15:00:10 <gmann> #startmeeting tc 15:00:11 <jungleboyj> o/ 15:00:11 <openstack> Meeting started Thu May 6 15:00:10 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:12 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:00:14 <gmann> #topic Roll call 15:00:14 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 15:00:17 <gmann> o/ 15:00:17 <ricolin> o/ 15:00:23 <mnaser> o/ 15:00:23 <jungleboyj> Happy Thursday. 15:01:23 <gmann> let's start 15:01:30 <belmoreira> o/ 15:01:35 <gmann> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda_Suggestions 15:01:39 <gmann> today agenda ^^ 15:01:51 <gmann> #topic Follow up on past action items 15:01:51 <dansmith> o/ 15:02:01 <gmann> gmann drop PTG topic from agenda 15:02:02 <spotz> o/ 15:02:04 <gmann> done 15:02:12 <gmann> gmann to add SIG chair/co-chair info in sig doc site 15:02:21 <gmann> I have not done this, will push patch today 15:02:28 <gmann> I will continue this as AI 15:02:29 <jungleboyj> ++ 15:02:33 <gmann> #action gmann to add SIG chair/co-chair info in sig doc site 15:02:39 <gmann> gmann to start updates to consume/merge UC responsibility in TC 15:02:49 <gmann> I have added this in Xena tracker etherpad 15:03:07 <gmann> so we can track the work there instead of Action 15:03:43 <gmann> L64 in https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker 15:03:56 <gmann> Gate performance and heavy job configs (dansmith) 15:04:07 <dansmith> things have seemed pretty good lately 15:04:12 <gmann> +1 15:04:15 <diablo_rojo> o/ 15:04:18 <jungleboyj> \o/ 15:04:27 <spotz> +1 15:04:30 <dansmith> I dunno about others, but I've been surprised with how quick things have gone through, how few spurious failures I've seen 15:04:43 <jungleboyj> dansmith: I have noticed that as well. Been better. 15:04:52 <dansmith> cool 15:04:58 <gmann> nice 15:05:17 <yoctozepto> o/ 15:05:48 <spotz> All the ones I've been following have been pretty fast 15:06:31 <gmann> anything else on this topic? 15:07:26 <fungi> opendev's zuul is spending a lot less time at full capacity in recent weeks 15:07:34 <dansmith> not from me, which is a good sign :) 15:07:43 <jungleboyj> :-) ++ 15:07:44 <fungi> not sure if it's a cause or an effect, but it's likely related one way or the other 15:08:14 <jungleboyj> Either way it is good. 15:08:23 <gmann> yeah. 15:08:45 <gmann> let's move next and keep monitoring it 15:08:51 <jungleboyj> ++ 15:09:25 <gmann> I will rename this topic as 'Gate health check' from next meeting which is what we discussed in PTG 15:09:34 <gmann> #topic Project Health checks (gmann) 15:09:52 * dansmith agrees with the topic name change 15:09:53 <gmann> this is continuation of discussion from what we left in PTG 15:09:57 <gmann> L471 https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-ptg 15:10:51 <gmann> one open things we have is whether we should continue with TC liaisons mechanism or find new way to check health/reachout the project team 15:11:53 <gmann> one suggestion from ricolin was to automate the contribution stats check which can give us the health checks for projects 15:12:20 <gmann> any other suggestion? 15:12:32 <ricolin> also belmoreira, and I volunteer to take that action 15:12:38 <ricolin> volunteered 15:12:41 <gmann> yeah. 15:12:45 <dansmith> aren't they two different things? 15:13:01 <ricolin> dansmith, yes, two different indeed 15:13:07 <dansmith> meaning, whether or not to keep the liaisons is a thing.. not sure they're really helping us monitor health currently, 15:13:16 <dansmith> and then another is trying to automate some health metric 15:13:41 <gmann> TC liaisons was started for health checks + reachout to project team 15:13:44 <dansmith> both seem good to me (dropping liaisons which I think don't really do much) and anyone trying to mine data for any reason :) 15:13:51 <dansmith> I know it was, but that's not really happening right? 15:13:59 <gmann> yeah, agree 15:14:22 <spotz> Also outreach before elections will tell us a bit about health but potentially too late 15:15:04 <gmann> +1, and if we see patches not merging in projects repos means we can just reachout to team if they are active or need help or so 15:15:31 <belmoreira> +1 15:15:38 <jungleboyj> Yeah, I think adding the data mining is an important first step. 15:15:49 <gmann> for 1st part health checks, we can wait for automate things 15:16:23 <gmann> but as TC liaisons which is supposed to reachout to projects team what next we can try ? 15:16:35 <gmann> main goal here is to engage project team with TC 15:16:38 <dansmith> have we spent as much time reaching out to projects we're liaison for, as we have maintaining the list of liaisons? 15:17:01 <dansmith> the latter has happened twice since I showed up, and it's the most liaison-related activity I've seen (obviously I don't see what people are doing, but just guessing) 15:17:31 <gmann> agree, this is not working so definitely need change 15:18:01 <gmann> but before we remove the liaison things we should have some other way in place 15:18:50 <jungleboyj> dansmith: You aren't alone. 15:19:14 <jungleboyj> Thought we did have an activity at some point last year where we had a coordinated effort for liaisons to reach out. 15:19:40 <dansmith> gmann: I don't think we need a replacement for something that brings no value, but it's also only costing us maintaining the useless list, so if having it makes us feel better, then that's fine too I guess :) 15:21:14 <gmann> sure, if any new way also goes same way 'no value' then yes I agree with you to not continue that 15:22:10 <belmoreira> I agree with dansmith 15:22:23 <belmoreira> also, if we detect that a project is not healthy we can find a TC volunteer to interact with the project 15:22:26 <gmann> one idea i have is to conduct PTL+TC meeting (audio/video) monthly or once in a 2 month and ask them about their feedback on us or anything they would like to see TC doing 15:22:35 <jungleboyj> belmoreira: ++ That makes sense. 15:22:46 <gmann> belmoreira: yeah for project health that works fine/ 15:22:46 <fungi> at one point it was suggested that the liaisons give teams specific points of contact on the tc they can reach out to, but i'm unconvinced that's any easier than just reaching out to the tc as a whole, or random tc members 15:22:49 <ricolin> One way we can try is to have liaison for projects on demand, like right now, we might need someone to check with sahara for potential no maintainer left or check with DPL model projects for one cycle to see if they're doing okay. The only down side for this is we can't really find out when a project goes from healthy to unhealthy 15:22:56 <spotz> It sounds like what ricolin and belmoreira have planned is the first part of a new plan. It's worth a try and there's nothing wrong with just getting rid of something not working 15:23:06 <gmann> but to engage project teams more with TC we need some reachout mechanism 15:23:12 <jungleboyj> fungi: ++ 15:23:13 <dansmith> fungi: finding that list (or even knowing it exists) is probably much harder than coming here and asking something :) 15:23:19 <fungi> agreed 15:23:47 <spotz> ++ 15:23:49 <gmann> yeah. 15:23:58 <jungleboyj> spotz: I agree. 15:24:16 <ricolin> gmann, +1 15:24:37 <gmann> for unhealthy projects I think we have agreed way of what ricolin and belmoreira is planning to do. 15:25:01 <gmann> for reachout/engage healthy projects with TC, does PTL+TC meeting idea fine? 15:25:23 <dansmith> gmann: are you talking about a big meeting where all the PTLs come at once? 15:25:23 <gmann> I feel once in a 2 month should be enough 15:25:31 <gmann> yeah 15:25:39 <gmann> or whoever want to join 15:25:52 <gmann> I am sure not all will be there at same time but if they do yes 15:25:58 <spotz> And should we return to imperson go back to having the TC session in the Forum 15:26:01 <gmann> or we can divide into slots 15:26:08 <dansmith> IMHO, that adds something to their calendar for a checkin, which is pretty inefficient, and is likely to be ignored by most.. we have these meetings every week that they can join if they have concerns 15:26:15 <ricolin> gmann, like a mid-cycle meeting? 15:26:32 <jungleboyj> dansmith: Right. Everyone is in meeting burnout as it is. 15:26:39 <dansmith> right, especially right now 15:27:03 <dansmith> maybe we could do something like that each time before a PTG in the week leading up to it so we don't compete 15:27:27 <dansmith> but once every two months seems too often to me for a heavyweight meeting, but that's just MHO 15:27:44 <dansmith> mostly thinking about how I as a PTL would consider that obligation in my current calendar load 15:28:36 <dansmith> I feel like I'm being so negative today, my apologies gmann :) 15:28:40 <ricolin> It make sense to me to at least reach out one month before cycle election 15:28:42 <gmann> ok, twice in a cycle. like once in the mid of cycle and one during end like before PTG or so 15:29:11 <gmann> +1, 'reach out one month before cycle election' this can solve our election promotion also 15:29:28 <dansmith> that periodicity seems better for sure 15:29:32 <jungleboyj> I think that sounds reasonable. 15:29:44 <gmann> dansmith: no, its been productive discussion which is what we need otherwise we end up trying no-value-addition things :) 15:30:47 <spotz> Sounds good 15:31:00 <gmann> ok, let's try periodic one with slot or so. I will prepare something on time/slot/agenda etc and we can continue discussion in next meeting.. 15:31:24 <jungleboyj> gmann: ++ 15:31:42 <ricolin> +1 15:31:48 <gmann> #action gmann to prepare the etherpad for draft proposal of PTL+TC periodic meeting 15:32:11 <gmann> anything else on this? 15:32:31 <ricolin> should encourage SIG chair to join this meeting if possible:) 15:32:45 <gmann> yeah, good point. 15:32:53 <belmoreira> ricolin that's a good idea 15:32:55 <ricolin> also popup 15:32:57 <gmann> ack 15:33:27 <gmann> we should merge the PTL word with PTL+SIG-chair+popup-team-chair 15:33:45 <jungleboyj> Community leaders 15:33:50 * diablo_rojo is failing at doing two meetings at once 15:33:54 <gmann> +1, better idea 15:34:13 <gmann> ok let's move next 15:34:15 <gmann> #topic TC's context, name, and documenting formal responsibilities (TheJulia) 15:34:15 <spotz> Yeah 15:34:30 <gmann> we discussed about it in previous week meeting 15:34:59 <gmann> and agreed to add the 'Merging/documenting the UC responsibility in TC and docs.' which i added in Xena tracker also 15:35:02 <gmann> L64 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker 15:35:30 <diablo_rojo> For the record, I do think renaming is a good idea (particularly with the changes over the last year merging the UC + TC). 15:35:38 <diablo_rojo> Since I wasn't here last week to voice that opinion. 15:35:45 <gmann> +1 15:36:01 <gmann> yeah that is why i kept this for this week too. in case you missed last week meeting 15:36:02 <dansmith> I don't, FWIW 15:36:22 <diablo_rojo> dansmith, even though the TC is not just the TC anymore? 15:36:35 <dansmith> even though :) 15:36:51 <yoctozepto> are we aiming for TC still? 15:36:56 <fungi> i think that came up when i was at an appointment... is the concern that people are confused about the tc being the governance body for the openstack project? 15:36:57 <yoctozepto> The Committee 15:37:01 <yoctozepto> :D 15:37:11 <diablo_rojo> dansmith, I assume you explained why last week and I should read those logs? 15:37:11 <gmann> sorry i miss read the diablo_rojo ' I do think renaming is a good idea ' 15:37:26 <gmann> I do not think renaming we need 15:37:36 <dansmith> diablo_rojo: no I wasn't here either and didn't get to opine, hence doing it here 15:37:44 <diablo_rojo> Ahhh got it dansmith :) 15:37:52 <gmann> we still doing same what we used to do + having more user facing members 15:38:14 <diablo_rojo> gmann, yes, but its a mindset change? That would be good to have reflected in the name? 15:38:17 <jungleboyj> Regardless of name we need to act more like a community leadership group and not just technical leaders. 15:38:17 <yoctozepto> why not rename though? That makes sense imho 15:38:19 <gmann> I feel merging the doc which can convey we do user facing discussion + technical things 15:38:30 <yoctozepto> jungleboyj ++ 15:38:34 <jungleboyj> diablo_rojo: ++ 15:38:41 <fungi> the makeup of the tc didn't change when the uc was "folded into" it (for bookkeeping reasons, so the foundation bylaws wouldn't need editing to reflect that the uc is gone) 15:38:50 <diablo_rojo> If we want to keep user focused members a name change might be good as 'Technical Committee' is a bit narrowly focused. 15:38:53 <fungi> the tc has always had representatives of openstack users on it 15:39:12 <jungleboyj> Agreed. 15:39:13 <gmann> true 15:39:18 <fungi> so i don't see it as a new situation 15:39:31 <jungleboyj> Honestly, since joining the TC I haven't found it to be an appropriate name. 15:39:32 <gmann> that is why my point no structural change now what we used to have 15:40:02 <ricolin> agree with fungi's point 15:40:02 <yoctozepto> perhaps then we can rename to fix this old issue 15:40:03 <fungi> the tc engaged in plenty of "non-technical" activities even long before i was on it, for the record 15:40:11 <gmann> if TC is not appropriate name that is since starting then not with uc + tc merge 15:40:31 <fungi> but the name is taken from the foundation bylaws 15:40:35 <diablo_rojo> Yeah fungi that makes sense. Simultaneously, if we no long have a user focused committee, it might be better to rename and be more inclusive? 15:40:38 <yoctozepto> ok, so rename for a different reason 15:40:38 <gmann> but what value a rename will add? 15:40:43 <fungi> because it was described as such when the bylaws were written 15:40:54 <gmann> +1 on bylaw point 15:41:01 <yoctozepto> gmann: sanity :-) 15:41:02 <dansmith> gmann: right, I don't see what it will add.. our users are technical :) 15:41:16 <gmann> yoctozepto: it cost a lot just for sanity :) 15:41:25 <diablo_rojo> I think another part of the idea of doing a rename now was that if other bylaws will be changed with the foundation rename then it might be good to do it all at once to save cost if we decide to do it later? 15:41:36 <gmann> dansmith: exactly, only developers are not considered as technical :) 15:41:42 <fungi> from the perspective of the bylaws, there is an openstack technical committee and an openstack user committee (and for simplicity, the "user committee" is merely made up from a selected subset of tc members these days) 15:41:49 <yoctozepto> well, we are used to paying off TECHNICAL debts :-) 15:42:15 <dansmith> and honestly, this kind of bikeshedding on naming for inclusiveness is really not a useful activity for us to spend time on, yet we seem to do a lot of this kind of thing.. which I guess means we should rename to "The Naming Committee" 15:42:34 <yoctozepto> oh come on 15:42:35 <fungi> yeah, if the idea is to propose an adjustment to the bylaws, then that probably needs to be the topic, "renaming the tc" is really only a small part of it 15:42:36 <jungleboyj> *sad trombone.wav* 15:42:39 <dansmith> or maybe "The committee for ensuring proper pigmentation of conveyance storage facilities" :) 15:42:43 <yoctozepto> the name is important 15:42:58 <yoctozepto> well, that was rude 15:43:05 <gmann> and big issue in rename i see "to convey TC is not gone but just rename" 15:43:16 <spotz> I think a rename would be good and favored it when discussing the merger. Should we maybe figure out what we do as gmann has been working on and then decide on a new name if warranted vs just picking a new name that may not fit when that effort is completed? 15:43:42 <yoctozepto> spotz ++ 15:44:16 <gmann> and we might spend lot of time/cost on 'just renaming without any structural change' 15:44:38 <gmann> if no structural change, i do not see value in spending time on renaming or so 15:44:42 <dansmith> ++ 15:44:50 <jungleboyj> gmann: I do agree with that. 15:44:53 <gmann> not any time is perfect and we can keep changing it 15:44:59 <diablo_rojo> TBH, I had a fair amount of impostor syndrome about joining the technical committee because I didn't think *I* was technical enough so I can imagine I am not the only one in thinking that particularly when you consider those that might be interested in voicing opinions about user things, but maybe doesn't actively contribute upstream.. 15:45:07 <diablo_rojo> Perhaps I am projecting. 15:45:47 <jungleboyj> diablo_rojo: No, you are right. Same here. It is a perception we need to change. 15:45:48 <dansmith> I think the current TC makeup shows that's not a huge deal, personally, but obviously I'm biased 15:45:51 <gmann> I wrote previously also. Technical is not just developer but a wider group or people 15:45:59 <spotz> diablo_rojo: me too 15:46:10 <dansmith> if we were called "the developer committee" I would agree 15:46:16 <gmann> treu 15:46:17 <gmann> true 15:46:47 <gmann> everyone in TC participate in various technical discussion so that is what technical commitee means 15:47:05 <yoctozepto> but not only 15:47:13 <diablo_rojo> I think we should at least consider it since other bylaws updates will be done. 15:47:52 <gmann> humm, I think foundation renaming bylaws change is different things. 15:48:04 <belmoreira> I don't have a strong opinion about the name... but we go back to the PTG discussion... we only allow ATCs to vote for the TC 15:48:06 <gmann> we need to see if there is any structural change or not 15:48:14 <dansmith> belmoreira: I think we resolved that 15:48:17 <gmann> belmoreira: good point 15:48:29 <gmann> we will add AUC as extra ATC 15:48:30 <jungleboyj> belmoreira: That definitely needs to be fixed I feel. 15:48:56 * ricolin remember the same as gmann mentioned 15:48:57 <gmann> I think dansmith has that item https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker 15:49:08 <gmann> L 48 in #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker 15:49:17 <dansmith> well, 15:49:26 <gmann> 'Document the process for adding SIG+project contributors, AUC as extra ATC.' 15:49:27 <diablo_rojo> belmoreira, I think that is a good point. 15:49:38 <dansmith> I was trying to pick things to help with, but I definitely don't think I can do that on my own, especially given the lack of agreement here 15:49:59 <dansmith> so I should probably remove my name from that, unless at least one more person is going to join and drive that :) 15:50:04 <gmann> ? adding AUC as extra-ATC was agreed in PTG 15:50:14 <yoctozepto> yeah 15:50:22 <gmann> i do not think any change in that. 15:50:27 <dansmith> ah, 15:50:33 <dansmith> I thought this also included the naming bit 15:50:50 <gmann> no, renaming is separate things 15:50:53 <dansmith> gotcha 15:50:58 <yoctozepto> cool 15:51:16 <dansmith> I think spotz needs to join this effort for the U part of AUC :D 15:52:07 <gmann> anyways let's keep it separate and clear. how about this plan: 15:52:23 <gmann> 1. making AUC in extra-ATC 15:52:25 <spotz> I think you've just claimed the TC is for users s and they're techniical 15:52:28 <belmoreira> my point is that the TC is now TC + UC, represented by ATC and AUC. Without a name change can be very difficult to reflect this change to the community. 15:52:34 <gmann> 2. merging UC doc into TC site/doc etc 15:52:37 <fungi> it's also worth remembering that the foundation bylaws don't define the word "technical" but effectively imply that it's a handle for any governance not relaetd to administration of legal matters, trademarks, et cetera 15:52:42 <diablo_rojo> belmoreira, +2 15:53:14 <gmann> 3. if we need rename that is a separate topic than UC + TC merge so feel free to add in agenda if needed 15:53:29 <fungi> the scope of the "user committee" defined in the bylaws is much more focused in scope, but also doesn't have any obligations or responsibilities outlined therein 15:53:43 <dansmith> spotz: to be clear, I meant join (me) in owning the todo item of defining how we get the AUC people included in the voting body of extra-ATCs 15:54:18 <gmann> belmoreira: we can try to rename ATC term or so as part of 1st which can help to clear the confusion may be 15:54:45 <spotz> gmann: AC - active contibutor 15:55:06 <jungleboyj> spotz: ++ 15:55:09 <gmann> yeah, +1 15:55:15 <yoctozepto> spotz ++ 15:55:28 <jungleboyj> Don't need to specify what type of contributor. 15:55:36 <gmann> exactly 15:55:45 <yoctozepto> The Contributor 15:56:00 <gmann> anyways let's find correct name as part of 1st 15:56:08 <yoctozepto> agreed 15:56:19 <gmann> I am writing plan again, in case any one disagree 15:56:34 <diablo_rojo> The ATC status makes sense for what it is, as does the AUC, but I guess I am fine with just making it AC, but i think we will still need to separately define APCs for when there are PTL runoffs 15:56:44 <gmann> 1. making AUC in extra-ATC + rename ATC in more correct way 15:56:46 <gmann> 2. merging UC doc into TC site/doc etc 15:56:51 <diablo_rojo> (switched from TC hat to Election Official hat mid sentence there) 15:57:31 <gmann> 3. if we need rename TC that is a separate topic than UC + TC merge so feel free to add in next week agenda if needed 15:58:01 <diablo_rojo> I disagree that its a completely separate topic, but fine, I think it can be a new topic on the agenda for next week. 15:58:13 <gmann> otherwise we can mixup the many things into it 15:58:14 <diablo_rojo> I also think we should get opinions from the community on the ML. 15:58:25 <gmann> and I will remove this from agenda as we have two action item from it. 15:58:28 <spotz> +1 15:58:36 <jungleboyj> diablo_rojo: It would be interesting to see if anyone cares. :-) 15:58:41 <yoctozepto> it's related but uc merge is not a new thing nowadays 15:58:46 <gmann> sure, please add in agenda or in ML. that is good way 15:59:00 <gmann> jungleboyj: exactly :) 15:59:36 <gmann> IMO, we should spend more time on engaging and some productive work as TC not renaming which many people do not care much 16:00:11 <gmann> many project/community think as TC we could do much more better which is very valid feedback I think 16:00:18 <gmann> anyways we are out of time, 16:00:29 <dansmith> yup 16:00:30 <gmann> #topic Open Reviews 16:00:33 <diablo_rojo> yoctozepto, I agree they are related. Definitely not completely separate. 16:00:38 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/governance+is:open 16:00:59 <gmann> we have one open review for Y cycle name. please vote 16:01:22 <spotz> voted:) 16:01:29 <gmann> thans 16:01:37 * gmann again naming things :( 16:01:42 <gmann> thanks 16:01:50 <diablo_rojo> Before I was on the TC I thought it was a super technical role (based on the name and knowing they approved new projects/repos, etc) and then I joined and realized its mostly *not* technical. 16:02:12 <dansmith> you joined without knowing what they did, and just went on the name? :) 16:02:18 <gmann> let's continue discussing in channel and close meeting 16:02:22 <gmann> thanks all for joining and good discussion. 16:02:25 <gmann> #endmeeting