15:01:24 <evrardjp> #startmeeting tc
15:01:25 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Apr 21 15:01:24 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is evrardjp. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:26 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:01:28 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
15:01:39 <jungleboyj> o/  Only kind of here.  In another important meeting.  Will try to follow along if I can.
15:01:48 <evrardjp> #topic leaderless projects part 2
15:01:58 <njohnston> o/
15:01:59 <evrardjp> who is available?
15:02:51 <gmann> o/
15:02:58 <belmoreira> o/
15:03:03 <evrardjp> I have taken notes in the etherpad, based on last meeting
15:03:10 <evrardjp> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/victoria-leaderless
15:03:38 <evrardjp> so we covered infra yesterday, so the next one should be LOCI
15:03:42 <evrardjp> #topic loci
15:03:46 * gmann 8 voted available on doodle :)
15:04:30 <njohnston> tc-members leaderless projects meeting ping
15:04:31 <evrardjp> thanks for the clarification gmann: Worth pinging them manually if they haven't shown up?
15:04:40 <knikolla> o/
15:05:13 <mnaser> bonjour
15:05:34 <gmann> mugsie: cloudnull ricolin ping for meeting
15:05:37 <evrardjp> good morning to you :)
15:06:10 <cloudnull> o/
15:06:13 <evrardjp> I think the first topic is quite easy to deal with, so maybe we should just get started
15:06:34 <evrardjp> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/718933/
15:07:01 <evrardjp> it doesnt' show up in code-review, because I had to rebase multiple times, but this was approved by the PTL of OSH. So I think we should go ahead there.
15:07:09 <njohnston> +1
15:07:44 <gmann> make sense.
15:07:53 <evrardjp> if you haven't voted there please do :)
15:08:02 <evrardjp> the usual suspects have voted :D
15:08:41 <evrardjp> next topic then
15:08:46 <evrardjp> #topic packaging-rpm
15:09:00 <evrardjp> so for that it's an open question, IMO
15:09:10 <evrardjp> I have pinged the folks in their channel
15:09:29 <evrardjp> they would be okay with a SIG, but also okay with a project without PTL
15:09:51 <evrardjp> they don't want to change much of their structure for now, as they don't know yet what the future will be made of
15:10:06 <evrardjp> They want to discuss that internally before coming up with a proposal
15:10:28 <evrardjp> I intend to help them on the way, if necessary phase them out (option 5)
15:10:42 <gmann> but what is reason of not have PTL when they have maintainer ?
15:10:50 <evrardjp> I think this project could be a good "tentative" of option 4
15:11:00 <evrardjp> because they don't really need one
15:11:14 <evrardjp> if I understood correctly
15:11:31 <evrardjp> they are already very distributed, with people sharing the duties, but all equally
15:11:38 <evrardjp> and all equally*
15:11:56 <evrardjp> So my question here: Can we have a deadline for their conversations and reconvene?
15:12:02 <evrardjp> Would that be okay for you all?
15:12:04 <njohnston> Are there any downsides towards making them a SIG?
15:12:27 <gmann> for community goal and so we need at least point of contact. otherwise it is very difficult for champion
15:12:28 <evrardjp> I think the downside is to move towards a new structure, if later they will just drop the project
15:12:41 <evrardjp> that's fair gmann
15:13:09 <evrardjp> but I am not sure how they map to future or recent community goals, due to their different nature
15:13:18 <gmann> there is no release form them right ?
15:13:31 <evrardjp> they do release some artifacts, but I think those are _independent
15:13:37 <gmann> i see
15:13:49 <njohnston> the thing is a PTL-less project is also a novel structure - even more so because we are still figuring out the rules for how a PTL-less project will work
15:14:19 <evrardjp> (like pymod2pkg)
15:14:57 <evrardjp> rpm-packaging is untagged, but branched
15:15:23 <evrardjp> njohnston: yup
15:15:38 <evrardjp> here I am merely asking if we are okay to give them a delay to rethink if they should exist too
15:15:44 <evrardjp> I think it's a fair question
15:15:51 <evrardjp> and I understand why they need to think about it
15:15:51 <njohnston> I am fine with reconvening but if we talk to them and they don't have an opinion, then I think it would be good to have an idea of where we would take it, if it is left up to us
15:16:02 <evrardjp> fine for me
15:16:16 <evrardjp> even though they don't like the answer
15:16:17 <gmann> +1
15:16:29 <evrardjp> even though they might not like the answer*
15:16:30 <njohnston> +1 for waiting period for discussion and discernment
15:16:39 <evrardjp> reconvene in a week?
15:16:56 <njohnston> maybe we can handle it in next week's Thursday office hours?
15:17:02 <evrardjp> sounds good to me
15:17:11 <evrardjp> gmann: opinion?
15:17:15 <gmann> +1
15:17:29 <njohnston> tc office hours is right after their team meeting
15:17:30 <evrardjp> I am pinging you because it seems only the 3 of us are really active here :p
15:17:41 <evrardjp> njohnston: oh that's perfect!
15:17:52 <gmann> nice.
15:18:03 <evrardjp> though most of them are european, so it might be late
15:18:10 <evrardjp> iirc
15:18:12 <evrardjp> meh
15:18:20 <gmann> evrardjp: but we might need to check with release team or you can tell :) if that delay any of the release activity from their side ?
15:18:22 <evrardjp> it's work from home pandemic time nowadays anyway
15:18:41 <evrardjp> I don't think we should change this for the current release
15:18:51 <evrardjp> though I don't expect a change for the coordinated release
15:19:01 <evrardjp> because of the release model
15:19:04 <evrardjp> I have to double check
15:19:05 <gmann> i mean current release is all good from their side right or waiting for new PTL to do?
15:19:13 <gmann> ok.
15:19:18 <ricolin> o/
15:19:22 <ricolin> sorry I'm late
15:20:09 <evrardjp> gmann: what I meant is that they will have no need to tag, AFAIK, their main repos (only to branch), so no impact there. And the independent should also be no impact
15:20:13 <evrardjp> but I will double check
15:20:22 <evrardjp> just to make sure I didn't forget a deliverable or something
15:20:27 <gmann> evrardjp: i see, thanks
15:20:53 <evrardjp> let's reconvene next week Thursday at the office hours
15:20:56 <evrardjp> moving on then
15:21:01 <evrardjp> #topic tricircle
15:21:37 <evrardjp> it seems we don't have any candidate interested, and the tc is pretty much pointing to option 5.
15:21:48 <evrardjp> anyone wants to take this, like njohnston did?
15:21:49 <knikolla> ++
15:22:01 <gmann> I was checking the ussuri activity and it is almost same as Congress. no project related work. just doc or py2 drop patches merged
15:22:03 <gmann> #link https://www.stackalytics.com/?metric=commits&release=ussuri&module=tricircle-group
15:22:24 <gmann> so it is clearly un-maintained
15:22:29 <evrardjp> yeah
15:22:31 <gmann> evrardjp: i can take
15:22:53 <gmann> so we are going with same approach - ML + retire from openstack + import to x/
15:22:57 <evrardjp> yeah let's keep it existing in current release and deprecate it to the next, like congress
15:23:00 <gmann> to double check
15:23:07 <evrardjp> yeah maybe no need to import to x
15:23:17 <evrardjp> if necessary, they will re-import to x :p
15:23:28 <evrardjp> or maybe I missed the thing?
15:23:29 <gmann> you mean keep in openstack/ namespace ?
15:23:38 <evrardjp> oh wait, yeah that doesn't seem right
15:23:40 <evrardjp> my bad :p
15:23:41 <gmann> that is confusion for me too.
15:23:44 <ricolin> :)
15:23:52 <evrardjp> yeah
15:23:59 <evrardjp> let's not have that confusion around
15:24:10 <gmann> retire means it has to move away from openstack/ namepspace and we also do not want to remove the code for sometime if someone come back
15:24:12 <evrardjp> if it's not official openstack it probably should move to x/
15:24:18 <evrardjp> gmann: agreed
15:24:29 <ricolin> agreed
15:25:18 <gmann> ok. we need to check x/ namespace criteria also as clarkb pointed out if no maintainer then difficult to keep it in x/ ? if i read the email correctly ?
15:25:43 <evrardjp> I might have read this wrong too
15:25:47 <evrardjp> this wrong*
15:25:49 <gmann> may be clarkb or fungi can clarify if ok to keep under x/ without maintainer
15:25:56 <njohnston> yes I think clarkb's point is that there's no point in making it x/ without interest, so let's wait for interest to surface before creating x/
15:26:14 <njohnston> until then it can just lie dead-headed in openstack/
15:26:17 <clarkb> njohnston: yup exactly
15:26:23 <clarkb> we don't need an extra copy of the repo until people want to use it
15:26:39 <mnaser> njohnston: agreed -- dead-headed meaning repo with empty commit, correct?
15:26:49 <mnaser> or a commit to empty out the whole thing
15:26:49 <evrardjp> but how do you know it's retired then? just because of the HEAD of the master branch?
15:26:54 <clarkb> evrardjp: yes
15:26:56 <gmann> but we will be removing it from openstack/ name space right
15:27:00 <clarkb> gmann: no
15:27:07 <njohnston> empty in master yes, but we can keep the stable branches in case someone running an old release needs it
15:27:12 <clarkb> openstack/congress stays with an empty master commit with a readme
15:27:13 <mnaser> i think the repo will exist, it wont' be deleted, but just have an empty repo (git history is still there)
15:27:18 <clarkb> thatreadme can say "this is how we can help you fork"
15:27:27 <ricolin> once we cut ussuri, master will be dead
15:28:16 <njohnston> it's still a valid choice for someone to want to run congress with their stable/rocky cloud, we should not break that
15:28:21 <gmann> and if anyone want to maintain it it can be from last available stable version ..
15:28:36 <evrardjp> It's consistent with what we've done for other things
15:28:40 <evrardjp> see for example: https://opendev.org/openstack/astara
15:28:41 <ricolin> gmann, njohnston that sounds right to me
15:28:45 <gmann> yeah.
15:29:07 <gmann> I agree not to have extra copy in x/
15:29:19 <evrardjp> so yeah, ML + deprecations of master, and if necessary, people will fork in x/ when they want to
15:29:22 <gmann> thanks clarkb for clarification.
15:29:34 <gmann> evrardjp: yeah.
15:30:16 <gmann> evrardjp: i will ping you on release channel to have ussuri release for its deliverable.
15:30:20 <evrardjp> and yeah that didn't seem right to keep the project up in openstack/ open, but that's right for existing branches, and for HEAD of master, IMO, so let's continue the way it is :)
15:30:31 <evrardjp> gmann: lgtm
15:30:39 <evrardjp> I think we have something pending by smcginnis
15:30:42 <evrardjp> already
15:31:10 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/721468/
15:31:17 <gmann> nice ^^
15:31:52 <evrardjp> yeah I don't expect the PTL to vote on this. We might need to work to fix the CI :/
15:32:22 <evrardjp> (not sure why validate is broken, whether it's from releases or from tricircle)
15:32:30 <evrardjp> (but I doubt it's from releases :p )
15:32:42 <fungi> gmann: sorry, like yesterday, this is falling in the middle of another meeting clarkb and i are both in
15:32:49 <evrardjp> gmann: let's sync over this in the release channel
15:33:15 <evrardjp> fungi: don't worry, we got it! :)
15:33:18 <gmann> fungi: np!. clarkb clarified now. all good.
15:33:28 <evrardjp> and sorry for the interruption
15:33:36 <evrardjp> we wanted to be double sure :)
15:33:52 <smcginnis> evrardjp: Looks like the repo has issues.
15:34:10 * evrardjp considers that he should work on his memory issues :p
15:34:18 <smcginnis> Problem with the README file and can't build an sdist.
15:34:23 <evrardjp> classic
15:34:32 <evrardjp> :D
15:34:39 <evrardjp> let's deal with it in release
15:34:49 <gmann> yeah
15:35:18 <evrardjp> I think that's all for today
15:35:22 <evrardjp> am I correct?
15:35:33 <njohnston> agreed
15:35:37 <gmann> yeah.
15:35:37 <njohnston> good job all
15:35:49 <ricolin> nice job evrardjp :)
15:35:50 <evrardjp> please note that I have started to work on the i18n
15:36:14 <evrardjp> so if you could have a look at my patch in governance that would be awesome
15:36:34 <evrardjp> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/721605/
15:36:37 <evrardjp> anyway
15:36:42 <evrardjp> thanks everyone for working on this
15:36:57 <evrardjp> let's reconvene in the office hours for progress updates
15:37:03 <gmann> thanks all and evrardjp for chair.
15:37:11 <evrardjp> :)
15:37:13 <evrardjp> #endmeeting