the one about the AI tag in the commit. | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | i missed it cardoe | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | sorry, would need you to elaborate :) i didn't see anything on gerrit? | 17:18 |
| gouthamr | we can catch up async.. lets move to the next topic | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | #topic Approaches to making big changes | 17:22 |
| cardoe | Sorry. Drive by. | 17:22 |
| gouthamr | i wanted to bring this up here because there were some interesting ideas | 17:22 |
| cardoe | So I had asked if we should have a gerrit header like assisted-by to state what kind of assistance you did from AI. | 17:23 |
| cardoe | But after getting feedback from folks I think it's not a great idea. So putting that down. | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | oh, i get it now | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | ty cardoe, will catch up after this topic if we have room or after the meeting | 17:24 |
| cardoe | +1 | 17:24 |
| gouthamr | alright, around this $topic | 17:25 |
| gouthamr | fully agree with many sentiments that clarkb shared over the initial message, i felt like we needed to put it down somewhere, akin to this document here: | 17:26 |
| gouthamr | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/technical-vision.html?_ga=2.42535660.850854672.1745410202-224944396.1732558908 | 17:26 |
| * gouthamr GAH, google analytics | 17:26 | |
| gouthamr | #undo | 17:26 |
| opendevmeet | Removing item from minutes: #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/technical-vision.html?_ga=2.42535660.850854672.1745410202-224944396.1732558908 | 17:26 |
| gouthamr | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/technical-vision.html | 17:26 |
| gouthamr | the core argument was derived from several ongoing threads that seemed to indicate that our community's existing policies and procedures are merely "bad bureaucracy" | 17:27 |
| gouthamr | we definitely need a better process to update them, and i was thinking that we headed there with the "ideas" work | 17:28 |
| gouthamr | #link https://governance.openstack.org/ideas/ | 17:28 |
| clarkb | yes, I was hoping to point out that the rules we've got exists for reasons, but those reasons may not apply any longer and our goals may have shifted. We need to be able to update policy to accomodate. And ideally we'd do so in a way that continues to preserve the four opens rather than leading to people just secretly doing a bunch of work and saying take it or leave it | 17:29 |
| spotz[m] | So use ideas repo vs someone submitting a change to the vision? | 17:29 |
| gouthamr | clarkb: +1 | 17:29 |
| fungi | ideas was the replacement for the more formal community specs we had prior, and then later evolved into the current goals framework | 17:30 |
| gouthamr | spotz[m]: nope, not suggesting that we use it, i wanted to know what the intent of it was, and if we should explore that route again | 17:30 |
| gouthamr | fungi: wow; but, a goal is an accepted idea with a definitive timeline? its not a place for brainstorming is it? | 17:31 |
| fungi | what was attractive, and also ultimately regrettable, about the ideas process is that it allowed people to suggest work for others to do and not take responsibility for making happen themselves | 17:32 |
| gouthamr | we'll have a lot of that, even with goals.. but, its valuable, isn't it | 17:33 |
| fungi | i guess it's a matter of opinion, at least in most open source communities any suggestion that doesn't come with a commitment to invest one's time on typically fails to get implemented | 17:35 |
| fungi | which is why goals at least require a champion to project-manage them before they can be accepted | 17:36 |
| mnasiadka | Well, we have active goals that are not so active - so even having a champion doesn’t warrant that | 17:37 |
| fungi | right, so if even the accepted goals aren't a priority to implement... | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: i think actively pushing a goal back to "proposed" or "abandoned" would help | 17:38 |
| fungi | as happened with the fips testing goal, and yes that was a good move | 17:38 |
| gouthamr | spitballing - we need to let innovation happen with the mindset that something will always challenge norms/guidelines.. but, it's okay, because we can change these norms/guidelines by providing sound reason.. | 17:40 |
| gouthamr | 17:40 | |
| mnasiadka | gouthamr: sure, but I also understand frickler’s comments about what happens if nobody ever picks that up - and we have ,,artefacts’’ of previous implementation attempt in the ecosystem | 17:40 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: yes, its a bother cleaning them up, but, it taught us some valuable questions to ask when accepting a community goal | 17:41 |
| mnasiadka | Actually FIPS is something I never understood, given the ,,target audience’’ of that feature - but let’s not open that discussion :) | 17:42 |
| clarkb | fwiw the goals behind policies are at a higher level than the project goals implementation imop | 17:42 |
| clarkb | *imo | 17:42 |
| gouthamr | yes | 17:42 |
| clarkb | things like the use cases we consider fundamental, the platforms we support, our approach to testing (gating, etc), and so on | 17:43 |
| fungi | i guess what i don't understand is why adjustments to policies and processes can't start out as a discussion somewhere that leads to one or more changes in the governance repo | 17:44 |
| mnasiadka | I wanted to ask what’s the problem in discussing needed changes in policies and doing the change in governance repo | 17:45 |
| clarkb | I don't think there is one. I think the problem is more that there is either a perception or reality that if one does so you will always be shot down | 17:45 |
| gouthamr | they surely can, we're not forcing one pattern of making change.. but the governance repo doesn't capture _everything_ and surely not "half baked" things | 17:45 |
| fungi | wrapping that in yet another process seems like propagating the existing complaint that we have too many processes | 17:46 |
| clarkb | and this may be a case where explicitly working through what we've got that we know isn't working anymore or is no longer reality and leading by example may help break down that perception/reality | 17:46 |
| clarkb | I think the problem is more that we don't practice this as a thing we do | 17:47 |
| clarkb | so everyone assumes it isn't something that can be done | 17:47 |
| clarkb | whcih is why in my email I suggested maybe we just start doing it every 6 months or something | 17:47 |
| clarkb | the golang platform is a perfect example for where reality doesn't match policy imo | 17:48 |
| clarkb | there is no golang code in openstack as far as I know. Why do we keep that as a valid option? | 17:48 |
| clarkb | if we start from there we can reevaluate the origianl goals behind adding go and consider if those are still valid. If so then we know why we keep it is an otpion. Otherwise we can pivot | 17:49 |
| spotz[m] | Ok so is there a problem with policy? Or a problem with perception and potentially documentation? | 17:50 |
| clarkb | spotz[m]: I think both, but one leads to the other | 17:50 |
| clarkb | from my perspective our policy is bit rotting | 17:50 |
| clarkb | and there isn't an effort to address it because the perception is that doing so is futile | 17:50 |
| mnasiadka | Well, the vision document doesn’t really look like a policy - or we’re talking about some different document than the one gouthamr linked? | 17:51 |
| clarkb | mnasiadka: I think you start from that vision document to determine what is important for policy to address | 17:51 |
| clarkb | mnasiadka: for example that document doesn't metnion python | 17:51 |
| clarkb | to me that implies that python is an implementation detail. There are many good reasons to use python, but maybe we don't only have to use python etc | 17:52 |
| clarkb | (or go or ...) | 17:52 |
| mnasiadka | Well, the question if we use python, or something else - is mostly dictated by the testing infrastructure - currently only Python is in PTI IIRC | 17:53 |
| gouthamr | yes; at some point, we defined "PTI" as complementing that vision.. and we had a python pti, golang pti etc | 17:53 |
| spotz[m] | Ok so it sounds like a review and a re-write of the vision is the first place to start, then increase communication, etc | 17:53 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/golang.html | 17:53 |
| fungi | the vision is due to be revised anyway if the tc wants to maintain one. the entire point of vision statements (based on the workshop we attended when we drafted the first one) is that they're supposed to be time-bounded | 17:53 |
| gouthamr | (and this: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/javascript.html) | 17:53 |
| mnasiadka | gouthamr: thanks, I was blind :) | 17:53 |
| clarkb | spotz[m]: yes I think that is a reasonable first step | 17:54 |
| gouthamr | i agree, i would do it, but poorly, i wonder if, clarkb you'd like to take a stab or work with me on it? | 17:56 |
| spotz[m] | So my suggestion is to focus there if everyone is in agreement on that being the first step. Start small and then grow from there or we won't make progress on the whole issue | 17:56 |
| fungi | the gist of the workshop was that we were supposed to imagine the state of the tc five years out, and then describe that in a way that all the tc members could agree on | 17:56 |
| clarkb | gouthamr: I'm happy to help. I don't know that I can drive it. But happy to review and draft as I'm able | 17:57 |
| gouthamr | fungi: i need notes of this workshop :D | 17:57 |
| fungi | i'll go spelunking for them | 17:57 |
| gouthamr | i haven't said it enough, we need to index your brain into an OpenStack History spanning 500+ volumes | 17:57 |
| spotz[m] | Yeah I'm not sure what workshop | 17:57 |
| clarkb | the openstack tc went to a deli in michigan years and years ago and did a leadership workshop | 17:58 |
| clarkb | a major output of that workshop was the vision document iirc (I wasn't there) | 17:58 |
| fungi | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/453262 | 17:58 |
| fungi | it was driven by the stewardship working group (which no longer exists) | 17:59 |
| fungi | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Stewardship_Working_Group#Build_a_vision_for_the_TC | 17:59 |
| fungi | the thing at the deli in michigan was put on by the same group, but was on servant leadership | 18:00 |
| clarkb | ah separate activities then | 18:00 |
| fungi | the vision drafting mini-workshop happened at an in-person meeting in boston | 18:00 |
| spotz[m] | names that are definitely a blast from the past | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | haha, good reading.. ty for digging these up | 18:01 |
| fungi | tons of review comments on the vision draft change | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | i suggest we reflect on this in light of the original question and continue this discussion in the next meeting | 18:02 |
| spotz[m] | Or in a deli in Michigan:) | 18:02 |
| fungi | (the boston meeting was in the dla piper offices, if memory serves) | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | haha, /me thinks of pastrami sandwiches or bagels and lox | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | we're over by a few mins.. but, this was an insightful discussion that was worth doing | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | anything to note for the minutes today? | 18:04 |
| mnasiadka | It’s 7pm here, don’t make me hungry | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | mnasiadka: something i learned in the US, breakfast is meant to be eaten all day - ignore anyone that says otherwise :D | 18:04 |
| spotz[m] | I'm a pro at scheduling meetings in the Boston RH office | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | alright, thank you for joining/participating everyone! please continue the chatter here.. | 18:05 |
| fungi | i've been eating breakfast for 7 hours nonstop | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | :D | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | #endmeeting | 18:05 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Dec 2 18:05:56 2025 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:05 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-12-02-17.00.html | 18:05 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-12-02-17.00.txt | 18:05 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-12-02-17.00.log.html | 18:05 |
| gouthamr | ^ that was important to get into the minutes | 18:06 |
| fungi | absolutely | 18:06 |
| spotz[m] | hehe | 18:07 |
| fungi | and yeah, for a little more background, in early 2018 there was an in-person openstack foundation (before the rename) board meeting which included time for a joint meeting with the board and openstack project leadership. the board also had a day of private executive session during which time the tc did the vision workshop with the zingerman's deli trainers | 18:09 |
| fungi | er, early 2017 i mean | 18:09 |
| spotz[m] | Yeah the in-person board meetings ended with COVID at least as a separate meeting, there have been a few at events | 18:10 |
| fungi | for two days we had a couple of large, beautiful, conference rooms in the highrise office building for the foundation's legal counsel (dla piper) | 18:10 |
| fungi | https://www.zingtrain.com/article/why-and-how-visioning-works/ | 18:12 |
| fungi | that's the folks that put on the mini-workshop for the tc, and then a number of openstack community leaders (not just tc members) also separately attended a multi-day workshop at the zingerman's headquarters in ann arbor | 18:14 |
| fungi | though that later workshop was around https://www.zingtrain.com/article/servant-leadership/ | 18:15 |
| fungi | oh, and the lunches were (perhaps unsurprisingly) amazing, of course | 18:50 |
| gouthamr | good read on a situation we're all too familar with :( | 22:05 |
| gouthamr | https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/02/ingress_nginx_opinion/ | 22:05 |
| clarkb | I think part of the problem there is that nginx has their own direct competitor. | 22:16 |
| fungi | which is only available under a proprietary license right? | 22:17 |
| fungi | or am i confusing it with something else maybe... | 22:18 |
| mnaser | nginx https://github.com/nginx/kubernetes-ingress apache2.0 license | 22:18 |
| mnaser | kubernetes (cncf?) https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress-nginx also apache 2.0 license | 22:18 |
| mnaser | but afaik the nginx (corp one) has some features that work only with nginx "pro" which is the non-community version of nginx | 22:19 |
| clarkb | ya its open core aiui https://docs.nginx.com/nginx-ingress-controller/install/license-secret/ you need secrets for the plus version | 22:19 |
| fungi | ah okay. so i guess the concern is that it's not a drop-in replacement | 22:19 |
| mnaser | well to be more clear, nginx itself is the part htat need to be licenesed | 22:19 |
| clarkb | fungi: well and that it canablizes the community that is most likely to be able to maintain the software | 22:20 |
| mnaser | the funny thing is | 22:20 |
| mnaser | most people used the upstream one, not the nginx one | 22:20 |
| mnaser | and i guess nginx folks never pushed things into the upstream one because they wnat to be able to add features to it that support their nginx pro | 22:21 |
| fungi | sounds like that community didn't maintain the software though, so i can understand the reluctance to pretend they suddenly will | 22:21 |
| fungi | and if that community really does want to maintain it after all, it's open source, they can just fork it under a new name and move forward | 22:22 |
| mnaser | the other part is there is a new "way" that replacing ingress by gateway api in k8s | 22:22 |
| mnaser | and so even if itw as maintained, it'll eventually disappear, so i can understand maintainers being more interested by building something that supports gateway api rather than supporting outgoing software | 22:23 |
| clarkb | I suspect the biggest pain here is simply the short timeline. There are alternatives and converting for a lot of stuff is likely to be straightforward. Then you've got the long tail of complicated configs | 22:30 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!