| *** Unknown is now known as Mike-- | 14:51 | |
| gouthamr | tc-members: a gentle reminder that our weekly IRC meeting will be hosted here in ~35 minutes. The agenda is here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda | 16:22 |
|---|---|---|
| gouthamr | #startmeeting tc | 17:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Sep 15 17:00:18 2026 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#Agenda | 17:00 |
| gouthamr | #topic Roll Call | 17:00 |
| frickler | \o | 17:01 |
| gouthamr | courtesy-ping: mnasiadka dansmith noonedeadpunk spotz[m] bauzas | 17:02 |
| gouthamr | noted absence: c a r d o e | 17:02 |
| mnasiadka | o/ | 17:02 |
| bauzas | on and off (Internet shutdown here, on LTE) | 17:02 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 17:03 |
| dansmith | o/ | 17:04 |
| gouthamr | hello everyone, let's get started... | 17:05 |
| gouthamr | #topic Last Week's Action Items | 17:05 |
| noonedeadpunk | o/ | 17:06 |
| gouthamr | there has been an update from the tacker PTL regarding the maintenance concerns we raised for tosca-parser, python-tackerclient and tacker-horizon | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/O3SELWYCCBKCEZRFXJ5UTUTTFIJ6FWV4/ ([tc][tacker] Release liaison gap + inactive deliverables under the Tacker team) | 17:07 |
| gouthamr | yasufum said that these repos "are not unmaintained although there is almost no update in the recent releases. " | 17:08 |
| gouthamr | they'll nominate a release liaison after working with the rest of the core team | 17:08 |
| gouthamr | hopefully that should move the release team's proposals to convert one or more of these to "independent" release model | 17:09 |
| gouthamr | we'll catch up on a few other action items during the course of this meeting | 17:10 |
| gouthamr | i don't see any others that deserve a quick mention here.. so let's move through our agenda | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | shoot, a couple of quick "schedule" related call outs | 17:11 |
| gouthamr | the ongoing TC election ends tomorrow (Sep 16) at 23:45 UTC | 17:12 |
| gouthamr | i'd like to bid formal adieu to bauzas and tonyb, and thank them for their contribution on the TC! in the next meeting, we'll (re)welcome new folks. | 17:14 |
| bauzas | np | 17:14 |
| gouthamr | since the election results will show up here and on the ML, i'd like some procedural acks when they do. | 17:14 |
| gouthamr | and the TC would need to elect a new Chair. The nomination for this must be made against the governance repo | 17:15 |
| gouthamr | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tc-chair-responsibilities.html (TC Chair Responsibilities) | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | do consider nominating yourself, I'll mention this again in an email welcoming the new folks when elections conclude | 17:16 |
| gouthamr | #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tc-chair-elections.html (TC Chair Election Process) | 17:17 |
| gouthamr | a point to note here: "TC chair nomination will be open for three business days after the TC elections are closed." | 17:17 |
| gouthamr | alrighty, next up: | 17:18 |
| gouthamr | #topic Cycle highlights and reflecting team priorities | 17:18 |
| gouthamr | we're past RC1, and OIF Marketing/Staff would benefit from the cycle highlights that teams have put together | 17:19 |
| gouthamr | i was chatting with aprice and clarkb about this, and clarkb had some ideas to share | 17:19 |
| clarkb | The thought I had was an idea that capturing some of the security work at the top level of the release highlights might make sense | 17:20 |
| spotz[m] | hot topic | 17:21 |
| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/contributor-guide master: Remove package files. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/1005444 | 17:21 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/hashtag:%222026.2-cycle-highlights%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) (Cycle highlights from project teams) | 17:21 |
| clarkb | the ironic project highlights capture some of this, but I know this is something that has been affecting basically every project. It also helps explain where a good deal of time was spent this release. If we capture that in the highlights as its own entry (probably via a direct edit of the rst file rather than the release yaml files) that may help communicate to operators and | 17:21 |
| clarkb | end users where we're spending our time in addition to all of the great feature work that has happened | 17:21 |
| clarkb | essentially this seems like an opportunity for openstack to talk about what it did the last 6 months and well we did a lot of security related work | 17:22 |
| * noonedeadpunk recalls to submit some highlights | 17:22 | |
| clarkb | fungi is not here today otherwise I'd probably defer to him and the VMT, but due to the short time window we have remaining I figured i owuld bring it up | 17:23 |
| clarkb | and also yes more generally I think aprice would like to remind everyone to get their release highlights in asap | 17:23 |
| gouthamr | that's a great idea.. i was looking through the releases repo on gerrit, and the "highlights" response has been tepid | 17:24 |
| gouthamr | evidently folks are busy - but, i can do a round of reminding to get folks to share some thoughts, maybe by the end of this week? | 17:25 |
| dansmith | evidently? :) | 17:26 |
| clarkb | I believe this information feeds directly into the release marketing machine so it is a great opportunity to show off the interesting things you've been workign on this cycle | 17:27 |
| gouthamr | JayF/rosmaita/I can fill in for the VMT - we can put together some data on what the release looked like from the VMT perspective.. 30+ OSSAs only tell a part of the story.. there were a lot of security bugs that were not advisoried.. a lot of folks were involved in triaging/responding | 17:28 |
| clarkb | exactly, I think the idea in my head is trying to capture the effor that went into this release to A) illustrate it for those who may not understand and B) recognize that effort and not simply sweep it under the rug. Features always get the attention :) | 17:29 |
| JayF | Also OSSNs are crazy large | 17:29 |
| JayF | and given an embargoed bug can stay secret for up to 90 days | 17:29 |
| JayF | I'd suggest the general vision into "how are things in the security team?" is delayed by a good month+ | 17:29 |
| JayF | We should make loud noises about this, but in Ironic's case, we actually had a proactive security audit led by metal3. | 17:30 |
| JayF | I'd be very careful making claims about being more secure; maybe instead we could tout our committment to prioritizign security work | 17:30 |
| clarkb | yup it probably doesn't fully capture what is going on. But the release is the big messaging opportunity we have so I think there is still value in the incomplete picture | 17:30 |
| dansmith | _more_ secure is true.. _is_ secure, not so much (but I agree, careful with wording) | 17:31 |
| clarkb | ya in my mind the priorities are informing people of the work more so than making any claims about how secure things are | 17:33 |
| JayF | or as I said in my superuser blog post... is more securable :) | 17:33 |
| gouthamr | yeah, the strengths we're reflecting are a solid process, and the ability of maintainers to respond and the mindset to not ignore security bugs, to drop other priorities if necessary | 17:33 |
| clarkb | anyway I think that about covers it from my end | 17:33 |
| clarkb | don't forget to add your project release highlights! | 17:33 |
| gouthamr | thank you clarkb | 17:34 |
| gouthamr | alright, next topic: | 17:35 |
| gouthamr | #topic continuing the discussion on clearer core reviewer docs and keystone situation | 17:35 |
| gouthamr | car doe may fill us in between meetings here. I'd ask folks to help with the brainstorm that began on the ML: | 17:36 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/KPLX44YX6VEAJT4SZ3T7CJ3K2U6HJUTZ/ ([tc][all] Proposal: require projects to document their path to (and standard for retaining) core status) | 17:36 |
| gouthamr | in parallel - there's work going on in nova, neutron teams to improve/document their core reviewer roles | 17:37 |
| gouthamr | we also got recommendations from ildikov (and clarkb/fungi) from the BTG surveys and team reach outs: | 17:40 |
| gouthamr | #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/KLUURVAJWNJCNBOVYNX5CXZ3C2F4Y3ZU/ (Recommended approaches to improve contributor and maintainer experience) | 17:40 |
| gouthamr | clarkb's review templates could use some eyes: | 17:41 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/1002796 (Add code review templates appendix) | 17:41 |
| ildikov | +1, thank you for the mentions | 17:41 |
| gouthamr | i've some homework to do to bring together the CEWG to break up some of these and work on them | 17:42 |
| ildikov | I know the recommended approaches email is a little bit long, but I hope it's not that bad to go through if folks are going from approach to approach | 17:42 |
| ildikov | happy to chat about them on the email thread or on IRC if folks have questions/comments | 17:42 |
| gouthamr | ++ ty for putting that together ildikov | 17:43 |
| ildikov | also excited to work with the new CEWG onwards to find a good place for these approaches to store them longer term, etc | 17:43 |
| ildikov | thanks gouthamr for formalizing the WG | 17:43 |
| gouthamr | ty, i've been sluggish in part due to the release, but things are looking better now.. i'll do some of this reach out this week, and add any discussion topics here for next week | 17:45 |
| cardoe | gouthamr: I'm here now a bit too late | 17:46 |
| gouthamr | hey cardoe, not at all.. | 17:46 |
| gouthamr | cool, so i've been recapping some progress on one of the items you brought up | 17:46 |
| cardoe | Yeah I think it's going well. Overall it's less action on the part of the TC but I think it's caused a number of projects to self evaluate better and make sure their current state is documented. | 17:48 |
| cardoe | We've had some documentation improvements on the responsibilities of a PTL that's come about of the topic. | 17:48 |
| gouthamr | ah yes, related... stephenfin's worked on documenting the PTL role better in the governance repo: | 17:49 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/1005080 (Add PTL roles and responsibilities doc to governance repo) | 17:49 |
| opendevreview | Takashi Kajinami proposed openstack/contributor-guide master: Remove package files https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/1005444 | 17:49 |
| gouthamr | cardoe: is there enough to define the TC's action? we've a few means to do this: add guidelines in the project team guide, one or more cross-project goals that teams can work through, a formal TC resolution, charter changes, or define work for working groups/SIGs, like the CEWG | 17:53 |
| cardoe | So I was thinking about this a bit. I think a TC resolution might be the way to change the charter slightly. My thought on what we'd change would be charging each PTL or the DPL TC liaison affirming that the project has audited their policy / process / core membership in accordance with the project rules this cycle. | 17:55 |
| cardoe | I've been thinking about how to best word that and was going to put that on the ML. | 17:55 |
| gouthamr | ack | 17:55 |
| cardoe | Not sure how others feel about that. But my thought was the outgoing PTL would do that. | 17:56 |
| cardoe | I'm not sure how we'd validate that however. | 17:56 |
| cardoe | But that would be another signal of project health for the TC. | 17:56 |
| cardoe | So I'm very open to suggestions. | 17:56 |
| JayF | cardoe: for DPL, I'd prefer it be not the TC liason | 17:57 |
| JayF | cardoe: maybe just make that a designated liason: "Team Maintenance" or something | 17:57 |
| cardoe | Sure. That makes more sense. | 17:57 |
| stephenfin | that would need to be a required liaison though, right? | 17:57 |
| JayF | mainly just because we require a TC liason from the TC, there's a good chance they might be less invested than other DPLs (not the case for Ironic) | 17:57 |
| stephenfin | (not TC obviously by I was invoked) | 17:57 |
| stephenfin | *but | 17:58 |
| JayF | that's basically why I don't want it to be the TC liason: there are 9 people, I don't want us to be grouping potentially "N" DPL projects worth of auditing on them | 17:58 |
| spotz[m] | hehe | 17:58 |
| gouthamr | yeah that's been how this has been handled so far | 17:58 |
| cardoe | stephenfin: yeah someone that speaks on behalf of the project to say "We have done the needful. Our project is healthy." | 17:59 |
| gouthamr | good ideas here, we can continue this discussion on teh ML as you suggested, or gerrit if you'd like | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | we're at the hour | 18:00 |
| gouthamr | the "keystone situation" part of this topic has to be broken down further. gtema indicated that the team needs more dedicated maintainers to accept changes to existing implementations that the team doesn't have bandwidth/understanding to fully commit to... | 18:00 |
| spotz[m] | thanks everyone! | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | since we didn't get to do that here, i'll keep this on the agenda for next week | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | we've several governance changes that need attention: | 18:01 |
| gouthamr | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/governance+status:open | 18:01 |
| JayF | cardoe: stephenfin: "Figurehead liason" :laug | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | please review them | 18:02 |
| gouthamr | any final thoughts for the minutes this week? | 18:02 |
| stephenfin | JayF: lock it in | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | thank you all for attending, ignore meetbot, keep the chatter.. | 18:03 |
| gouthamr | #endmeeting | 18:03 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Sep 15 18:03:41 2026 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:03 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-09-15-17.00.html | 18:03 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-09-15-17.00.txt | 18:03 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2026/tc.2026-09-15-17.00.log.html | 18:03 |
| JayF | stephenfin: honestly I'd be +1 only because I wanna put "Ironic Project Figurehead" in my sig | 18:04 |
| gouthamr | :D who said we can't name things | 18:05 |
| JayF | I work on the best named project in all of open source | 18:09 |
| JayF | IDK what you are talking about | 18:10 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/contributor-guide master: Remove package files https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/1005444 | 22:07 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 4.1.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!