15:00:08 <gmann> #startmeeting tc
15:00:08 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu Aug  5 15:00:08 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:08 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:08 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
15:00:10 <gmann> #topic Roll call
15:00:13 <gmann> o/
15:00:16 <dansmith> o/
15:00:28 <diablo_rojo> o/
15:01:06 <spotz_> o/
15:01:15 <jungleboyj> o/
15:01:21 <belmoreira> o/
15:01:58 <gmann> #topic Follow up on past action items
15:02:01 <gmann> gmann to write to k8s steering team and cc diablo_rojo_phone
15:02:02 <yoctozepto> o/
15:02:05 <gmann> done, sent  email
15:02:18 <gmann> #topic Project Skyline (diablo_rojo)
15:02:23 <gmann> diablo_rojo: go ahead
15:02:57 <diablo_rojo> So! At the last PTG Horizon talked to a group about a project they had been working on to replace Horizon
15:03:22 <diablo_rojo> The Horizon team was on board with this given their lack of resources to get horizon the updates it really needs.
15:03:51 <jungleboyj> Isn't Skyline the same name that VMware uses for one of their ddashboards?
15:04:03 <diablo_rojo> ttx and I have been working with the team on their project- skyline- getting it ready to be proposed.
15:04:04 <yoctozepto> it better not be
15:04:09 <yoctozepto> though vmware already has its horizon
15:04:27 <diablo_rojo> This one is from 99cloud?
15:04:38 <yoctozepto> jungleboyj: it seems it's the name of their support panel
15:04:41 <jungleboyj> Skyline is the name of one of the VMware products.
15:04:49 <gmann> and as separate dashbaord project or within Horizon project ?
15:04:55 <diablo_rojo> They are almost ready to go- just working on getting their tests setup with zuul.
15:04:59 <belmoreira> diablo_rojo this would be a replacement for Horizon?
15:05:05 <diablo_rojo> gmann, separate to replace horizon
15:05:12 <diablo_rojo> is the main goal from what I understand
15:05:18 <gmann> humm
15:05:20 <yoctozepto> diablo_rojo: but separate also governance-wise?
15:05:22 <dansmith> man.
15:05:48 <yoctozepto> dansmith: hmm?
15:05:56 <diablo_rojo> I think the groups would merge? I don't know all the details yet.
15:06:01 <dansmith> yoctozepto: as in.. "wow"
15:06:09 <yoctozepto> dansmith: +2
15:06:17 <diablo_rojo> The horizon folks would be on board though based on the discussions back at the PTG
15:06:43 <diablo_rojo> They already have some repos setup on opendev: https://opendev.org/skyline/
15:06:52 <yoctozepto> hmm, a different namespace for now
15:06:52 <diablo_rojo> If anyone wants to take a look
15:07:01 <gmann> is there ML thread started on this or just PTG discussion ?
15:07:02 <yoctozepto> so is the question whether they can move into the official namespace?
15:07:11 <yoctozepto> gmann +1
15:07:14 <belmoreira> would "skyline" have the developer/community to drive the new project that Horizon is lacking?
15:07:18 <diablo_rojo> gmann just ptg so far
15:07:38 <gmann> or collaborate in horizon team instead of separate alternate project?
15:07:40 <diablo_rojo> Once they have zuul setup I think the plan is to start a ML thread to start the proposal process
15:08:02 <diablo_rojo> belmoreira, yes it seems so + ideally the remaining horizon team
15:08:11 <fungi> i expect we'll want to chat with foundation legal/trademark folks on the name too before it gets officially accepted as part of openstack
15:08:18 <diablo_rojo> fungi, +1
15:08:20 <yoctozepto> I guess we would need devstack integration too
15:08:31 <yoctozepto> are they including this in their "zuul setup"?
15:08:35 <jungleboyj> fungi: ++
15:08:41 <dansmith> yoctozepto: yeah good point, we would want to see a very stable devstack integration before anything serious I would think
15:08:53 <gmann> but before that, we need to discuss with the governance structure they want to propose and how Horizon team thinking on this?
15:08:56 <jungleboyj> Concerned with the overlap with VMware here.  Despite the fact that I like the name.
15:08:56 <diablo_rojo> yoctozepto, I am not sure, but if we want to require it before they apply to become an offical project, they are a super receptive team
15:09:15 <diablo_rojo> jungleboyj, thats an easy fix? changing the name isn't really a concern I don't think?
15:09:17 <yoctozepto> diablo_rojo: ok, then we want :-)
15:09:18 <belmoreira> wondering about the process to deprecate Horizon and introduce the new project
15:09:33 <jungleboyj> diablo_rojo:  Gets harder the longer the project is around.  :-)
15:09:38 <diablo_rojo> belmoreira, yeah I am not sure what that would look like
15:09:41 <gmann> yeah, what we will do/plan with horizon?
15:09:44 <dansmith> not saying anything negative about this team I don't know, but.. I would really want to avoid making any rash decisions
15:09:44 <diablo_rojo> jungleboyj, then lucky this is rather new ;)
15:09:53 <yoctozepto> re horizon: ask horizon folks
15:09:53 <dansmith> like, keep them both around as alternatives for many cycles
15:10:01 <diablo_rojo> dansmith, I totally get it.
15:10:10 <diablo_rojo> Yeah I think we shouldn't get rid of horizon right away or anything
15:10:15 <dansmith> we would want to see some uptick in adoption, reports from the field that it's a suitable replacement, etc before we even mark horizon as deprecated, IMHO
15:10:17 <yoctozepto> if horizon folks want to refocus
15:10:19 <yoctozepto> then let them refocus
15:10:31 <yoctozepto> dansmith: +2
15:10:35 <gmann> diablo_rojo: well, Horizon facing resource issue so I prefer the collaboration with horixon team and improve there what is lacking
15:10:46 <gmann> dansmith: ^^
15:10:57 <yoctozepto> we really need devstack + some prod deployment projects to pick it up and users to deploy before declaring anything on horizon
15:11:05 <gmann> alternate projects things is what we did mistake in past right?
15:11:07 <diablo_rojo> gmann, the horizon team is on board with project Skyline though?
15:11:23 <yoctozepto> diablo_rojo: I would assume this would be q to you
15:11:24 <spotz_> Yeah having an option to choose would be good for the shorter term as each component would need a dashboard created
15:11:56 <fungi> the horizon maintainers already concluded on the ml thread earlier this year that the way forward was to rewrite horizon's frontend portion completely
15:12:13 <fungi> (and that they have their hands full maintaining the version they already have)
15:12:20 <jungleboyj> Wow.
15:12:54 <diablo_rojo> You can find some of the PTG discussion here: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/xena-ptg-horizon-planning on line 141
15:13:09 <diablo_rojo> yoctozepto, which question? Sorry I am starting to lose track lol
15:13:26 <fungi> well, the conclusion was that they picked a dead-end framework, so there's no incremental way to migrate it to newer paradigms. this is the world of web application frameworks apparently
15:13:34 <diablo_rojo> fungi, thank you, yes. Was trying to find that ML thread
15:13:59 <fungi> i can look for it too, though i'm in three meetings at the moment
15:14:09 <dansmith> fungi: afaict, the "world of web application frameworks" is a total disaster :)
15:14:19 <gmann> om PTG, it is not clear if they are proposing alternate horizon proejct or within horizon
15:14:40 <yoctozepto> diablo_rojo: I meant yours at gmann, does not matter :-)
15:14:48 <diablo_rojo> yoctozepto, ahh got it
15:15:13 <diablo_rojo> dansmith, too true, thankfully 99cloud wants to help with that.
15:15:49 <dansmith> I mean the entire world of frameworks, a problem no one entity could hope to resolve :)
15:16:01 <diablo_rojo> dansmith, touche.
15:16:07 <gmann> may be once we have the clear proposal then we can discuss further and with Horizon team
15:16:36 <ttx> ohai
15:16:42 <diablo_rojo> ttx, hello :)
15:16:45 <diablo_rojo> Talking about Skyline
15:17:08 <ttx> Re: skyline drive vs. horizon, my understanding from teh PTg discussion was that they are using different JS technologies
15:17:25 <ttx> so it might be easier to get people to contribute to the newer ones
15:17:57 <diablo_rojo> i.e. the horizon team would merge with the skyline team
15:18:03 <dansmith> yeah, that's kinda the problem is that they're always a moving target
15:18:25 <dansmith> so definitely understand that hope, as long as existing people can jump to the new thing and keep contributing
15:18:26 <ttx> That was the big question we asked back then... from the horizon team perspective would it be better as a Horizon next version, a separate thing, or just if it did not exist
15:18:53 <ttx> They said "separate thing will be easier, even if some would likely be contributing to both"
15:19:01 <dansmith> people that maintain horizon installs now are also more likely familiar with "whatever horizon uses" and moving around a lot generates ops churn that won't be great or welcomed
15:19:23 <ttx> like it's probably the only way to ever update our dashboard to more modern webtech
15:19:27 <belmoreira> dansmith +1
15:19:40 <ttx> But I would expect both to coeexist
15:19:49 <gmann> ttx: but that will distribute the maintainers too so both might face maintainer issue what horizon is facing ?
15:20:20 <ttx> gmann: if you assume JS developers know all the frameworks, yes. In reality, you find those using one OR the other
15:20:49 <ttx> One of the reasons Horizon is struggling is that it's not a super-new shiny JS thing
15:20:58 <diablo_rojo> gmann, you're not splitting up the skyline folks or the horizon folks really.
15:21:03 <gmann> dansmith: +1 usage is also good point
15:21:03 <ttx> But yeah, I don;t expect miracles either :)
15:21:13 <diablo_rojo> You would have horizon folks maybe still doing horizon things and also doing skyline things
15:21:35 <gmann> diablo_rojo: ? is it? horizon team is lacking in resources to do Horizon things
15:21:44 <gmann> I do not think they are ready to do both?
15:22:06 <ttx> It's a bit of a leap of faith, but that's precisely the case we envisioned when we allowed "multiple projects doing the same thing"
15:22:07 <gmann> like, system scope support in horizon is one example
15:22:17 <diablo_rojo> It seems like they wouldn't be doing both though. Parts or all of horizon would be getting deprecated?
15:22:40 <dansmith> I really just think we shouldn't consider any "leaps of faith" and let another project come up alongside,
15:22:45 <dansmith> until it is clearly the better choice
15:22:58 <gmann> yeah so question is what is our plan for Horizon. if deprecation is what we want then that is other thing
15:23:19 <dansmith> that means make it deployable in devstack as an option, include them in messaging, encourage operators to try it, provide feedback, survey who wants to use that instead of horizon
15:23:26 <ttx> dansmith: that would be a departure from the previous policy, but I can see why
15:23:53 <diablo_rojo> At this point, skyline still has a little work to do, like I said. I mostly wanted this conversation to see if there were any other things they need to do before we figure out the proposal + replacement/deprecation etc plan.
15:23:54 <dansmith> ttx: departure from the previous policy of what? choosing one project per realm? I feel like we've waffled back and forth on that before anyway
15:24:00 <ttx> previous policy = let projects incubate within the community rather than outside of it)
15:24:05 <belmoreira> honestly I think OpenStack needs a "modern looking" UI. But a completely new project from nothing sounds a risky strategy... Almost every cloud uses Horizon
15:24:08 <dansmith> oh
15:24:26 <dansmith> belmoreira: agree
15:24:58 <gmann> belmoreira: true, usage is more imp and whether ops want to migrate it or how easy that will be
15:25:05 <dansmith> ttx: tbh I don't really feel like the current policy is not to incubate projects inside, but I'm sure the letter of the policy law is different
15:25:05 <ttx> belmoreira: the path to a "modern looking UI" is through a new project, according to the Horizon folks
15:25:18 <yoctozepto> the path is right
15:25:20 <dansmith> ttx: things like cyborg are still trying to achieve deployable-and-usable status
15:25:22 <yoctozepto> the worry is about the maturity
15:25:27 <ttx> anyway that probably warrants a thread... I need to jump to another meeting
15:25:50 <gmann> yeah also horizon team feedback what they things and plan for horizon
15:25:54 <ttx> dansmith: change in policy = accept projects once tey are mature, rather than when they are under development
15:26:02 <diablo_rojo> Yes, a ML thread is definitely in the future.
15:26:13 <gmann> let's ask them to start the ML thread and we continue discussion there
15:26:20 <diablo_rojo> Repeating myself again-  skyline still has a little work to do, like I said. I mostly wanted this conversation to see if there were any other things they need to do before we figure out the proposal + replacement/deprecation etc plan.
15:26:31 <dansmith> ttx: okay I'm confused, but sounds like we understand something needs to happen here
15:26:43 <spotz_> And I think a PTG session, either during our leadership one or another added. I think the projects need some input if they make their own UI
15:26:50 <ttx> for now they need to work on Zuul integration anyway :)
15:26:51 <jungleboyj> Agreed.  Something has to be done.
15:27:34 <diablo_rojo> I would think that it would make sense for them to attend Horizon things again yes.
15:27:41 <gmann> dansmith: ttx policy discussion is interesting. would you like to add it in PTG sessions?
15:27:52 <diablo_rojo> But I would also think we would like to make progress before then and not just put it on hold till then.
15:27:57 <gmann> if so please add in PTG etehrpad
15:28:03 <gmann> moving on?
15:28:19 <dansmith> gmann: I dunno, I'm much more of a "let's just figure out what needs to happen and do it" person than a "figure out the current/new policy" but whatever ya'll want
15:28:27 <gmann> diablo_rojo: yea ML thread can be good as next step
15:29:10 <diablo_rojo> dansmith, yes, trying to figure out what needs to happen for these Skyline people lol.
15:29:14 <diablo_rojo> gmann, okay.
15:29:20 <gmann> dansmith: sure. please add topic. this is important
15:29:30 <gmann> #topic Gate health check (dansmith/yoctozepto)
15:29:31 <jungleboyj> dansmith:  ++
15:29:57 <dansmith> there have been a number of infra-related (I assume) timeout type things I've hit lately
15:30:15 <dansmith> haven't had a lot of time to debug them for sure, but things like no logs uploaded, etc which I assume are just infra
15:30:30 <yoctozepto> we also had a breakage with grenade due to cinder hardening their validation
15:30:32 <clarkb> that can happen if networking crashes on the instance or if the instance crashes
15:30:32 <dansmith> there was also the grenade thing, and the nova lvm job thing, both of which are resolved
15:30:35 <yoctozepto> but this has been already fixed
15:30:36 <gmann> yeah cinder API change failed grenade and blocked gate for sometime but it is solved now
15:30:46 <clarkb> I'm not aware of general upload issues to clouds right now
15:33:42 <gmann> clarkb: may be dansmith will ping you on infra about it, he said double booked so might be busy in another meeting ?
15:33:46 <gmann> any other issue on gate we want to discuss?
15:34:07 <dansmith> I don't have anything to ping about, just noticed the timeouts, but I expect they're normal things
15:34:20 <dansmith> sometimes there's a rash of them it seems, maybe while providers are doing stuff, I dunno
15:34:23 <dansmith> moving on.. :)
15:34:29 <gmann> dansmith: ok i thought you become away :)
15:34:34 <gmann> #topic Xena Tracker
15:34:43 <gmann> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker
15:34:51 <gmann> any update on items form Xena tracker ?
15:35:34 <gmann> for PTL guide goal, it is almost done only murano project left or which I pinged PTL many times but no response.
15:35:35 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%2522project-ptl-and-contrib-docs%2522+status:open
15:36:13 <gmann> requesting everyone please check your assigned item in etherpad
15:36:20 <gmann> #topic Wallaby testing runtime for centos8 vs centos8-stream
15:36:47 <gmann> Wallaby testing runtime is centos8 #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/runtimes/wallaby.html
15:37:16 <gmann> but from current issue it seems liek centos8 cannot be tested on wallaby as no wallab y repo present for centos8
15:37:32 <gmann> discussion in #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/803039
15:38:23 <gmann> now question is whether 1. we should update the wallaby testing runtime from centos -> centos8-stream and test centos8-stream or 2. remove centos job from testing as there is no way to test it
15:40:11 <gmann> ?
15:41:23 <gmann> IMO, option2. as I think updating the wallaby testing runtime (and migrating testing to cento8-stream) is little bit extra work now.
15:41:25 <clarkb> I would at least suggest not promising anything about centos 8
15:41:34 <clarkb> because it will stop updating in 5 months
15:41:55 <gmann> clarkb: yeah we changed that in Xena so no more testing or cetnos8 in Xena onwards
15:42:13 <gmann> but here question is wallaby testing which was working fine but now stop working
15:42:34 <yoctozepto> I say just backport stream fixes down to victoria
15:42:40 <yoctozepto> and test only stream
15:42:45 <gmann> it can happen with ubuntu also like Bionic stop working and cannot be fixed  we cannot change all our testing to focal for old stable
15:42:49 <yoctozepto> this is more sensible reality-wise
15:43:04 <yoctozepto> gmann: we don't support openstack stuff beyond ubuntu lifetime
15:43:37 <gmann> yoctozepto: like Pike? not sure what version we support there but it is working
15:44:25 <gmann> I think supporting centos8-stream from Xena onwards make sense and not in old stable
15:44:47 <clarkb> gmann: I think thei mportant piece of info here is centos-8 is a dead end. The other platforms we run and test on aren't, but when they hit their end of 5 years of support we shut them off too
15:45:22 <fungi> on the bionic example, ussuri was the last release to officialy support ubuntu bionic according to the pti, and it's scheduled to transition to extended maintenance in a few months
15:45:41 <gmann> "shut them off" you mean for current or for all old stable testing too?
15:45:43 <fungi> (november looks like)
15:45:43 <yoctozepto> extended maintenance is not eol
15:46:00 <fungi> extended maintenance also does not guarantee we keep running all the same tests/platforms
15:46:13 <fungi> em is a "best effort" testing only
15:46:25 <yoctozepto> yup
15:46:29 <gmann> and we stop testing it anything stop working in EM
15:46:45 <fungi> we no longer tag point releases in em, we no longer guarantee we'll even fix security vulnerabilities in em branches
15:46:53 <clarkb> gmann: we shut off hte test platform. Anything use that test platform will stop testing there
15:47:08 <gmann> clarkb: +1, yeah that is my understanding
15:47:19 <yoctozepto> come on, I don't think it's that painful to just make sure devstack works on stream for stable branches and just communicate this at tc level that we lost centos-8 earlier than planned
15:47:25 <clarkb> gmann: so you can either turn off centos-8 now or in 5 months
15:47:54 <clarkb> yoctozepto: that depends entirely on whether or not stream updates function :) I know libvirt has updated in ways that caused problems already
15:48:07 <yoctozepto> clarkb: true that
15:48:21 <gmann> yoctozepto: we can do that i am not saying stop testing centos8-stream there but in TC defined testing runtime which is min thing to do we should not update it to centos8-stream
15:48:23 <jungleboyj> :-(
15:48:43 <gmann> any project can test anything extra there is no limit on that
15:48:46 <yoctozepto> jungleboyj: why the sad face?
15:49:04 <gmann> yoctozepto: need to know every expression/feeling :)
15:49:05 <jungleboyj> yoctozepto:  The fact that a libvirt update already broke things.
15:49:14 <yoctozepto> gmann: so you suggest to not change anything and just tell people the platform disappeared and it's platform's fault?
15:49:17 <yoctozepto> works for me :-)
15:49:37 <yoctozepto> jungleboyj: well, there was a huge bump in version
15:49:45 <yoctozepto> but it was not that bad
15:49:48 <gmann> yoctozepto: yeah and if you wan to add centos8-stream job in wallaby we are all ok
15:50:02 <yoctozepto> gmann: I don't really "want", I just don't oppose it :-)
15:50:13 <gmann> yoctozepto: ok :) ditto
15:50:33 <yoctozepto> perhaps some other tc-members opinions?
15:50:39 <spotz_> The original plan for Xena was for RDO to be oon CS9, we're looking at optionns annd will discuss in our meeting next week
15:50:43 <yoctozepto> because now only qa and infra spoke :-)
15:51:04 <yoctozepto> spotz_: well, we are not yet thinking about CS9 at all tbh
15:51:17 <yoctozepto> but yeah, good to refresh this info
15:51:26 <mnaser> isnt the only reason oepnstack is essentially tested on centos is pretty much tripleo?
15:51:32 <yoctozepto> we will likely need to adapt the version tested late in the cycle
15:51:33 <mnaser> because reality is we only run jobs on focal
15:51:44 <yoctozepto> most jobs run on focal
15:52:07 <yoctozepto> like, most = 99.5%
15:52:10 <yoctozepto> ;-)
15:52:17 <gmann> mnaser: yeah we have job in devstack and devstack based too but mostly tripleo
15:52:38 <gmann> we are running out of time..
15:52:39 <fungi> the devstack job has been failing again for a while, last i looked
15:52:46 <fungi> and is non-voting
15:52:47 <gmann> fungi: yeah
15:52:55 <yoctozepto> the interesing question is do redhat people actually develop on centos or ubuntu? ;D
15:52:58 <mnaser> and essentially centos 8 / cs8 is not that huge of a delta to be honest
15:53:04 <gmann> so to summarize, 1. no update in wallaby testing runtime 2. devstack or any project can test centos8-stream in wallaby as extra thing. 3. no guarantee of testing in centos8 or centos8-stream in wallaby as per current situation in platofrm
15:53:19 <TheJulia> yoctozepto: depends on the project and focus
15:53:37 <yoctozepto> TheJulia: hello :-)
15:53:38 <gmann> everyone ok with the above plan?
15:53:43 <TheJulia> So, what about the fact that centos8 is EOL
15:53:49 <gmann> if not then we can continue discussion in next meeting..
15:54:07 <TheJulia> are we doing the right thing by saying the tested against runtime is an EOL thing?
15:54:13 <yoctozepto> gmann: I can accept it
15:54:16 <fungi> also rhel has "free" (gratis) licenses for developers, but that doesn't seem to extend to running in public clouds so not applicable for our ci/cd
15:54:44 <mnaser> i mean
15:54:51 <mnaser> i know our tested runtime list is supposed to be set hard-set-in-stone
15:54:59 <mnaser> but we can append a change to it and explain why we did it
15:55:06 <fungi> absolutely
15:55:20 <yoctozepto> either approach works for me
15:55:24 <gmann> mnaser: but appending it need  move testing to new version
15:55:24 <TheJulia> But is that still the right thing for those who wish to consume our software?
15:55:26 <yoctozepto> not blocking, not endorsing
15:55:45 <mnaser> TheJulia: well, when we promised c8, we didnt expect it to be eol'd
15:55:45 <gmann> anyways I will keep it for next meeting, moving to next topi5 min left
15:55:56 <yoctozepto> TheJulia: people consume openstack on rhel and debian and neither is listed ;-)
15:55:58 <TheJulia> mnaser: true
15:55:59 <mnaser> and so i guess since things changed... we'll just have to adopt..
15:56:05 <gmann> #topic PTG Planning
15:56:16 <mnaser> if anything, i'd say we'd do disservice if we didn't adapt and left an eol os there :) -- but onto the next!
15:56:21 <gmann> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-yoga-ptg
15:56:37 <TheJulia> mnaser: I concur, fwiw
15:57:03 <gmann> ok, let's continue it in next meeting or after meeting
15:57:10 <gmann> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-yoga-ptg
15:57:18 <diablo_rojo> 3 min left.
15:57:21 <gmann> please add topic there^^
15:57:30 <gmann> #topic Board informal Brainstorming sessions about "community health and resource management"(gmann)
15:57:46 <gmann> no update on this
15:57:55 <gmann> #topic OpenStack newsletter items
15:58:14 <gmann> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/newsletter-openstack-news
15:58:18 <diablo_rojo> Just a reminder that the ML etherpad is ongoing really.
15:58:22 <gmann> please add topic there
15:58:25 <diablo_rojo> Drop things as you find them.
15:58:34 <diablo_rojo> Don't need to wait for me to put the call out.
15:58:38 <gmann> diablo_rojo: when is deadline to finalize ?
15:58:51 <fungi> in about a month
15:59:03 <gmann> is it for Aug or next month?
15:59:06 <fungi> (they're published ~monthly, and today was the most recent one)
15:59:18 <gmann> ohk, we missed that may be
15:59:29 <gmann> anyways let's add item there as it comes
15:59:30 <fungi> usually the deadline is a day or two before it's distributed
15:59:47 <gmann> fungi: yeah that is not clear to me :)
16:00:00 <gmann> anyways I will check and make it more advance next time
16:00:01 <diablo_rojo> gmann, it varies month to month
16:00:22 <gmann> #topic Open Reviews
16:00:29 <diablo_rojo> I added a few of the things that were mentioned yesterday
16:00:39 <diablo_rojo> And will keep the rest for next month.
16:00:43 <gmann> ok
16:00:45 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open
16:00:55 <gmann> only one review which is waiting on projects side
16:00:59 <gmann> \o/
16:01:07 <gmann> thanks all for joining today
16:01:11 <gmann> #endmeeting