14:00:09 #startmeeting tc 14:00:10 Meeting started Thu Sep 5 14:00:09 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mnaser. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:11 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:00:11 #topic roll call 14:00:13 \o/ 14:00:14 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 14:00:17 o/ 14:00:18 o/ 14:00:19 o/ 14:00:19 o/ 14:00:30 o/ 14:00:33 thanks ttx for pushing the tc members update. do you know if there's one yet for the ptls? 14:00:51 fungi: no, that one is a bit more... complex to make 14:01:03 o/ 14:01:05 (and arguably slightly less urgent) 14:01:22 o/ 14:01:23 sorry, will pick back up on discussion of election topics after the meeting 14:01:24 o/ 14:01:25 after teh 13-member TC, today we have... the 17-member TC 14:01:26 the new tc should confirm that one 14:01:59 * jungleboyj is starting early, though double booked. :-) 14:02:09 a lot of math and counting but i think we have quroum 14:02:15 o/ 14:02:29 ttx: :) 14:02:45 lets get started i guess 14:02:50 mnaser : I count 10 14:02:51 #topic Follow up on past action items 14:03:23 #info mnaser to contact Alan to mention that TC will have some presence at Shanghai leadership meeting 14:03:40 i have done this and let them know we'll be around, but nothing more yet in terms of planning 14:03:58 there is a confirmed time and date, so for those new TC members, please update https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-TC-PTG 14:04:35 i'll try to add more context because we have new members :) 14:04:45 done 14:05:08 every time we have a summit, there is usually a 1 day meeting that involves OSF staff+board+TC+UC+(other OSF projects) 14:05:10 mnaser: and the date / time of the leadership meeting would be helpful 14:05:48 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation#OpenStack_Board_of_Director_Meetings 14:06:04 so it'll be at 3 november, a day before the summit starts, so just a heads up on that :) 14:06:13 we can follow up more on that later, but that action item is done and we can remove it 14:06:29 #info ricolin update SIG guidelines to simplify the process for new SIGs 14:06:29 it's a good way to catch up with jet lag 14:06:36 hah 14:06:42 ricolin: wanna update us on this? 14:06:43 So it conflicts with Upstream Institute again. 14:06:57 I'm currently working on etherpad for that, and will ask SIG chairs to join edit once I'm done with the draft version. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SIGs-guideline 14:07:02 jungleboyj: yeah but depends on place. if it is different then yes 14:07:10 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SIGs-guideline 14:07:15 feedback welcome:) 14:07:20 fwiw we do not have to all be there 14:07:27 OUI is going to be at the Lenovo Offices. So, will need to figure out how to work that out. 14:07:27 just to represent 14:07:32 jungleboyj : it always will 14:07:47 there is no room for everyone in every leadership body anyway 14:07:51 +2 to what ttx mentioned, it is just an update so there's no decision making or anything, we just need representation :) 14:07:56 ttx: Ok. 14:08:08 what's important is that whoever shows up knows what to say 14:08:09 ricolin: thanks. that looks really good 14:08:23 so preparation is more important than being there really 14:08:28 so next step is followingh up with SIG chairs to update/edit ? 14:09:13 mnaser, I assume, need to know how each SIG feel about the current docs before we can simplify it 14:09:33 ++ cool, i assume you'll be continuing to drive this forward yourself? 14:09:40 yes 14:09:49 awesome, thanks for driving all this SIG stuff :) 14:09:53 #action ricolin Follow up with SIG chairs about guidelines https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SIGs-guideline 14:10:07 Hope that's any helpful for Ansible, container SIG and others 14:10:11 #siglife 14:10:12 mnaser, evrardjp ^^^ 14:10:19 yes we're a fresh little bunch :-) 14:10:37 #info ttx contact interested parties in a new 'large scale' SIG (help with mnaser, jroll reaching out to Verizon Media) 14:10:42 #siglife! :) 14:10:45 I will have a look ricolin 14:11:07 I'm a bit behind, as August was not really great for that. Will get it done over the next month 14:11:10 i didn't help much with this unfortunately, jroll hasn't mentioned anything yet here but i remember him saying that verizon gave a "now now we are dealing with fires but it sounds good" 14:11:46 ok ill readd it as an action item again but dropping the verizon part, we can follow on that later, i dont think its that pressing for time 14:11:51 ++ 14:11:58 #action ttx contact interested parties in a new 'large scale' SIG (help with mnaser) 14:12:06 #topic Active Initiatives 14:12:14 #info mugsie to sync with dhellmann or release-team to resolve proposal bot for project-template patches 14:12:21 i think smcginnis brought this up here a few days ago too 14:12:30 we're starting to get train branch requests but i dont know if that code has landed or not 14:12:43 I hav the code, I am in the process of testing it, should have something early next week 14:12:54 awesome 14:13:06 but, fair warning it will land in about 3 places 14:13:21 at least 2 anyway 14:13:54 mugsie: that's surprising; maybe we can talk about the details after this? 14:14:05 dhellmann: sure, np 14:14:14 mugsie: I wouldn't mind syncing with you, as I started to do a few things about it. 14:14:26 I am popular today :) 14:14:32 agreed with dhellmann , happy to see that :) 14:14:41 cool, this can be an office hour-y thing or discussed later, but sounds good 14:14:44 mugsie : you're popular every day, friend 14:14:53 smcginnis: ^ just fyi if you want to go back and read scrollback :) 14:15:12 #info Shanghai TC sessions: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PVG-TC-brainstorming 14:15:30 we need to start adding forum session ideas for the TC 14:15:48 also -- did we add our usual few (i see goals there which is good) 14:16:01 (extended maintenance? bahaha) 14:16:05 dhellmann: :) 14:16:27 based on the thread built off the election results, do we need a "where is OpenStack leadership going to come from in the long run"? 14:16:57 any ideas can go in there and then we can trim them down and clear them up :) 14:17:00 the topic is good, but I would change the phrasing of the title :-) 14:17:27 "The future of stewardship in OpenStack"? 14:17:36 ttx: ++ 14:17:40 yeah, something like that 14:17:43 on goal sessions: we will have single sessions for U (if not finished we have 2 entry for U cycle goal till now ) as well as V cycle goal discussions. 14:17:46 ttx: ++ 14:18:04 ttx: ++ 14:18:09 because it's not just the TC nominees. It's hard to get volunteers to run elections and other community processes 14:18:19 it's not purely a leadership issue 14:18:20 gmann, +1 on separate those two topics 14:18:27 gmann : would it make sense to split those into 2 sessions so you have time to get into details? 14:18:32 Yeah ... It's a whole new world. 14:18:57 ohk. I am wondering if we select the U cycle goal before that 14:18:59 it's a lack of time / interest / recognition for doing community janitorial tasks imho 14:19:15 but then that's already discussing it 14:19:19 right, you could consider the people doing those other tasks leaders of a sort i suppose, even if not elected leaders 14:19:20 :) 14:19:22 in that case we can utilize it for V goal discussion ? 14:19:35 i think we should take all those ideas and put them in that etherpad 14:19:49 we can save discussion for office hours (or if we're done earlier) 14:20:04 I think we need some more time to discuss about what we gonna early start(initial) V-cycle goals, I think that will need time 14:20:19 yes, good office hour topic for this week and the next 14:20:29 since we'll need to submit forum topics soon 14:20:38 cool, yes i think i saw the email that its open now 14:20:51 it is 14:20:52 gmann : even if you have the U goals selected, it would be good to have time to discuss implementation. We skipped that for Train, IIRC, and it has caused issues. 14:20:58 yeah 14:21:14 dhellmann: nice idea. +1 14:21:18 and it allows teams to socialise ideas to do them, or co-ordinate work 14:21:40 i think we can move onto next item and discuss the rest of this in office hours? :> 14:21:43 there should probably always be 2 goals sessions: "implementing goals for N" and "choosing goals for N+1" 14:21:48 ++ 14:21:51 k 14:21:54 I think so 14:22:06 done 14:22:18 #info Forum selection commitee: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-August/008188.html 14:22:27 i think we already have a few volunteers and we can close this one out right? 14:22:43 yeah - I thought we had people 14:22:45 yes 14:22:55 there was a thread 14:23:03 i just wanted to leave it there to confirm that we're all good 14:23:07 so we can drop it for the next one 14:23:38 #info Make goal selection a two-step process (needs reviews at https://review.opendev.org/#/c/667932/ ) 14:23:45 same as ^ 14:23:50 this merged, thanks for the awesome work ttx 14:24:01 ++ 14:24:07 well now it needs to be applied and see if it flies 14:24:13 ++ 14:24:17 just in time :) 14:24:27 heh 14:24:54 #topic leaderless projects 14:25:01 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ussuri-leaderless 14:25:28 ttx: started to do the work on figuring out "wat do" 14:25:58 yes, gives some situational awareness 14:26:07 cybord sounds like a no-brainer 14:26:10 cyborg is easy, yep 14:26:18 we just need to propose that change 14:26:24 thanks for this ttx. I have the impression some names are reoccuring ? 14:26:31 designate seems like it has potential so i'd trust mugsie to make that call 14:26:31 (don't forget the "appointed" key) 14:26:37 evrardjp: yes 14:26:49 ttx: i think we're still waiting for the ptl change to happen.. or do we do that.. 14:26:51 designate: mugsie tooke (yet another) action 14:27:15 mnaser: yeah, I am meeting the suse people after this meeting, and then the other person tomorrow I think 14:27:16 openstacksdk... I can reach out to mordred. Since he lives on a boat, he tends to miss things 14:27:30 The others are all more complicated 14:27:51 i think reaching out to nova ptl (efried) if they're interested in managing placement too? 14:28:01 Re: I18n, I can reach to ianychoi... he did not run because he was an election official 14:28:19 so if that was the ONLY reason for not running, he might save it 14:28:26 yes, he seems willing to cover i18n 14:28:40 i think he realized that only after volunteering to be an election official 14:28:45 fungi: did you talk to him already? 14:28:49 ok that's pretty good in that case 14:28:56 ttx: I thought mordred lived in a plane, surprised of this 14:28:56 he mentioned it in #openstack-election 14:29:07 ok 14:29:11 ok so that might be relatively easy too 14:29:19 evrardjp: well, more that mordred has been on vacation for a few weeks and likely forgot elections were coming up 14:29:23 so fir i18n there was a conversation about moving to sig already 14:29:42 i think for now lets focus our efforts on the tough ones if we have someone who has expressed interest 14:30:05 evrardjp: I've mixed feelings about that. They produce files that are shipped with most deliverables 14:30:16 i think {powervm,win}stackers would probably have the same outcome. and figuring out what to do with placementc 14:30:20 so it's hard to object that they are on the projectteam side of the fence 14:30:22 Graham Hayes proposed openstack/governance master: Appoint Sundar Nadathur as Cyborg PTL https://review.opendev.org/680426 14:30:46 ttx: is that still true? I thought they were focusing on translating documentation now 14:30:58 ttx: in any case, i18n can be first covered as a project then changed governance :) 14:31:03 dhellmann: someone changed openstack and did not warn me? 14:31:13 it's possible I'm wrong 14:31:15 dhellmann: if that is true... and no more zanata... 14:31:21 then yes, SIG all the way 14:31:25 or merge with docs 14:31:50 i think its jsut docs cause we dropped the whole logging translation thing 14:32:04 they did API error messages at one point, too 14:32:13 that's the part I'm no longer sure of 14:32:16 there are other things in code that get tranlated other than logs 14:32:17 horizon? 14:32:18 hmm, ok so needs some checking 14:32:23 ah, yeah, horizon, too 14:32:37 contributors guide 14:32:52 for now, we have someone who is expressed interest so we can figure out that stuff later 14:32:53 but those are one time things not so change frequently 14:32:58 zaneb: you mean there are still things in code that should be moved away ? ;) 14:32:58 i got a zanata commit 7 weeks ago anyway for designate-dash 14:33:03 placement and *stackers are the issue we should focus our time on 14:33:06 even if they're doing some code work, it could be a SIG because those are meant to be cross-project 14:33:15 yes 14:33:18 yeah we still have babel in most of the projects so I suppose there is a reason for this 14:33:20 mnaser : yeah 14:33:24 So.. *stackers first 14:33:32 My position is that they should be moved to SIGs 14:33:37 ttx: ++ 14:33:52 if they aren't active enough to have a PTL, are they going to produce a SIG lead? 14:33:52 They are special interests, and currently outside of the scope of the projects they produce extras for 14:34:19 looks like the last change to nova-powervm is july 22 14:34:22 dhellmann: maybe not, but I just want that variance out of the projectteam list 14:34:33 could we discuss about history of those in terms of missing deadlines? 14:34:40 ttx : sure. What about removing them from the project team list and suggesting they apply to be a SIG if they want to. 14:34:52 rather than converting them automatically 14:34:55 dhellmann: I like this. 14:34:55 It's not a part of openstack, as long as their products are not adopted by the other project teams 14:34:56 i agree with dhellmann on that. esp seeing the code activity.. 14:35:15 https://review.opendev.org/#/q/project:openstack/nova-powervm 14:35:19 review activity is dead too 14:35:20 and I'd argue that at this point it's very unlikely that they will ever be merged mainline 14:35:28 I would prefer ML call first, because it's quite a process to say we close something 14:35:45 tbh, i'm inclined to take more of a strict action here 14:35:48 we've been appointing it for a while 14:35:52 evrardjp, +1 for ML 14:35:53 so I'd jump on the occasion that they missed elections twice in a row and remove them, If they want to continue as an official part of openstack they can, as a SIG 14:35:57 and there's no activity and almost no review activity 14:36:08 +1 14:36:09 ttx: +1 14:36:20 the last merged change was from someone who doesnt even work on the project anymore, 5 weeks ago 14:36:28 ttx: I would say yes: ML notification -> removal of offical 14:36:34 https://review.opendev.org/#/q/project:openstack/nova-powervm+is:merged 14:36:35 Anyone volunteering to take one bullit for the team and proposing that? 14:36:37 the project is quite obviously dead 14:36:37 ttx: ++ 14:36:50 ttx: I'll do it, I'm a lame duck ;-) 14:37:03 Rico and I took the bullet of raising that thread 6 months ago :) 14:37:13 dhellmann: thx ! 14:37:15 gate is broken as well by the looks of it 14:37:21 dhellmann: thanks :) 14:37:26 dhellmann, cool! 14:37:29 https://review.opendev.org/#/q/project:openstack/compute-hyperv+is:merged 14:37:33 That leaves placement 14:37:34 the winstackers does seem to be active though 14:37:41 so i dont think powervm and winstackers is in the same spot 14:37:43 dhellmann: can we assign you all the hard tasks? I might have a queue. 14:37:49 mnaser: sure, but they also did not oppose to transition to SIG 14:38:02 fair enough, ok, so that will fit their interest 14:38:04 sounds good to me 14:38:07 ok, placement. 14:38:08 winstackers is very active - but I am going to step back on anything to do with them 14:38:35 cdent is unable to run bc employer, edleafe is not around, and cdent couldnt find anyone 14:38:37 evrardjp : no, only the "easy but unpleasant" tasks 14:38:38 To me it's a clear special interest - making sure openstack runs well on windows 14:38:59 ++ 14:39:05 which is NOT something openstack teams otherwise guarantee 14:39:06 wait, I thought we were talking about winstackers before? which team did I just agree to deprecate? 14:39:17 powerstacker 14:39:18 PowerVMstackers AND winstackers 14:39:19 powerstackers 14:39:31 ok, let's finish the conversation, and I'll make 2 patches if we're doing both 14:39:44 Everything I said applied to both 14:39:53 so they also missed the deadlines twice? 14:39:57 yes 14:39:59 both 14:40:01 that's fine for me then. 14:40:14 so: placement 14:40:56 ok, 2 patches and 1 email thread coming up 14:41:04 looks like nova meeting is happening right now 14:41:08 yeah 14:41:18 mnaser: please lets not suggest merging before we ask people ar ethey interested 14:41:23 maybe someone can bring it up in the open discussion part if someone from the nova team is interested in helping 14:41:24 on the perfect time of placement topic :) 14:41:26 mugsie: i am not suggesting merging 14:41:32 i am suggesting that the ptl for nova or someoen from the nova team ptls it 14:41:46 I'm willing to give them an opportunity to find someone and step up, as I think it's better as a standalone team (to get adoption from other services) 14:41:46 i can bring there 14:42:03 But if they don't then yes, I'd +1 asking Nova if they would take it 14:42:38 nova nearly didn't have a ptl nomination for U so asking for double duty is a stretch 14:42:38 I agree with the Frenchman again 14:42:59 I would be very hesitent in agreeing to re-merge 14:43:07 mriedem: yes. Also it's a bit unfair after all the drama to dump it back on the Nova team, imho 14:43:18 should be the plan B 14:43:27 let's call it plan F 14:43:35 heh 14:43:40 mriedem++ 14:43:43 I wish there was 6 options 14:43:44 yeah, I see it as asking the neutron team to take octavia if there is no ptl 14:43:50 strong letter choice 14:44:08 evrardjp: ++ 14:44:14 mugsie: ++ 14:44:18 mugsie, lol 14:44:33 mugsie Hey now, we haven't been without a PTL since the project started..... 14:44:39 so plan A would be to find someone to volunteer. My discussion with gibi actually seeded my idea for multi-headed PTLs 14:44:45 Just throwing that out there... 14:45:05 And no, we can't take placement on either. grin 14:45:09 since gibi is still on placement, just not wanting all the dreaded PTL load 14:45:12 johnsom: hahaha 14:45:35 ttx: maybe that's something we should fix 14:45:43 I think this highlights that we're still failing to explain the PTL role 14:45:47 but that will be a longer convo 14:45:55 so, action it to reach out to people in both nova and placement to see who is interested, then we can circle back? 14:45:56 johnsom: mugsie is known for poor examples and misdirected blaming. He accused eavesdrop for being early to the meeting a few hours ago 14:46:00 if a project has nobody working on it, that's one thing 14:46:06 mugsie: that sounds logical 14:46:15 i think this highlgihts why we should kill the ptl role and just replace it by liaisons that dont have to be cycled unless they need to 14:46:15 johnsom: while everyone knows Outlook is to blame for everything 14:46:18 but 14:46:22 that's for another dicussion 14:46:24 but if there are active cores, surely someone can put their name at the top 14:46:24 all this is nice 14:46:31 but it doesn't get us a placement ptl 14:46:32 ttx So true 14:46:53 mnaser: it gives us a process - lets start on the action I suggested, and go from there 14:47:07 we aren't going to fix in the next 70 mins 14:47:09 sorry, i missed that message 14:47:33 16:45 so, action it to reach out to people in both nova and placement to see who is interested, then we can circle back? 14:47:35 16:45 so, action it to reach out to people in both nova and placement to see who is interested, then we can circle back? 14:47:37 oops 14:47:58 that works for me 14:47:58 I had one item I added to the agenda - can we look at that quickly? I have to go talk to prospective PTLs in 10 mins 14:48:19 (naming things) 14:48:30 uh sure i was going over the email one, let me open th ewiki quick 14:48:54 #topic release naming 14:48:55 who takes the placement reachout action? 14:48:56 mugsie: all yours 14:49:00 #link https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?num_winners=1&id=E_844843c6ddc940b7 14:49:01 mugsie: I admire your optimism to get that covered in 10 minutes 14:49:04 i have not checked but wondring if Tetsuro is interested for placement 14:49:20 results are dependant on what algorithm we choose 14:49:31 gmann / ttx / mugsie: nova and placmeent is largely the same core set so it'll probably be the same group of people answering that question 14:49:38 yes. 14:49:48 zaneb, now be positive! 14:49:50 oh, good, so now we have to vote on how to count votes? 14:49:52 it is one of : stay the same | Cites | ICAO alpha 14:50:10 persia: suggested a run off election with those 3 14:50:18 5-4 14:50:24 ricolin: have you met me? 14:50:38 I think we have to say that geographic names are not working and drop that option, since we do not know where the next summits will be. 14:50:39 how would that change the result? 14:50:51 Condorcet needs no run-offs 14:51:05 (Not that I like this result) 14:51:07 right, that's the point of condorcet in the first place 14:51:16 this was "advisory" right? not binding? 14:51:25 dhellmann: sure? 14:51:34 I like ICAO alpha, but that patch suggests changing it now, not when we wrap the alphabet. 14:51:38 I honestely expected ICAO to win hands down 14:51:50 ttx: mnaser mugsie sorry i was typing on nova meeting too for API updates. if no one raised hand to reachout to placemrnt i can do ? 14:51:56 gmann: please! :) 14:51:56 it is pretty tight 14:52:03 smcginnis : we need to change now because we need to decouple selection from the foundation site location process 14:52:03 sure. 14:52:13 We could do a re-run with our new membership 14:52:20 gmann, sweet! 14:52:25 since they are the ones to live with it 14:52:32 Do we need to have lawyer review of the ICAO names to make sure e.g. OpenStack Victor won't fall afoul? 14:52:33 ttx: yes, I like that 14:52:37 oh or.... 14:52:37 ttx that's true 14:52:45 njohnston: good call 14:52:48 dhellmann: In that case, I would choose cities until we wrap up Z, then ICAO names. 14:52:55 We propose ICAO, and we vote. If it does not pass... means we really stay 14:53:03 the same 14:53:15 njohnston, I actually think we do 14:53:20 Is it brexit? How many times can we vote? 14:53:25 Hmmm, I like W for ICAO. :-) 14:53:30 ttx: we can either do that, or we abandon the ones that weren't popular and leave the voting to happen in Gerrit. 14:53:34 evrardjp: we'll need to vote on whatever change in Gerrit anyway 14:53:39 ttx: was there something about ICAO being not trademarkable, so we don't have to worry about njohnston's question? 14:53:47 To avoid end user confusion, I strongly recommend the TC votes for a new scheme for the next A-Z. 14:54:04 smcginnis: yeah, that was supposed to follow on from this 14:54:05 dhellmann: if it's expressedly tied to teh ICAO, then I'd argue it's not, but I can have a check 14:54:19 smcginnis: ++ 14:54:39 I think if we stop naming we lose some of our identity. That is my one bit of input. 14:54:50 i think that's an obviously losing choice based on the voting 14:54:56 so maybe we can just abandon the choices that lost 14:54:57 So... how about... we propose the most popular process change (ICAO) and then if it does not pass, that means we really keep the current process up to Z 14:54:59 and leave the remaining ones as a vote 14:55:00 well, stop naming things basically got 0 votes :) 14:55:15 then we start the discussion for post-Z era 14:55:16 for elections we specify the Schulze/Beatpath method 14:55:28 indeed 14:55:33 oh, then cities won 14:55:34 in which major cities comes out on top 14:55:45 Should I propose an updated one that calls out cities until we reach Z, ICAO alpha starting with the next A? 14:55:50 heh we managed to create a cycle. Perfect 14:55:57 ttx ++ 14:56:05 And yes Schulze is a superior method for breaking them 14:56:06 so one more vote to clear all concerns and live with it till Z? 14:56:07 smcginnis: I would have them as separate patches 14:56:23 ICAO already lost to no change 14:56:33 and I am not sure about having openstack alpha / beta :P 14:56:36 i think we're entering discussion territory rather than action update 14:56:41 mugsie: ++ 14:56:43 :) 14:56:43 mugsie: I'm just concerned that some have indicated the choice would need to be effective immediately. 14:56:51 so maybe we should close out the meeting and leave this discussion to office hours? 14:56:53 major cities beat no change (but lost to ICAO) 14:56:57 mnaser : ++ 14:57:05 yeah 14:57:07 mnaser, yep 14:57:10 And no change would get my vote for now, but not after we reach A. 14:57:15 that means the top 3 are extremely close 14:57:16 and i sleep during that :) 14:57:18 (I didn't vote for major cities, FWIW) 14:57:20 cool, well, thanks for attending. :) 14:57:32 #endmeeting