15:00:06 <gmann> #startmeeting tc
15:00:06 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu Feb 17 15:00:06 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:06 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:06 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
15:00:08 <gmann> #topic Roll call
15:00:11 <dansmith> o/
15:00:12 <gmann> /
15:00:14 <gmann> o
15:00:32 <yoctozepto> o/
15:00:44 <dansmith> gmann: what happened to your arm (and/or head)?
15:00:54 <belmoreira> o/
15:00:59 <jungleboyj> o/
15:01:08 <gmann> dansmith: its my bad keyboard :)
15:01:11 <dansmith> heh
15:01:37 <ricolin> o/
15:01:45 <yoctozepto> seems gmann is losing his mind because of his bad keyboard
15:01:48 <spotz__> o/
15:01:58 * jungleboyj is laughing
15:01:59 <dmendiza[m]> 🙋‍♂️
15:01:59 <gmann> :)
15:02:40 <gmann> dmendiza[m]: hi
15:02:44 <gmann> let's start
15:02:45 <gmann> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda_Suggestions
15:02:51 <gmann> today agenda ^^
15:03:07 <slaweq> hi
15:03:14 <gmann> #topic Follow up on past action items
15:03:16 <gmann> slaweq: hi
15:03:19 * slaweq will be just lurking for now :)
15:03:32 <gmann> belmoreira to propose the next release naming ideas
15:03:45 <gmann> and belmoreira proposed it #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/829563
15:04:05 <gmann> belmoreira: would you like to discuss anything here or continue on gerrit ?
15:04:49 <belmoreira> we discussed the main idea during the last meeting. Map the release name with the year
15:05:07 <belmoreira> please have a look to the proposal
15:05:32 <gmann> +1, there are discussion going on in gerrit, please review and add feedback if you have any
15:05:59 <jungleboyj> Haven't looked at the patch yet, so would like to do that and then go from there.
15:06:25 <gmann> thanks
15:06:31 <dansmith> yep, I'll hit it right after this
15:06:37 <gmann> +1
15:06:59 <gmann> moving next
15:07:00 <gmann> #topic Gate health check
15:07:14 <gmann> any news on gate
15:07:30 <dansmith> I haven't been pushing as many patches the last week, except for non-code things,
15:07:37 <dansmith> so I'm not really sure how things are
15:07:51 <dansmith> I know there were a number of repeat failures last week, but I never really checked into them since they didn't block me (because I suck)
15:08:19 <gmann> volume detach on centos9 stream issue will be fixed by this tempest series #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:wait_until_sshable_pingable
15:08:22 <dansmith> the gate is not very full right now so I tend to assume that means we're not seeing high failure rate in the gate queue
15:08:37 <dansmith> also, not really gate related but:
15:08:39 <gmann> I will rebase/update it sometime next week early
15:08:54 <dansmith> glance had to de-vote our fips jobs because just running them on centos was introducing all kinds of failures
15:09:03 <dansmith> seemingly libvirt and/or qemu crashes
15:09:43 <gmann> in nvoa they are non voting and tempest they are in experimental queue
15:09:59 <dansmith> yeah, but isn't the community goal to have them voting?
15:10:00 <gmann> I think there is time to make them voting and run in check but not sure about other project.
15:10:08 <dansmith> at this point I kinda worry about being able to do that
15:10:12 <gmann> dansmith: goal is proposed not selected yet
15:10:22 <dansmith> well, right, but...
15:10:54 <slaweq> in neutron we also have them in experimental queue for now
15:11:03 <slaweq> I want to move them to periodic probably
15:11:23 <gmann> we can progress on that but as per my understanding from tempest patches that we are still not in state of making them voting
15:11:24 <dansmith> makes me concerned about accepting the goal if that brings "have to run centos jobs voting" which aren't going to be stable
15:12:02 <gmann> dansmith: exactly, trying the jobs as n-v / experimental give us good input for goal selection
15:12:11 * dansmith nods
15:12:45 <spotz__> I like the nv for seeing if it'll work, plus allows us to possibly bug things we find in stream
15:12:56 <fungi> is anyone maintaining a list of the errors they've been seeing in failed fips jobs?
15:13:42 <dansmith> no, the one I dug into was pretty obscure,
15:13:51 <dansmith> but the end result was qemu crashes,
15:14:02 <dansmith> but those aren't always actually qemu (although sometimes they are)
15:14:23 <fungi> are these running in parallel with non-fips centos jobs?
15:14:27 <dansmith> but it manifested at the higher layer as like timeouts waiting for device attachments and things
15:14:53 <dansmith> not in the places I'm looking, but I can't imagine what the fips-ness would have in the way of impact on things likethat
15:15:09 <fungi> just curious if the failires can be attributed to running in fips mode specifically, or if they're the background noise of bugs from running tests on centos when we don't normally test on centos
15:15:11 <gmann> one i know encrypted cinder volume does not work in fips
15:15:19 <dansmith> I think it's centos
15:15:37 <fungi> got it, so suspecting that the problem isn't testing fips mode, but testing on centos
15:16:15 <dansmith> right
15:16:48 <spotz__> Yeah it'd be interesting to see if fips vs no-fips results in same or different errors
15:16:56 <fungi> so the "we're going to have voting fips jobs" had hidden in it "we're going to have voting centos jobs"
15:17:04 <fungi> which, i agree, is a much bigger lift
15:17:12 <dansmith> fungi: right
15:17:19 <gmann> yeah
15:18:55 <gmann> let's continue them non voting until they are ported on other distro or with centos job voting. and when this goal is proposed for selection then this is one input we need to check
15:19:11 <jungleboyj> ++
15:19:31 <gmann> this is ongoing work for fips #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:fips-compatibility
15:20:03 <fungi> worth keeping in mind, just minutes ago we added rocky linux (a rhel derivative) images to our nodepool in opendev
15:20:08 <fungi> so that might be a viable alternative too
15:20:25 <gmann> nice, any initial job trying that?
15:20:36 <yoctozepto> kolla is working on one
15:20:47 <fungi> there were at least a couple teams interested in having it
15:20:53 <fungi> more like what centos was before stream
15:21:02 <yoctozepto> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/815104
15:21:07 <jungleboyj> fungi:  ++
15:21:14 <fungi> so it's closer to what's in rhel rather than what's going to eventually end up in rhel
15:21:17 <gmann> ok. sounds interesting to see the jobs and result
15:21:31 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/kolla-ansible/+/815104
15:21:59 <gmann> thanks yoctozepto fungi
15:22:13 <gmann> anything else on gate?
15:22:43 <gmann> #topic Z Release Cycle Name
15:22:52 <gmann> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-February/027242.html
15:23:00 <gmann> Z name is final as 'Zed' ^^
15:23:12 <gmann> there is one objection but we cannot do about it at this point
15:23:43 <jungleboyj> I think there are objections, but there isn't much we can do.
15:24:16 <gmann> yeah. those should have brought when we asked on ML before election and trademark checks
15:24:18 <fungi> objections are fine, as long as the tc doesn't feel those objections are serious enough to redo the process
15:24:19 <yoctozepto> well, fwiw, the pronunciation of the letter Z should not raise too many concerns - should it? :D
15:24:41 <spotz__> Is it worth reaching out to the foundation to see if they want to send it to legal for another name?
15:24:54 * dansmith shakes his head
15:24:56 <gmann> yoctozepto: agree :)
15:25:12 <jungleboyj> spotz__:  I don't think it is worth making a fuss over.
15:25:13 <gmann> spotz__: is it worth? and when we will stop it if there is objection on other name too.
15:25:24 <dansmith> seriously
15:25:38 <gmann> yeah, there is nothing where we have everyone agree :)
15:25:39 <spotz__> Just askig, hence not saying we should
15:25:39 <dansmith> I'm going to start objecting to specific version numbers that I don't like
15:25:40 * yoctozepto is just glad it was not zombie that won
15:25:56 <jungleboyj> And the person that was worried about Pulp Fiction, I think in that case it was spelled 'Zedd' but I could be wrong.
15:26:01 <yoctozepto> dansmith: yeah, we don't like 2022 because of zomicron
15:26:09 <spotz__> Zombie was growing on me. I should have spammed you all with Ziggy the dog pictures before voting:)
15:26:13 <fungi> we'll skip any version numbers that have 4 or 13 in them, right? ;)
15:26:15 <dansmith> yoctozepto: wfm :)
15:26:26 <jungleboyj> fungi:  ++
15:26:33 <yoctozepto> fungi: why 4?
15:26:47 <jungleboyj> yoctozepto: That is considered bad luck in Asia, like 13.
15:26:53 <spotz__> I liked CLark's idea where D would have ended up Dabomb:)
15:26:58 <fungi> 4 is pronounced the same as "death" in some languages
15:27:04 <yoctozepto> jungleboyj, fungi: thanks
15:27:12 <jungleboyj> spotz__:  ++
15:27:13 <gmann> ok, let's move on ?
15:27:21 <yoctozepto> spotz__: Darude - Sandstorm
15:27:22 <dansmith> yes please
15:27:30 <belmoreira> :)
15:27:40 <gmann> we will continue discussion on future names but for Zed let's make it final
15:27:43 <jungleboyj> That is a good one too.
15:27:47 <gmann> I will remove the topic from next week agenda
15:27:49 <jungleboyj> Zed it is.
15:27:50 <gmann> #topic Z cycle Technical Elections
15:28:30 <gmann> nomination are closed and we are : 17 projects without PTL, TC: all 5 seat nomination so no runoffs
15:28:55 <jungleboyj> :-(  To the 17 projects without PTL.
15:28:58 <spotz__> I saw another late one come in this morning, didn't update the etherpad yet thpigh
15:29:12 <yoctozepto> jungleboyj ++
15:29:20 <gmann> though there is no voting needed for PTL or TC, we thought of having Campaigning for tc
15:29:21 <gmann> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-February/027311.html
15:29:50 <gmann> after that on Feb 22 we will close the election
15:30:09 <gmann> meanwhile I have created the etherpad for leaserless projetcs to discuss #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/zed-leaderless
15:30:36 <gmann> with late candidacy we are left with 11 projects to look solution for
15:30:49 <jungleboyj> Well, that is a little better.
15:31:11 <spotz__> While everyone should be aware I don't think we spammed enough
15:31:31 <fungi> there were, what, 4 reminders? 5?
15:31:38 <spotz__> I was happy to see we had 5 for TC
15:31:42 <gmann> not sure, it is happening in every election that lot of late candidacy
15:31:51 <jungleboyj> No e-mails with flashing red text were sent.
15:31:55 <gmann> also not sure how to improve it :)
15:32:17 <spotz__> Yeah I didn't think to tweet, we could have done that from Openstack and ops meetup
15:32:24 <gmann> sending personal email to current PTLs?
15:32:33 <jungleboyj> spotz__:  ++
15:32:35 <gmann> spotz__: yeah may be
15:32:59 <fungi> it might be nice to separate some of that from the election officials' responsibilities though
15:33:13 <spotz__> I know with OPS meetup we get better covereage and response tweeting vs ML. But yes the PTLs should have known it was coming except maybe the new projects
15:33:13 <gmann> anyways something to discuss as retrospectively in PTG or in next election
15:33:26 <fungi> the tc reaching out to current ptls, for example, would be cool. expecting the eleciton officials to do even more work is not great
15:33:41 <gmann> fungi: yeah.
15:33:56 <slaweq> maybe send announcement to the irc team channels too?
15:33:57 <fungi> we need scalable solutions that don't make more work for volunteer officials
15:34:01 <gmann> or extend the nomination period to 2 weeks
15:34:09 <spotz__> Yeah and I don't think the election officials should, to some degree that could be construed as bias
15:34:19 <fungi> that too, i agree
15:34:21 <gmann> yeah, I will add those points in PTG discussion
15:34:23 <belmoreira> for me it's really sad if current PTLs are not aware of the process... or not follow the mailing list
15:34:55 <gmann> belmoreira: unfortunately it is true
15:35:23 <gmann> let's keep finding the leaders or add your opinion in the etherpad for those 11 projects
15:35:42 <belmoreira> maybe the elections should be more close with the release. Like we have the release event and as consequence new PTL elections
15:36:17 <yoctozepto> belmoreira: we have to beg for candidates for non-really-healthy projects so it's no wonder
15:36:32 <spotz__> I kinda like that as the PTL would finish the release and before more work got deeply underway new leadership comes in
15:36:40 <fungi> that could create timing issues, as teams begin work on the next release during the rc period, and possibly release planning even earlier
15:36:50 <yoctozepto> ++ fungi
15:36:52 <spotz__> ok NM!
15:37:09 <fungi> at least that's why we traditionally scheduled ptl elections ahead of the end of the cycle
15:37:15 <gmann> yoctozepto: more than not-relaly-healthy there are many cases healthy projects also miss the nomination
15:37:32 <fungi> we also tried to get the elections to happen prior to in-person gatherings where planning for the next cycle would take place
15:37:33 <belmoreira> true... but the result is that we don't have a clear boundary and can lead to some miss comunication
15:37:35 <gmann> agree, it might be worst doing it more later during release time
15:37:44 <yoctozepto> gmann: I meant begging, not the late/initially-invalid submissions :-)
15:37:59 <spotz__> Some I think is loss of concept of time, which is why I wonder if we spammed enough. Folks wait until the last minute
15:38:21 <jungleboyj> spotz__:  True.  Time doesn't seem to pass the way it used to.
15:38:23 <gmann> yoctozepto: ok :). +1.
15:38:43 <fungi> yeah, going back to the early days of the project we've always gotten the majority of nominations on the last day of the nominations period
15:39:09 <gmann> anyways time running, let's move to next topic and I will add this topic for PTG and for PTL+TC sessions in PTG
15:39:26 <spotz__> +1
15:39:27 <gmann> but let's check and add feedback in etherpad
15:39:34 <gmann> one more update is keystone moving from DPL to PTL model and thanks to dmendiza[m] for heling to lead it.
15:39:46 <jungleboyj> ++
15:39:57 <gmann> I will merge governance patch once it ready to merge as per formal-vote
15:40:11 <gmann> #topic Dropping tags framework - next steps (yoctozepto)
15:40:24 <gmann> yoctozepto: ^^ anything to update
15:40:49 <fungi> i'm hoping to move the vulnerability:managed tag info into the openstack/ossa repo in the next few days, sorry i haven't gotten to it yet
15:41:04 <gmann> or elodilles if you would like to discuss any concern you raised in ML form release team perspective
15:41:11 <gmann> fungi: +1, thanks
15:42:11 <gmann> fungi: ping me once you do that, and then we can ask foundation to update the openstack navigation site to link to that page
15:43:18 <gmann> just to remind tc-members that part-1 of tag removal is ready to review #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/822900
15:43:51 <fungi> gmann: which page of the site specifically?
15:44:03 <fungi> i can also work with them on getting it updated
15:44:20 <yoctozepto> sorry, I was away
15:44:37 <gmann> fungi: nice, this one https://www.openstack.org/software/releases/xena/components/nova
15:44:53 <yoctozepto> fungi: thanks, that's ok
15:45:03 <gmann> fungi: for all projects where VMT is mentioned under 'Project details' section
15:45:18 <fungi> ahh, got it, we may want to drop that from those pages yes
15:45:30 <fungi> since we won't have the tag any more
15:45:32 <yoctozepto> regarding releases repo - we need to drop more
15:45:36 <yoctozepto> I did not have time to drive this
15:45:43 <yoctozepto> but I'm glad the release team does not oppose it
15:45:47 <gmann> like stable policy is linked to table policy page we can update VMT also to new VMT page
15:46:07 <gmann> yoctozepto: yeah,
15:46:44 <yoctozepto> is not the foundation page using tags directly?
15:46:46 <gmann> fungi: dropping also fine or just update link to new page if anyone relying on the info from website
15:46:51 <yoctozepto> as I see the list has shrunk
15:46:56 <fungi> yeah, since the vmt will consult with and help any team with reported vulnerabilities if they want, the list of which ones we're the first line of triage on is probably less relevant these days
15:46:59 <yoctozepto> so from our actions likely
15:47:20 <yoctozepto> so the decision is to drop
15:47:21 <yoctozepto> ok
15:47:28 <gmann> ok
15:47:28 <yoctozepto> where is the source code for that site?
15:47:50 <fungi> that content may not be in a git repository, some of the stuff there is in a cms
15:47:58 <yoctozepto> meh
15:48:02 <gmann> yeah
15:48:02 <fungi> (a database-backed cms)
15:48:20 <fungi> it's handled by a contract web developer company the foundation uses
15:48:24 <yoctozepto> I wonder if it will simply display no list if we drop all tags
15:48:25 <yoctozepto> or break
15:48:39 <gmann> link will be broken for sure.
15:48:47 <yoctozepto> gmann: I think it will be gone
15:48:49 <yoctozepto> as the others are
15:48:53 <gmann> ohk
15:49:13 <fungi> yeah, what i don't know is if there's some automated scraping of the reference/projects.yaml to auto-build that content. but i can ask
15:49:14 <yoctozepto> but obviously not sure
15:49:22 <yoctozepto> fungi: thanks!
15:49:40 <gmann> fungi: thanks, we will discuss about it in next week meeting accordingly.
15:49:48 <yoctozepto> once we fix releases, we can always merge governance change and undo if it breaks the pages
15:50:10 <gmann> yoctozepto: part-1 does not break anything right?
15:50:20 <yoctozepto> gmann: right
15:50:33 <gmann> you mean for next patch for removal completely ?
15:50:38 <yoctozepto> gmann: yeah
15:50:44 <gmann> got it. +1
15:50:52 <gmann> moving next if nothing else on this topic? 10 min left
15:51:13 <yoctozepto> forgot the part 1 is not merged yet I thought it was
15:51:22 <yoctozepto> so no idea how the website will behave
15:51:25 <yoctozepto> sorry for confusing
15:51:25 <gmann> yeah, it is still waiting for more vote
15:51:38 <yoctozepto> (though I remember seeing more characteristics)
15:51:49 <yoctozepto> let's move on
15:51:52 <gmann> #topic Progress check on Yoga tracker
15:51:55 <gmann> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-yoga-tracker
15:52:28 <gmann> we are close to Yoga release and still pending few items
15:52:41 <gmann> most of them are in progress like tag, release name etc
15:53:28 <gmann> please update the etherpad if any updates on those not started yet.
15:53:35 <jungleboyj> I know I haven't gotten to my item.  :-(
15:54:00 <spotz__> I'm considering abandoning my patch until we decide what we really want
15:54:26 <jungleboyj> I will be able to get that done before the PTG though which I think is when we want work on that done.
15:54:33 <gmann> spotz__: ok, I think we can add on first guidelines unless you want to refactor the existing one i commented for
15:54:45 <gmann> jungleboyj: +1, that will be nice.
15:55:32 <gmann> ricolin: any chance you found the goal checklist? that is only pending item for community-wide goal?
15:55:44 <spotz__> gmann: I'll take a look
15:55:45 <gmann> * goal checklist etherpad
15:55:48 <gmann> spotz__: thanks
15:56:31 <gmann> let's move, I will catch with ricolin later
15:56:34 <gmann> #topic Open Reviews
15:56:52 <gmann> 6 open review #link https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open
15:57:22 <gmann> 3 review ready and need more feedback are
15:57:25 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/822900
15:57:33 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/829563
15:57:37 <gmann> these two we already discussed
15:57:50 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/828777
15:58:06 <gmann> dansmith proposal for release cadence adjustment resolution
15:58:29 <gmann> dansmith: we are just 2 min left but in case you would like to say/discuss on this ^^
15:58:38 <dansmith> yeah, there's been some review already,
15:58:42 <dansmith> and some adjustments,
15:58:56 <dansmith> I think the feedback has all been positive and looking for clarifications,
15:59:11 <dansmith> so would appreciate comments even if it's just "sounds good, let's try this"
15:59:28 <gmann> nice. I will check sometime soon may be tomorrow
15:59:40 <dansmith> it's very flexible in what it commits us to, so I'd really like to not drag out approval on this for too long unless there are real objections
15:59:49 <dansmith> because getting ready for the A release will be better if we know it's coming
16:00:02 <gmann> +1
16:00:11 <gmann> tc-members ^^ let's review and add feedback.
16:00:25 <gmann> that is all from my side today
16:00:35 <gmann> thanks everyone for joining
16:00:39 <gmann> #endmeeting