15:00:55 <TheJulia> #startmeeting ironic
15:00:55 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Mon Jan 26 15:00:55 2026 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is TheJulia. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:55 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:55 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'ironic'
15:00:57 <janders> o/
15:00:59 <alegacy> o/
15:01:00 <kubajj> o/
15:01:05 <TheJulia> Greetings ladies, gentlemen, IRC bots!
15:01:12 <clif> o/
15:01:30 <fungi> aloha
15:01:36 <TheJulia> Welcome to this week's Ironic Meeting! Where we plot to take over the world^W^Wall baremetal provisioning!
15:01:58 <TheJulia> This week's agenda can be found on the wiki!
15:01:59 <dtantsur> o/
15:02:00 <TheJulia> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic#Agenda_for_January_26.2C_2025
15:02:00 <JayF> o/
15:02:29 <TheJulia> Everyone have coffee?
15:03:26 <cid> 'o/
15:04:25 <TheJulia> cat wrangling too at the moment
15:04:38 <TheJulia> #topic Announcements / Reminders
15:05:04 <TheJulia> A standing reminder to review our ironic-week-prio dashboard, we presently have 26 items, lets get it down to 20!
15:05:06 <TheJulia> #link https://tinyurl.com/ironic-weekly-prio-dash
15:05:30 <dtantsur> Once I'm on unlimited internet, will catch up with reviews
15:05:35 <TheJulia> We are also at week R-9 in the 2026.1 Gazpacho Release Schedule
15:05:50 <TheJulia> Does anyone have anything else to announce or remind us of?
15:07:57 <TheJulia> I guess not, and now that cat wrangling has been completed, we can proceed!
15:08:09 <TheJulia> Time for working group updates!
15:08:11 <TheJulia> #topic Working Group Updates
15:08:23 <TheJulia> First up, standalone netwokring
15:08:26 <TheJulia> networking
15:08:32 <TheJulia> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/ironic-standalone-networking
15:08:41 <TheJulia> alegacy: Any update for the group?
15:08:50 <alegacy> still in a holding pattern waiting for reviews.  This one is the next one up:  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/966470
15:09:05 <alegacy> dtantsur: had left some comments... so I pushed up a new version
15:09:45 <alegacy> hoping to close it off soon.
15:09:54 <TheJulia> JayF: sounds like you feel a review jam would help move these items forth?
15:10:19 <TheJulia> If that is the case, is there a day which would work well to have a 1 hour call to walk through the changes?
15:10:42 <JayF> I'm mostly clear meetings today and tomorrow
15:11:25 <TheJulia> I'm unfrotunately not clear tomorrow, I won't be around tomorrow
15:11:36 <TheJulia> Would in a couple of hours work?
15:11:46 <dtantsur> Me neither, nor today
15:11:48 <TheJulia> hmm
15:12:12 <TheJulia> well, I can make time today
15:12:26 <alegacy> I'm open today after 1pm EST
15:12:42 <JayF> Yeah, I mean I don't have so many meetings that I can't get something figured out quickly. If we need to. Today works. Tomorrow works. Later this week works but just a little more spotty
15:12:52 <alegacy> same tomorrow, but could maybe move some things tomorrow morning.
15:13:44 <TheJulia> I have 10-11:30 pacific open today before I start sprint planning
15:13:45 <alegacy> sounds like dtantsur is unavailable both days though
15:13:49 <TheJulia> yeah
15:13:56 <JayF> I can do 10 Pacific
15:14:08 <TheJulia> 2 is better than none
15:14:14 <dtantsur> I'll take a look at my own pace, videos will eat too much traffic
15:14:14 <JayF> I suspect Dimitry and I will be reviewing for different sort of stuff
15:14:21 <TheJulia> dtantsur: fair enough
15:14:34 <TheJulia> Yeah, we always do in a sense
15:15:00 <TheJulia> Next up, async IO
15:15:07 <TheJulia> dtantsur, anything for us
15:15:14 <TheJulia> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/ironic-asyncio
15:15:25 <opendevreview> Dmitry Tantsur proposed openstack/ironic-specs master: Asynchronous sensor data collection  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic-specs/+/972754
15:15:28 <dtantsur> Here it goes ^^^ :)
15:15:38 <TheJulia> Oh my
15:15:41 <dtantsur> (yes, I timed uploading the spec with the section of the meeting)
15:15:51 <TheJulia> heh
15:16:02 <TheJulia> Okay, are we good to proceed then?
15:16:03 <mumesan[m]> lol
15:16:22 <dtantsur> That's all I have at least
15:16:27 <dtantsur> Further work will need at least a rough agreement
15:16:28 <opendevreview> OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/ironic-python-agent bugfix/11.4: Update .gitreview for bugfix/11.4  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic-python-agent/+/974739
15:16:39 <TheJulia> Okay then!
15:16:59 <TheJulia> Last but not least for the working groups is vlxan networking!
15:16:59 <TheJulia> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/ironic-vxlan
15:17:45 <TheJulia> So the tl;dr is we have a working mech driver in networking-baremetal to facilitate the localnet binding in OVN and the creation of segments for consumption.
15:18:08 <TheJulia> The spec also has 2x+2 as of the last time I looked, so consider this the last call to review before the approval button gets pushed
15:19:06 <TheJulia> There are a few other patches needed, and mechanics, but things are looking pretty good.
15:19:07 <TheJulia> Any questions?
15:20:53 <TheJulia> Since we have no discussion topics (unless someone just put one in after the meeitng started), we can proceed to Bug Deputy Updates
15:21:25 * TheJulia takes silence as a no
15:21:26 <TheJulia> #topic Bug Deputy Updates
15:22:14 <fungi> ah, i guess i put mine in open discussion, not realizing i should have used the discussion topics section, sorry
15:22:25 * fungi will wait
15:22:40 <TheJulia> No worries
15:23:13 <TheJulia> So, we had no new bugs last week, and one RFE filed regarding typing all of the code. This has come up before and some discussion might be needed. I'm not opposed to doing so, I think big giant patches at this point are just the wrong path to take
15:23:39 <TheJulia> in other words, the responsible and lightweight thing is to just slowly move to the convention and begin to merge smaller changes as time goes on.
15:23:44 <TheJulia> Thoughts?
15:23:54 <JayF> This is what my open discussion items about
15:24:07 <TheJulia> ack, okay then!
15:24:14 <cid> Same, same. Totally missed to add something on the discussion topics.
15:24:20 <JayF> We have an MLH fellow starting very soon, and we'd like to point them at doing type annotations. CID has written up a document on how to do it using the lessons learned from our failed attempt at IPA
15:24:28 <TheJulia> If there is nothing else regarding bugs, lets determine who will be the next bug deputy!
15:24:31 <JayF> With the primary difference being a focus on doing it a single module at a time instead of trying to do some sort of flag Day
15:24:54 <JayF> And hopefully to get core buy into the process so that CID and I can use our core access to ensure that the patches don't get stale and need rebasing every 3 days
15:24:57 <TheJulia> JayF: honestly, I'd be cool with "oh, I chanced this class or just this method. at this point
15:25:12 <TheJulia> Yeah, thats where things go sideways
15:25:15 <TheJulia> and always, really have
15:25:16 <JayF> Yeah, the main reason I'm bringing it up for open discussion is more or less saying unless there is loud objection. CID and I will be pretty fast approving these patches to reduce disruption
15:25:27 <TheJulia> Everyone who has pushed that in the past have attempted to do giant swaths at a time
15:25:43 <JayF> Yeah, the approach here will be a module at a time and trying to coordinate so that the patches do not remain outstanding very long at all
15:25:57 <cardoe> Well I've been typing classes as I touch them but I get -1's on that so I've stopped doing that.
15:26:01 <TheJulia> Anyhow, lets proceed to Open Discussion then :)
15:26:05 <JayF> Ncid and I will have an awareness of where code is moving around in other patches as to not foist the rebase onto other people
15:26:11 <JayF> **and cid
15:26:19 <opendevreview> OpenStack Release Bot proposed openstack/ironic bugfix/34.0: Update .gitreview for bugfix/34.0  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/974741
15:26:28 <cardoe> If we could agree to that we could enable some checks with an extremely low threshold... how do ya eat an elephant? 1 bite at a time.
15:26:30 <TheJulia> #topic Open Discussion
15:26:34 <TheJulia> Proceed!
15:26:55 <JayF> cardoe: Have a look at CID's proposed documentation change. That's the guide we're working on to point our mlh fellow at
15:27:03 <cid> cardoe, feedback very much welcome. https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/ironic/+/974224
15:27:08 <fungi> i had "Bridging the Gap Flamingo Cycle Retrospective" for discussion, if this is a good time
15:27:35 <cid> TheJulia, I will be bug deputy for next week. tks!
15:27:40 <TheJulia> cid: thanks!
15:27:47 <JayF> For my item, I will also email the list but I'm taking this as least a mild acceptance of a plan for us to rapidly land the type check PRs once we get a pattern established
15:28:24 <TheJulia> fungi: isen't it a bit late as flamingo should have really been dsicussed back in october :\
15:28:36 <TheJulia> we're practically though the next cycle now :\
15:28:44 <TheJulia> so any room for improvement is kind of.. gone.
15:28:47 <fungi> it takes time to gather survey responses after the release, and analyze them
15:28:59 <TheJulia> Still, its a bit late
15:29:06 <fungi> okay, no worries
15:29:15 <TheJulia> But, what do you have for us?
15:29:16 <fungi> oh, sure i can still cover it if you like
15:29:22 <cid> Sure
15:29:24 <fungi> ildiko posted openstack-wide 2025.2 (flamingo) cycle retrospective contributor/maintainer survey results and metrics to openstack-discuss last month:
15:29:26 <fungi> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/XZZYFHMUCB3IZU5AXM366AY7WJXQMTBX/ Bridging the Gap Flamingo Cycle Retrospective Survey Results
15:29:31 <fungi> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/FD4JALJN7OB2YNBUVWCPZZ6YNJMIL2JT/ Bridging the Gap Flamingo Cycle Retrospective Metrics Analysis
15:29:37 <fungi> i and the other community managers on the openinfra foundation staff have also been digging into team-specific details and i'm doing a round of outreach similar to last cycle, to go over how things may have changed
15:29:42 <fungi> ironic had more survey responses than most other teams (6 contributors and 1 maintainer), more would still be better of course, but this is great!
15:29:48 <fungi> 4 of the contributors self-identified as established while the other 2 considered themselves new new to ironic, all contributing to 2 or more other open source projects
15:29:53 <fungi> average ratings on the contributor survey questions were positive overall, with helpful contributor documentation coming in highest at 4.33 out of 5, yet discoverability of contributor docs received the lowest at 3.16
15:30:00 <fungi> contributors noted liking participating in the project overall, and felt that its proximity to the hardware layer presented unique challenges; only a third of respondents noted struggling to get changes reviewed or tests to pass
15:30:01 <TheJulia> The reality is just that if we're going to consider/take/act on feedback, its best to do so when the iron is hot *and* we are able to drive that into current plans/actions
15:30:08 <fungi> the new survey questions about priorities were insightful: a majority of contributors (4/6) said they follow development and prioritization through launchpad blueprints, surprisingly, since the maintainer did not mention blueprints at all
15:30:14 <fungi> a third of the contributors also said that they're unsure how the ironic team is tracking development and review priorities, which could point to a need for better communication on that front
15:30:21 <fungi> the rankings on the maintainer survey response were similarly high, with comprehensiveness of contributor docs receiving a perfect 5 out of 5 (though they admitted to having not referred to that documentation at all during the cycle)
15:30:27 <fungi> the lowest ranking on the maintainer survey response was a 3 for ease of identifying test result failures, and the respondent also indicated trouble getting other maintainers to review their work
15:30:33 <fungi> their biggest challenges in performing code review were change owners not addressing feedback in a timely manner or being unreachable for discussion, and incomplete changes (missing tests/documentation) or failing tests
15:30:39 <fungi> responses noted that the time spent on mentorship was not as successful as it could have been, due to many mentees disappearing before reaching the point where they could become maintainers or engage in other leadership activities
15:30:45 <fungi> survey engagement as i said was great as compared to other teams, particularly from contributors, so i'd love to know a bit more about how we can replicate that, but maybe also find a way to get more maintainers to weigh in next time too
15:30:52 <fungi> as for metrics, the active maintainer count fell by 20% in flamingo as compared to epoxy (from 14 to 11), while the active reviewer count rose by 22%; note that both tiers of the split-core model count as maintainers for this purpose
15:30:58 <fungi> interestingly, the speed at which changes were closed or merged got more consistent in flamingo: even though the median time rose from 7.25 to 8.27 days, the average (mean) fell by half from 127.27 to 63.22
15:31:05 <fungi> like in epoxy, the maintainers did close (slightly) more changes than were created in flamingo, indicating the team is still keeping up with this load; the totals fell slightly by around 9-10%, but still less than the drop in maintainers
15:31:07 * TheJulia wonders how people think we use blueprints
15:31:12 <fungi> the average (both mean and median) patchsets per review also rose by approximately 1, with the median doubling from 1 to 2, which suggests that it's taking contributors more tries to address feedback or get tests passing
15:31:24 <fungi> the community managers have been distilling feedback from last year's discussions, and are working on compiling a concise set of techniques/recommendations for improving communication and efficiency, which i can get into more next week
15:31:31 <fungi> we're also hoping to get some case studies done in concert with successful contributors and maintainers to highlight how specific practices and behaviors help them achieve better throughput, in hopes of being able to replicate them
15:31:39 <fungi> anyway, that was a quick dump, i know it's a lot to take in but i didn't want to eat up too much of your meeting, so i'll put this on the agenda again for next week to give everyone time to digest and come up with questions or ideas
15:31:45 <fungi> though i'm happy to answer any immediate feedback now if there's time
15:31:48 <JayF> Given you've done these and seen these across multiple projects, do you have any specific concrete suggestions or observations that might be unique to ironic
15:32:16 <dtantsur> wow, that's a lot of info, thanks fungi!
15:32:23 <janders> fungi++
15:33:13 <TheJulia> So crazy question, would it not make sense to create a dashboard with rolling window statistics?
15:34:01 <fungi> it would be great to have that, yes
15:34:48 <fungi> at the moment, funding has been pulled for third party custom analytics development (what we were paying bitergia to work on) in favor of relying on the linux foundation's lfx insights developers
15:35:16 <TheJulia> so is some sort of item for a rolling statistics from gerrit review on that team's backlog?
15:35:46 <fungi> instead, the community managers have been writing scripts and manually performing long-running queries to put reports together
15:36:11 <JayF> TheJulia: there is something like five or six issues already opened around other day-to-day uses of the metrics that aren't being taken care of. I don't know if you've had a chance to read the ML thread
15:36:17 <fungi> but yes, lfx insights gerrit statistics should in theory eventually cover the points we've been looking at
15:36:29 <fungi> we fed them details of the things we manually query to get them implemented
15:37:03 <TheJulia> JayF: I spotted it, but I wanted to ask because there are different metrics and I didn't see if that was on the identified list, or not
15:37:11 <fungi> so that's been a fairly high priority, among the list of things we've asker them for
15:37:16 <fungi> er, asked
15:37:19 <TheJulia> Cool cool, thanks
15:37:27 * TheJulia is still curious how people are saying we have blueprints
15:37:27 <JayF> TheJulia: they can't even currently sort repositories by governance, so there's no way to view all ironic related statistics at all right now
15:37:44 <JayF> We do have blueprints... For changes to the ironic Nova driver
15:38:24 <TheJulia> The tiered governance structure is a bit... different
15:38:29 <fungi> TheJulia: my guess is assumptions based on other teams and/or momentum from ancient history. the same thing came up for the manila team, fwiw (contributor survey respondents said they looked at lp blueprints for prioritization cues, the maintainers didn't use them though)
15:38:53 <JayF> I wonder if someone did for project in projects; same answer
15:39:08 <TheJulia> Sure sounds like it, which calls into question the overall survey results
15:39:22 <TheJulia> (unfortunately)(
15:39:56 <fungi> but yeah, the entire reason we added these questions around prioritization for the flamingo cycle surveys was because epoxy responses gave the indication that there may be a mismatch between how teams are tracking priorities and where contributors think it's happening
15:40:25 <fungi> so does point to an opportunity for a lot of teams to more effectively communicate how and where they prioritize development and review work
15:40:59 <fungi> the answers we got from the flamingo surveys seemed to confirm that suspicion
15:41:04 <JayF> "more effectively communicate" doesn't always really help though; I'm not sure what venues we have that we aren't using
15:41:30 <fungi> that's where we hope to dig into recommendations for communication strategies
15:41:34 <JayF> we can't make people read the copious notes we put out to ML, IRC, specs/docs repo, release notes, or even youtube videos -- I literally put out a video every PTG talking about our priorities and where to find them
15:41:52 <JayF> we are a lot of places already; most people just don't turn to the "OpenStack" section of their local newspaper /s
15:42:08 <TheJulia> And then if people are claiming to be contributors, how are they actually contributing then?!
15:42:13 <fungi> like would it help to have cut-and-paste templates or autoresponse comments in reviews that also mentioned where to check the proposed change against the team's priority shortlist
15:42:23 <JayF> fungi: our priorities don't really work that way though
15:42:32 <TheJulia> Or is it just "I cloned it on github and I have my repo and somehow that is contributing"
15:42:33 <JayF> fungi: we don't generally de-prioritize review for non-priority things
15:43:06 <JayF> TheJulia: I am curious now if e.g. adamcarthur5 filled one out as an "Ironic contributor" but in external repos (he works on go SDK stuff among others)
15:43:19 <fungi> a lot of the early feedback we got from organizations whose employees were struggling to contribute effectively indicated that they didn't realize their changes weren't a priority for the team they were proposing them in, or how to participate in the prioritization process/discussions
15:43:20 <JayF> or generally if that pattern was followed by anyone
15:43:34 <TheJulia> I think I'm the maintainer, unless others filled out the maintainer questionaire
15:43:38 <JayF> Yeah, I have personally experienced that too, fungi, but in other projects.
15:44:13 <dtantsur> TheJulia: I might as well..
15:44:15 <JayF> I would really, really like to think Ironic doesn't get that issue, but to be honest if we do it'd almost definitionally be a blind spot for me-personally given I'm the top project reviewer
15:44:39 <JayF> TheJulia: dtantsur: I would've filled it out as a maintainer, but I don't trust that I remembered to
15:45:24 <fungi> right, i can't say for sure it's a problem in ironic because the specific cases we looked into were for other teams, but for example changes just sat for weeks/months with no feedback at all when the change owner would have prefered a one-sentence response of "this isn't a priority for us right now"
15:45:45 <TheJulia> I think there needs to be a question "how do you contribute?"
15:46:05 <TheJulia> and we need to put the cases which are not actual contribution into that answer list to identify the disconnect
15:46:41 <TheJulia> fungi:  Yeah, we'd like that from other projects actually.
15:47:37 <fungi> the survey outreach we do includes an e-mail to everyone who had a change merged to an official openstack project for the cycle, but yes we also want feedback from (perhaps even moreso) people who tried and didn't succeed to get their changes merged, so we can better understand why
15:47:39 <TheJulia> speaking of, cardoe did you abandon that change we moved to networking-baremetal?
15:47:52 <cardoe> No not yet.
15:48:11 <TheJulia> cardoe: might as well, we have something better now :)
15:48:23 <cardoe> Yeah agreed.
15:49:00 <cardoe> Speaking of GitHub, I threw together a GitHub Action which if given a Gerrit account will take PRs and open them against the project.
15:49:21 <cardoe> I do find it hard to find people's contributions in gerrit sometimes to dig them back out.
15:49:37 <JayF> cardoe: that makes me weirdly nervous
15:49:44 <fungi> the contributor experience survey does ask questions about "the changes you propose" and "feedback from reviewers" so there's an implication that we're looking for people attempting to contribute through proposing changes into gerrit, but you're right that we don't actually ask the respondents whether they do that
15:49:48 <cardoe> I also get lost in old ones that should be ignored or old ones that haven't had feedback. So I've been asking folks about abandoning ones.
15:49:55 <JayF> cardoe: anything where the security failure case is "soemone posts a thing that looks like you did it" makes me nervous
15:50:15 <TheJulia> fungi: It sort of feels like there is room to gather more data through delineating questions, it would increase the analysis burden, but maybe if there is a way to really understand where respondants are coming from, then its more possible to understand the gap
15:50:21 <TheJulia> and thus how to manage it
15:50:53 <cardoe> JayF: It takes the GitHub PR and uses the same author as on the GitHub PR and uses the Gerrit user as the uploader. It updates things with a cross-link. I've held off on proposing it because I'd like it to educate the user with some docs.
15:51:09 <fungi> sure, that's great feedback, i'll make a note of it and see how we might integrate that for the 2026.1/gazpacho retrospective round
15:51:14 <TheJulia> cardoe: is the line author tracking maintained?
15:51:26 <cardoe> It also only does so for PRs with a DCO.
15:51:38 <cardoe> Yes cause git has a separate git author from git committer.
15:51:56 <cardoe> The committer is the bot and the author is the original.
15:52:12 <TheJulia> fungi: the other aspect, likely start the poll before the end of cycle and try to wrap it and analysis sooner into the new cycle. If somehow feedback can be available for PTG discussions, that helps close the loop and drive it into actual planning
15:52:32 <TheJulia> cardoe: that... might... work
15:53:39 <TheJulia> Wow, github shows 366 forks
15:53:46 <fungi> TheJulia: yeah, we start just before the end of the cycle usually, during the rc period when most development activity has slowed, with a goal of having survey responses in around or just after the ptg (taking advantage of ptg sessions as opportunities to promote the survey more)
15:54:04 <fungi> but we could start after feature freeze even? maybe?
15:54:30 <TheJulia> That would likely be advisable and try to have something in advance of the PTGs so its top of mind while the teams are retrospecting
15:54:45 <fungi> this time we delayed the analysis outreach because lots of teams skiipped their meetings through december and into early january
15:54:46 <TheJulia> Granted, it won't be as detailed, but any data is better than no data
15:55:38 <fungi> the analysis itself was complete in late november, just by then we were concerned there wouldn't be many people around to hear it
15:55:41 <JayF> ++ to the idea of having this as part of PTG retrospective
15:55:54 <JayF> even if it means we split cycles we're talking about instead of talking about it along release boundaries
15:56:28 <fungi> all very good ideas, thanks, we'll definitely look at what options we might have
15:56:42 <TheJulia> Going back to what JayF sort of said, there seems to be an opportunity, but we don't know what else we can really be doing. I mean, I don't think we're outright ignoring changes and having that pattern of behavior we even see in other projects. :\
15:57:10 <JayF> The real piece we'd need to make improvement on the one thing ID'd
15:57:16 <JayF> is knowing *where* to communicate to these folks
15:57:32 <TheJulia> And, I'm not even sure that is truly a thing we have identified
15:57:57 <cardoe> How to communicate and how to identify patches the team is reviewing?
15:57:57 <fungi> yeah, in this case it seems like the main items raised in analysis were contributor experience survey respondents not understanding how the ironic team prioritizes things, and the drop in number of active maintainers seemed a little odd
15:58:03 <TheJulia> Granted, we could likely go back and scrub/check for stuff just sitting ignored
15:58:04 <JayF> agreed; just making sure it's not left at 'communicate harder' which isn't really useful :D
15:58:15 <cardoe> fungi: the prioritization thing a feedback against other projects?
15:58:18 <TheJulia> JayF: actualy, that is anti-useful
15:58:40 * JayF notes he has a review dash he uses to see things not marked prio across any ironic repo which occassionally unearths things
15:58:52 <cardoe> JayF: all maintainers are issued bullhorns and make announcements using bullhorns.
15:58:59 <fungi> cardoe: yes, it seemed we had indication it was a common issue due to secondary symptoms highlighted in epoxy responses so we added direct questions about it for flamingo
15:59:18 <cardoe> JayF: yeah that's what I've been using as well. I'd honestly like us to abandon stuff that should be abandoned so that I stop coming back to it.
15:59:19 <TheJulia> "communicate harder" when you don't know where the disconnect is, is practically gaslighting. We need to to constructive data. :(
15:59:22 <JayF> cardoe: I've been alive 43 years and some change. Not a single time, ever, has anyone offered me any kind of voice amplification device ;)
15:59:49 <JayF> cardoe: you are a core. Use the abandon button. Just give the person an action if they want to re-open it
16:00:09 <fungi> right, i don't think asking anyone to "try harder" is going to help, that's definitely not the goal. it's to try and find what's working and see if we can replicate those patterns, or come up with additional time-saving solutions for maintainers
16:00:27 <TheJulia> Please don't give JayF a loud speaker ;)
16:00:44 <JayF> I *am* a loud speaker
16:00:49 <TheJulia> exactly!
16:00:59 <fungi> i can hear JayF on conference calls even when he's muted ;)
16:01:09 <TheJulia> lol
16:01:32 <dtantsur> hehehe
16:01:44 <TheJulia> Anyway, was there anything else?
16:01:50 <TheJulia> Like, who is going to run next week's meeting?
16:02:05 <janders> I've got one small thing
16:02:14 <janders> health monitoring Q
16:02:18 <JayF> it's :00 so it needs to be extra small :)
16:02:22 <JayF> TheJulia: I'll be around, I'll make a note
16:02:30 <janders> 2/3 patches merged, https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-ironicclient/+/967055 almost
16:02:40 <janders> should I raise a doco change showing how to use health monitoring?
16:02:45 <TheJulia> A final note, the week of 2/9 I will be in Ireland so unable to run a meeting that week. I'll likely be a zombie the following week since the earliest I'll get to a bed is sunday morning.
16:02:58 <TheJulia> janders: always!
16:02:59 <TheJulia> :)
16:03:04 <janders> OK, will do
16:03:08 <TheJulia> cool cool
16:03:12 <TheJulia> Thank you for pushing that this cycle!
16:03:21 <janders> thanks! further qs I can ask after the meeting
16:03:32 <janders> thank you to all who helped review patches
16:03:41 <JayF> janders: yes
16:03:44 <TheJulia> Thanks everyone! Now, onward and back to regularly scheduled non-meeting chaos!
16:03:54 <TheJulia> #endmeeting