16:00:00 #startmeeting ironic 16:00:00 Meeting started Mon Mar 21 16:00:00 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is iurygregory. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:00 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:00 The meeting name has been set to 'ironic' 16:00:22 Hello everyone o/ welcome to our weekly meeting! 16:00:33 o/ 16:00:36 o/ 16:00:43 o/ 16:01:08 you can find the agenda for the meeting in the wiki 16:01:10 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic#Agenda_for_next_meeting 16:01:20 o/ 16:01:44 o/ 16:02:18 #topic Announcements / Reminder 16:02:47 #info We will be cutting stable/yoga for ironic and ipa during this week (i.e till Wed) 16:03:04 \o/ 16:03:11 I'm checking the final things for ironic (releasenotes/ mappings) 16:03:21 will push a patch latter today 16:03:51 #info Ironic Sessions - Zed PTG April 4 (16:00-17:00 & 21:00 22:00) April 5,6,7 (14:00-17:00 & 21:00 22:00) 16:04:17 we have the slots for our PTG sessions \o/ 16:04:35 #info Please add topics for our PTG etherpad \o/ 16:04:42 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/ironic-zed-ptg 16:05:14 iurygregory: I thought we had 2 hours on monday 16:05:34 rpittau, we do (16-17 & 21-22) 16:05:44 I mean, 3 hours "EU friendly" :) 16:05:52 gah, noep, 2 hours EU friendly 16:06:17 * iurygregory double checks info from last meeting... 16:06:29 I think this was to minimise the clash with the TC/project meeting, no? 16:06:31 we went for option A from what I remember =) 16:06:36 ah yeah, my bad 16:06:53 yep, all good 16:06:55 thanks 16:06:58 yeah, on monday there is a TC+project meeting from 14 to 16 =) 16:07:01 np! 16:07:58 Feel free to add topics to our etherpad so I can provide the schedule o/ 16:08:35 ok, that's all I have for announcements/reminder, does anyone have anything else to add? 16:08:57 friendly reminder: 16:08:57 we're moving the meeting 1 hour earlier starting next week 16:09:09 to adjust to time change 16:09:22 right! 16:09:52 I'm going to send a message to the ML too 16:09:55 #info starting next week our weekly meetings will be at 15 UTC 16:10:08 rpittau ++ tks! 16:10:11 np :) 16:10:48 #topic Review action items from previous meeting 16:11:04 skipping, we don't have any action items 16:11:15 #topic Review subteam status reports 16:12:20 should we skip since we are in the release week? thoughts? 16:13:27 *crinkets* 16:14:07 I geuss we can skip 16:14:22 o/ 16:14:33 sorry, got pulled away due to contractors 16:14:43 +1 skipping 16:14:50 ok, moving on 16:15:02 #topic Deciding on priorities for the coming week 16:15:16 #link https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+hashtag:ironic-week-prio 16:15:58 rpittau, I see you added https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic-python-agent-builder/+/776507 16:16:17 yeah, that's the only addition from me 16:16:23 kind of quick review 16:16:27 if we want to have in yoga we should -1 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/833609 16:16:41 would be nice, but up to you 16:16:55 is it a must have? 16:17:13 not really, it's just there since a while, likely since wallaby :D 16:17:22 woot?! 16:17:25 wow 16:17:53 yep, they changed compilation options and it took me some time to figure how the new one as it's not documented 16:18:05 updating qemu is a good thing I would say, I have no problem in adding -1 for the release 16:18:51 sounds good, it should merge quickly after approval anyway 16:19:56 yeah, I will review after the meeting 16:20:00 what about the items on the weekly prio list with no update in 3+ months, should they be removed or is there a reason to keep them? 16:20:24 arne_wiebalck, we can remove them I would say 16:21:06 ironic-cores can remove hashtags from any patches 16:22:10 well that was fun 16:22:15 they just accidently shut off my power 16:22:23 if anyone has an urgent patch for ironic/ipa let us know since we will be cutting the release 16:22:27 TheJulia, wow O.o 16:22:49 I would just merge it and not try to force it into the release 16:22:54 no reason since it is disjointed 16:23:02 but good to just get it merged 16:24:27 ok, I will double check if they are ok or not with that 16:25:37 #topic Discussion 16:25:53 do we have something we would like to discuss? 16:26:10 is this open discussion too? 16:26:34 can be, since we don't have a huge agenda :D 16:26:45 or I can move to open discussion in a few 16:26:56 eh, it can wait until open then 16:27:01 we could discuss the difference between discussion and open discussion 16:27:09 that is a possibility too 16:27:34 I've often pondering removing the distinction since open was more "anyone have anything" and discussion was more oriented to agenda items. 16:28:29 yeah, based on the wiki Open discussion is more for patch discussions 16:28:29 So I'm curious if there are wants/needs w/r/t the ptg etherpad that we're not capturing really well. I guess part of the conundrum of having events which have become so disjointed is ops feedback loop kind of becomes opaque. 16:30:16 having ops feedback would definitely be a good thing 16:34:53 in addition to direct ops feedback (which we know is hard to get, and only finds our way when we reach out directly) what about client/customer/deployment feedback which is accesible/relevant for the community? or from other communities like metal3? 16:35:06 *accessible 16:35:57 arne_wiebalck, sounds like a good thing 16:36:18 arne_wiebalck: reasonable. It is *kind* of hard for me to talk on behalf of customers, but at the same time the addition of the power utilization related items is driven by customer feedback/desire I've received 16:37:36 TheJulia: this is what I was thinking, recurring themes/issues ... not sure how that works if that is coming from customers, i.e. how much of this *can* be passed on 16:39:23 yeah, it is "difficult" 16:40:06 one interesting thing, I think the Cinder team was doing some ops survey 16:40:16 TheJulia: another approach is to directly ask for areas, e.g. the use of Redfish: how much is that used, and for what? are there missing features? 16:40:33 iurygregory: some sort of ops centered feedback form might be a good way to go 16:40:45 yeah 16:41:43 Redfish: how much are immature/varying implementations an issue? 16:42:17 * arne_wiebalck is maybe biased by his "three nodes/three issues" experience 16:42:31 I guess that makes a lot of sense to somehow capture 16:42:48 but I'm not sure much is really actionable... aside from shaming vendors.. *whistles innocently* 16:42:57 TheJulia: yeah 16:43:46 who would be interested in helping to create the ops form for feedback? 16:43:48 TheJulia: but from what I see atm, it is ok/working for simple things, but as soon as you go a little further ... 16:45:05 iurygregory: any details on the cinder ops survey, or is this cinder only? 16:45:36 arne_wiebalck, I will try to find the email =) 16:46:02 iurygregory: there is also a tc activity on analysing the user survey I believe 16:46:10 we can also check this async outside of the meeting 16:46:15 iurygregory: ++ 16:46:42 arne_wiebalck, yeah, but we can't ask a lot of things in the user survey (if I remember correctly) 16:46:53 iurygregory: ok 16:46:56 afaik it was cinder only 16:47:40 well, we could try to put some question together and send it out, the worst thing which could happen is that we get little feedback :) 16:47:44 "[ops][cinder] reminder: resource count survey - win fabulous prizes!" 16:47:47 :D 16:48:38 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-March/027660.html 16:48:47 iurygregory: thanks 16:48:53 np 16:49:07 iurygregory: if we want to do sth for the PTG, it is high time :-D 16:49:18 ++ who wants to start an etherpad? 16:49:18 arne_wiebalck, yeah 16:49:41 TheJulia: to collect questions? 16:49:56 yes 16:50:07 I can do it. 16:50:14 say a couple days to collect questions, and then we create a poll or form someplace 16:50:18 fits to the SIG work, I guees 16:50:21 *guess 16:50:30 TheJulia: sounds good 16:50:32 tks arne_wiebalck ! 16:50:44 * arne_wiebalck gets his first action item ever on the Ironic meeting :) 16:51:13 arne_wiebalck, you want me to add the action item? :D 16:51:19 \o/ 16:51:40 iurygregory: no, jk 16:51:51 I was about to hit enter =P 16:52:28 ok I think we can go to the sig topic now 16:52:49 #topic Baremetal SIG 16:53:39 should the SIG request a forum session (when time comes)? 16:54:10 I guess SIGs do not get one automatically 16:54:17 sounds interesting, I'm not against =) 16:54:39 you mean at the OIS right? 16:54:44 yes 16:54:48 +1 to requesting a forum session 16:54:53 that is likely prime feedback time for us 16:55:22 summarise activities, get feedback, hire speakers, ... :) 16:55:26 TheJulia: right 16:55:53 I *think* I have seen sth fly by about forums ... 16:56:02 ... or maybe not :) 16:56:24 I think I saw an email about forum sessions 16:56:39 anyway, I can follow up 16:56:45 that is it for the SIG I think 16:56:50 tks! 16:57:21 skipping RFE since we don't have any on the list 16:57:44 I will merge Open discussion / Discussion into one topic in our wiki =) 16:58:19 #topic Who is going to run the next meeting? 16:58:23 Do we have any volunteers? 16:59:07 I will run the next meeting o/ 16:59:10 Tks everyone! 16:59:19 thanks iurygregory ! 16:59:23 thanks! 16:59:26 #endmeeting