15:00:01 #startmeeting tc 15:00:02 Meeting started Thu Mar 25 15:00:01 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mnaser. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:05 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 15:00:11 #topic rollcall 15:00:12 o/ 15:00:14 o/ 15:00:15 o/ 15:00:37 o/ 15:01:05 o/ 15:02:00 #topic Follow up on past action items 15:02:17 ricolin Add retired SIGs section for governance-sigs repo 15:02:39 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance-sigs/+/783000 15:02:56 just propose a patch to update current retire process 15:03:11 please take a review:) 15:03:48 also send a ML for discuss about retire Containers SIG http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/021298.html 15:03:52 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/021298.html 15:04:12 Hopefully we can have someone take over containers sig 15:04:33 great 15:04:42 mnaser drop "Audit SIG list and chairs" from agenda <- done 15:05:31 mnaser reach out to OSA team about dropping nv jobs from gate <- did reach out, but did not follow up on it 15:06:15 #topic PTG 15:06:21 gmann: wanna take this as you've taken most of the lead on this? 15:06:29 sure 15:06:34 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/021283.html 15:06:49 posted on ML about doodle poll and etherpad 15:06:56 #link https://doodle.com/poll/2zy8hex4r6wvidqk 15:07:12 we need to select the slots by today as we already passed the deadline 15:07:31 and this is etherpad to collect the topics #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-ptg 15:07:48 mnaser: diablo_rojo_phon are pending to vote for slots 15:08:14 and after that we can decide here about best available non-conflicting slots 15:08:29 ok, i'll add my times t oday 15:08:39 thanks 15:09:17 then we can wait for tomorrow to discuss the final slots? 15:09:31 sounds good to me 15:09:46 we have penalty of slots available in PTG rooms https://ethercalc.net/oz7q0gds9zfi 15:10:23 one item i think diablo_rojo_phon added 'Teams that usually meet that aren't signed up:' 15:10:47 I think there are many teams have not signed up for the PTG but may be diablo_rojo_phon has the data 15:11:20 yes, that would be interesting to know 15:11:45 and yes, let's discuss the best slot tomorrow 15:11:58 once we have data, as TC liaisons we can reach out to teams? 15:12:08 yeah. 15:12:21 I agree 15:12:26 once we select the slots, we have time to add topics 15:12:27 but do we have current liaisons? 15:12:43 yoctozepto: I need to reset, waiting for PTL assignment patches to merge 15:12:45 (I mean, did not they reset?) 15:12:50 ah, OK! 15:12:53 which can be done in this meeting 15:13:07 let's do it then :-) 15:13:13 otherwise they conflict on merge with the PTL assignments patches 15:13:33 that all form my side on PTG topic 15:13:46 awesome 15:13:48 gmann, while you plan to reset TC liaisons, can you also added TC liaisons for SIGs too? 15:13:50 agreed, nice 15:14:09 As we discussed in last meeting 15:14:34 ricolin: sure, let me check the script for that 15:14:45 gmann, thx 15:14:57 cool, can we move ono? 15:15:02 yeah 15:15:52 #topic Gate performance and heavy job configs (dansmith) 15:16:04 sorry, rc1 fire in -nova 15:16:16 uh-oh 15:16:22 happy extinguishing! 15:16:22 I don't really have anything for this this week 15:16:33 no worries 15:16:37 it'll be on our list 15:16:39 good luck :) 15:16:41 I haven't been involved in enough traffic to know if there are still lots of cinder fails or not 15:16:54 but lower volume has made life better regardless :) 15:16:57 ack 15:17:35 cool, we can hop onto next topic 15:17:41 #topic Consensus on lower constraints testing (gmann) 15:18:01 sent the consensus of our last meeting on ML #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-March/021204.html 15:18:03 gmann, sorry double meeting-ing 15:18:11 we can circle back to my topic at the end 15:18:26 and added patch for project-team-guide #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/781900 15:18:37 diablo_rojo: sure, np! 15:18:42 glance has already proposed patches to drop those tests in wallaby and victoria 15:18:48 +1 15:19:08 once 781900 is merged then we are done on l-c things 15:19:24 perfect 15:19:31 awesome, happy we were able to move forward with it 15:19:40 and from next meeting, we can drop this topic 15:20:05 diablo_rojo: can you please check the reply on your question in 781900 ? 15:20:22 gmann, yes I can do that too 15:20:26 thanks 15:20:29 ok, cool, well no that note 15:20:31 #topic Elect TC chair 15:20:55 i noticed gmann put up their tc chair nomination and i support them, i've done this for a while and it'll be good to cycle things up 15:21:08 (i.e. i'm not running for chair) 15:21:10 'tis the link ~> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/782811 15:21:29 perhaps if anyone else is interested they could also post their nomination, otherwise we can land this 15:21:35 +1 15:21:49 are we waiting only today? 15:21:56 is there a schedule? 15:22:02 we've never really had a system or a schedule for this 15:22:08 ack 15:22:24 yeah, may be we can wait for next meeting or so? 15:22:38 or until all TC members ack on current nomination 15:22:45 eh, maybe lets just ask tc-members to vote on that patch 15:22:51 yeah 15:22:55 if they vote yes, that means they arent running i assume 15:22:56 mnaser, +1 15:23:03 ++ 15:23:09 worth remembering, this is not going to be a vote of the entire tc because you're still missing a member 15:23:13 +1 15:23:30 fungi good point 15:23:38 unfortunately! 15:23:38 shouldn't we discuss that first? 15:23:49 I think we are going to today? 15:23:59 yeah, we have that as next topic 15:24:03 well, for what it's wroth, it'll be tc-1 15:24:09 or after PTL one 15:24:11 tc-- 15:24:29 lets hop into the tc one 15:24:32 and then liasons 15:24:35 #topic Discussion for one Vacant TC seat (gmann) 15:24:49 personally i think leaving it at 8 is ok 15:24:58 me too 15:25:05 the charter disagrees? 15:25:08 o/ 15:25:11 except for it being an even number and the sad charter 15:25:15 Sorry for being late btw. 15:25:31 then we can make a charter change, i doubt we're going to enter some giant deadlock as 8 15:25:33 I think we can keep it 8 till next chances to correct it 15:25:35 jungleboyj: it's only 25/60, still below the half 15:25:47 and i'd hesitate to suggest taking votes of the tc to alter the charter when the tc is incomplete, if you want to be certain the changes you make to the charter are valid you need to fill the vacancy first 15:25:56 mnaser: yeah, I don't expect deadlocks 15:26:07 :-) Missed the first ping and got distracted by other people pinging me. 15:26:09 i'm curious why there's a desire not to actually follow the guidlines laid out in the charter 15:26:15 even numbers are not good! 15:26:16 charter change need 2/3 of total TC which still can be completed 15:26:28 fungi: what exactly do we do in this case? 15:26:29 What happened to a special election for spotz ? 15:26:49 i don't know how i feel about late entrances, we've previously denied people for late proposals to be honest 15:26:53 mnaser: the charter says, quite plainly, that if there's a vacant seat and it's more than a few weeks to the next election, you hold a special election 15:27:04 yeah, I remember that special election promise 15:27:18 see the election section of the charter, last bullet 15:27:23 ok cool, so i guess then we have nothing to discuss 15:27:26 lets get an election for one person going 15:27:46 ++ 15:27:47 mnaser this is not "late entrances". It's a new election 15:27:47 for me it is not clear if special election mention in charter is for election vacant term or in between vacancy 15:27:50 ++ Assuming that spotz is still interested. 15:27:51 i'm happy to set that up, just wanted to make sure that was the plan first 15:28:03 gmann: this is between terms now 15:28:15 it doesn't seem like there's much of other choices 15:28:18 it's a technicality that the seat was vacated on the day the election closed 15:28:27 ++ for the new election. But we should expect new candidates 15:28:32 I'm with fungi on this, we have nothing better 15:28:34 so maybe we should start to do that asap so we can have a chair 15:28:46 belmoreira: ++ on that comment 15:28:48 ++ 15:28:55 ok. 15:28:58 yes, i'll get the announcements going today, we can have a short period for nominations, and for voting 15:29:05 verrry short 15:29:06 :-) 15:29:07 belmoreira: agreed 15:29:13 so we should open campaign also for that? 15:29:15 having said that, if we have enough people voting for gmann to be chair 15:29:22 we should probably just land that change 15:29:23 should be normal nom time if we're going to do an election right/ 15:29:27 or just nomination and then election 15:29:32 totally not fair to have a 1-hour nom time or anything like that 15:29:39 lol 15:29:46 tbh, this seems like kinda weird to me 15:29:56 yes, i think the only concern there would be if whoever wins the special election wanted to volunteer as a chair candidate, but i haven't looked closely at the chair selection part of the charter to know if that's really a problem 15:29:58 like making a special exception for a late submission 15:30:01 mnaser, but that will give the new elected member no chance to run for chair 15:30:05 yeah, we should follow the week or so nomination at least 15:30:09 and if it was some random person, I wonder if that would really be happening, but.. whatever :) 15:30:12 ricolin: but if the majority of tc members already want gmann to run 15:30:20 dansmith: no special exception, there's going to be an election, additional people can volunteer if they want to be candidates 15:30:25 mnaser it would be great if we give the new member the opportunity to vote 15:30:34 ok 15:30:46 (i gotta admit, this seems very bureaucratic right now and going to slow us down a bunch) 15:30:52 fungi: ++ 15:31:02 mnaser: yeah, it's a sad occurrence 15:31:03 but sure, let's have a full on election, i'll keep serving chair duties for another week or two as we settle all this out. 15:31:07 so, we need what like two weeks? 15:31:07 yeah, we can hold Chair by then, with our charter previous Chair is default chair until new chair is being elected 15:31:11 Yay for red tape. 15:31:17 a week to let people know that noms will open in a week, then a week for noms, 15:31:22 then a week for voting right? 15:31:22 mnaser ++ but I think is the right thing to do 15:31:26 good reason to put more effort into getting people to run for the tc next time, or spending this cycle amending the charter to schedule further reducing the tc size 15:31:34 jungleboyj: YAY! 15:31:48 we've got other important topics to deal with like, keystone not having a ptl 15:31:56 Indeed. 15:31:57 dansmith: i said "short" we can make it a few days for nominations, no campaigning period, a couple days for voting 15:31:58 so can we just get started with a full on election for one vacant tc seat 15:31:58 agreed 15:32:06 fungi: how is that fair? 15:32:27 dansmith: how is it not? almost everyone volunteers candidacy or votes on the last day anyway 15:32:27 fungi: people need time to run it by their managers, consider the commitment, etc 15:32:30 how about this: noms open 25-3 until 1-4 and then election form 2-4 until 8-4 ? 15:32:30 dansmith: people already had a chance to participate 15:32:38 this is a special election 15:32:44 does not have to be full blown 15:32:45 but realistic 15:32:55 this isn't a special election imho, it has to be normal if we want to be following 'the charter' 15:33:03 oh 15:33:05 if this is just a procedural thing so we can put one more name to make it 9 15:33:15 yeah special election but we should give time to people to think on running 15:33:18 the charter doesn't say how long a special election needs to be, it just says to hold a special election 15:33:20 then let's just not pretend it is and just put in the late candidate and call it a day 15:33:31 xD 15:33:31 * dansmith has a call, brb 15:33:47 i'm all for less bureaucracy, but if you want less bureaucracy YOU NEED THE CHARTER REVISED 15:33:48 I love it how each one of us has a slightly different opinion on that 15:33:57 yoctozepto: welcome to the tc :) 15:34:00 that is healthy though, mostly. 15:34:03 I feel noms for a week and then election can be of 3-4 days if needed to be 15:34:11 mnaser: yeah, it looks fine sof ar 15:34:14 so far* 15:34:30 how about this 15:34:37 open noms for 2 weeks and announce it today 15:34:45 that way we'll have the same normal 1 week notification before hand 15:34:46 (we surely need to prioritise the charter revision) 15:34:49 just merged into two 15:35:04 i can do that. will send it shortly after the tc meeting wraps 15:35:22 yoctozepto: ++ 15:35:27 that's very permissive and closes the discussion 15:35:30 let's go with that 15:35:36 what about voting time, another week? 15:35:37 +1 15:35:49 yes, a week for election, same way we always do, if we have an election that is 15:36:10 well, it would be all for nothing if nobody actually stepped up 15:36:12 yeah that is fair enough 15:36:18 what then :D 15:36:25 Right, if no one else puts their name up then we wouldn't need the polling period. 15:36:27 need to get the charter right next time 15:36:35 And we can be done after nominations close 15:36:44 \o/ 15:36:50 diablo_rojo: well, if we stay with 8 out of 9 15:36:53 we are still deadlocked 15:36:57 :D 15:37:04 that's the thing i find silly 15:37:08 is that if we don't have anyone 15:37:08 me too 15:37:12 anyone can just show up 15:37:13 put tehir name 15:37:14 Right, like I said, if we only get one nomination to fill the one seat 15:37:14 be 9th 15:37:15 and stay afk 15:37:35 so that's why this just feels like we want to have 9 people for the sakes of having 9 people 15:37:38 diablo_rojo: we were discussing as if 0 came ;-) 15:37:38 * jungleboyj is shaking my head 15:37:41 but anyways, this is something we should work out in the charter 15:37:46 ohhh 15:37:52 jungleboyj: whose head? 15:37:58 this is what I get for doing two meetings in parallel 15:37:58 yeah, we need clear wording in charter 15:38:02 :-) My own at the moment. 15:38:10 :D 15:38:22 mnaser: anyone could already just show up and put in their name 15:38:27 that's what the charter *says* 15:38:50 mnaser: Yeah, that is no different than if we only had one candidate during the election. 15:38:58 if you want some minimum merit barrier to entry for being a tc candidate, you need to adjust the charter 15:39:06 ok 15:39:12 now 15:39:17 * jungleboyj nominates my cat 15:39:27 fungi run that election and we worry during it 15:39:29 do we all ABSOLUTELY feel like the 9th person to come here HAS to be present for us to nominate a chair? 15:39:33 jungleboyj: :) 15:39:33 that's the plan :D 15:39:44 I'll resend my nomination 15:39:46 my concern is that given this might be 3 weeks 15:39:47 (your cat needs to be a foundation individual member, might not qualify on legal grounds as a "person") 15:40:16 Oh fungi, I can always count on you to know the charter. 15:40:21 we'll be so close to PTG time 15:40:46 spotz: Do you want to run for chair? 15:40:52 then let's make nomination as 1 week and result 1 week, if that can help 15:41:00 No on chair 15:41:07 s/result/election 15:41:26 * dansmith is back 15:41:27 I think 1 for nom and 1 for election will be a good plan 15:41:28 I read the charter, can't find anything that would block us from selecting the chair 15:41:28 the 9th member can show up and disagree on gmann being a chair, if all 7 of us want to nominate them as chair, then that's a bit of a waste of time 15:41:33 I am ok with still voting on chair, but I know it is technically not fair. 15:41:34 I think that waiting on the chair voting is crazypants 15:41:46 dansmith ++ 15:41:52 so please, we're doing the red tape thing for the election, let's not delay the chair deal 15:41:55 * diablo_rojo crosses fingers no one else tries to run and its just spotz and we can have all this done in a week 15:42:25 Ok, so lets go with a week nomination, week selection. 15:42:26 come on, the chair election is not blocked by any legal yadda-yadda 15:42:33 Then do the chair now. 15:43:03 * yoctozepto remembers being taught to never use the phrase "do somebody" 15:43:06 tc-members: please vote on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/782811 if you feel like gmann is a good chair candidate. if we have consensus that cant be broken by another vote, then we'll look into it 15:43:17 ok... about the 4 TC candidates? When they start the new term? 15:43:20 and merge it 15:43:24 they've already started, acls are updated 15:43:28 and they will be voting on that change 15:43:32 belmoreira: yes, hi! 15:43:38 yoctozepto: Ooops. 15:44:02 the reason i'm strerssing about this 15:44:02 jungleboyj: TIL? :D 15:44:04 5 tc +1 already 15:44:08 is because PTG is coming up soon 15:44:15 mnaser ok 15:44:16 and i really don't think a chair transition a week before PTG 15:44:28 is probably going to do us any good 15:44:41 Agreed. Thankfully gmann has already started organizing things. Thank you! 15:44:43 mnaser, agreed 15:45:05 jungleboyj: np! 15:45:11 anyways, we can discuss this more, but please be mindful of that 15:45:30 i'm happy to continue to do my job as chair, but i just think for our overall health, we should settle this out 15:45:31 While not ideal, its not like the new chair is going to be super new to everything and not have the context? 15:46:04 right, but PTG organization is generally a chair responsiblity amongst other things, so do i start doing all of those only to talk out a week before 15:46:25 or do i organize them with gmann and have them do the same thing which essentially means we're just red taping stuff and we're all just agreeing for something that's going to inevitebly happen 15:46:37 Well its not like it *has* to be *only* the chair doing it ahead of time and its already happening anyway? 15:46:40 we have 5 already, 15:46:44 can we not just merge that thing? 15:46:51 merge 15:47:00 merge 15:47:01 merge 15:47:02 merge 15:47:03 merge 15:47:04 lol 15:47:05 merge 15:47:06 stop it 15:47:06 Lol 15:47:17 i feel bad because gmann gets a not-so-great welcome :( 15:47:25 and im sorry they got caught in all of this 15:47:37 no worry, its TC :) 15:47:46 gmann, know we want you as our chair! 15:47:58 at least the 5 of us :D 15:48:01 Unfortunate timing, but that doesn't mean we appreciate gmann any less :) 15:48:10 ++ 15:48:22 diablo_rojo: you vote too :D 15:48:25 im going to merge this. if any tc member disagrees with it, please propose a revert with reasoning and if enough tc members agree wih the revert, we can revert. 15:48:33 ~> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/782811 15:48:42 yoctozepto, as soon as I stop being split in half by meetings 15:49:01 ops 15:49:14 diablo_rojo: is it vertical split? or a horizontal one? 15:49:16 now, we have a chair pending zuul. congrats gmann, with 5/9 votes you're at 55% so over 50% 15:49:18 * yoctozepto needs to know 15:49:20 I had 9 meetings scheduled in 3 hours this morning. 15:49:26 * jungleboyj is tired of meetings. 15:49:31 yoctozepto, vertical 15:49:43 and for the vacant seat, we'll wait for the results of the election 15:49:46 diablo_rojo: ack! 15:49:49 we have very little time 15:49:51 gmann: Congratulations and thank you! 15:49:51 #topic PTL assignment for Xena cycle leaderless projects (gmann) 15:49:54 i'd like to focus on keystone 15:49:58 thanks 15:50:06 yeah next topic 15:50:10 ( gmann: congrats! ) 15:50:14 ++ 15:50:17 thanks 15:50:21 congrats gmann 15:50:27 keystone meeting did not happen i think 15:50:35 at all? 15:50:41 i pinged on keystone channel and gagehugo added it in their meeting agenda 15:50:47 belmoreira: thanks 15:50:52 hm 15:51:15 gmann: we had a meeting this week 15:51:18 I did see knikolla sign up for PTG time for keystone. 15:51:25 gagehugo: ohk, sorry 15:51:33 any updates 15:51:36 general consensus is using the DPL 15:51:40 DPL model* 15:51:46 oh cool 15:52:21 +1, 15:52:29 gagehugo: do you need help in figuring out the roles etc 15:52:47 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/keystone/2021/keystone.2021-03-23-16.59.log.txt 15:52:51 gagehugo: i feel like i can already identify the security liaison :p 15:52:58 haha 15:53:16 knikolla mentioned he would propose moving to DPL 15:53:21 that's one very compressed meeting 15:53:21 and yeah I'll assume that role 15:53:22 gagehugo: these are three roles need as mandatory https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/782195/2/reference/projects.yaml#939 15:53:46 it is :( 15:54:13 gagehugo: knikolla thanks for taking responsibility 15:54:14 ok well this is some good news 15:54:52 other than keystone, all PTL assignments and Mistral DPL model is all up and might be ready to merge? 15:54:55 gagehugo: and knikolla Thank you! 15:55:25 gmann: i think so, i can go over them or work with you on those 15:55:39 mnaser: +1 thanks 15:55:57 thanks to our keystone heroes, gagehugo and knikolla, let the keystone realm prosper under their reign 15:56:04 (or so it says) 15:56:25 :) 15:56:28 cool, anything else? 15:56:48 ptls clear 15:56:52 now tc liaisons? 15:57:14 nothing from my side, its great we figured out all the leaderless things before PTG \o/ 15:57:21 ++ 15:57:25 yoctozepto: yes, I will propose 15:57:54 ack, thanks 15:57:58 having said that 15:58:06 I was just wondering if we want to discuss anything regarding them 15:58:11 i think if anyone wants to propose themselves as a liaisnon for a specific project 15:58:14 and then the rest are randomized 15:58:28 o/ sorry, i'm out sick and haven't had a chance to propose the change 15:58:41 does it make sense to be the PTL and tc liaison for a project? 15:58:46 (thinking about Masakari here) 15:58:54 (tbh, that would be the shortest path result) 15:59:00 I forget, 15:59:08 do I propose my change before gmann proposes the random ones? 15:59:14 yes 15:59:15 yeah, I will reset it and then we can start proposing ourselves as liaisons and then random assignments for remaining projects 15:59:17 other tc-members too 15:59:20 or do I slip gmann a $20 under the table to give me the "random" things I want 15:59:28 lol 15:59:44 yoctozepto: there is no restriction on PTL and liaison at same time 15:59:48 ( dansmith: psst, it's $30 nowadays ) 15:59:54 dansmith: heh 15:59:54 Merged openstack/governance master: Add Ghanshyam nomination as chair https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/782811 15:59:55 man, inflation 16:00:02 :-) 16:00:09 nice change to merge to end on 16:00:14 thanks for having me as chair y'all :) 16:00:16 gmann: officially the new chair during the meeting 16:00:18 #endmeeting