15:00:16 <gmann> #startmeeting tc
15:00:16 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Thu May 12 15:00:16 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:16 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:16 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
15:00:27 <gmann> #topic Roll call
15:00:30 <spotz> Ha I couln't remember Darius's nick it'd been so long!
15:00:30 <dansmith> o/
15:00:33 <spotz> o/
15:00:33 <gmann> tc-members meeting time
15:00:34 <aprice> o/
15:00:34 <gmann> o/
15:00:34 <arne_wiebalck> o/
15:00:49 <dasm> o/
15:00:55 <jungleboyj> o/
15:00:55 <frenzy_friday> o/
15:01:00 <dmendiza[m]> 🙋‍♂️
15:01:18 <rosmaita> o/
15:02:07 <gmann> knikolla: diablo_rojo_phone slaweq ping
15:02:10 <slaweq> o/
15:02:14 <slaweq> sorry for being late
15:02:19 <knikolla> o/
15:02:34 <rosmaita> nobody's late yet
15:02:43 <gmann> yeah
15:02:47 <slaweq> :)
15:02:53 <gmann> as we need quorum  for few items and we are 8 member present out of 9. +1
15:03:00 <gmann> let's start
15:03:08 <gmann> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda_Suggestions
15:03:10 <gmann> today agenda ^^
15:03:21 <dpawlik> o/
15:03:37 <gmann> #topic Follow up on past action items
15:03:37 <diablo_rojo_phone> O/
15:03:42 <gmann> none from last meeting
15:03:51 <gmann> #topic Gate health check
15:03:58 <gmann> any news on gate?
15:04:16 <dansmith> so, I've been working on some perf gathering, which is related
15:04:32 <dansmith> and I noticed an issue, which I raised with dmendiza[m] related to keystone
15:04:33 <gmann> devstack-plugin-ceph-tempest-py3 seems failing consistently but victoria is debugging that, I will also check after meeting or so
15:04:33 <dansmith> https://zuul.opendev.org/t/openstack/build/ca64a1330ad3445abcbefb280ca1d563/log/controller/logs/devstacklog.txt#22607
15:04:53 <dpawlik> dansmith: did you fix some issues related to wrong service name?
15:05:02 <dansmith> (scroll down to that line) and keystone is doing 80k select requests against its DB by the end of just a devstack run
15:05:22 <dansmith> dpawlik: the neutron issue you mean?
15:05:39 <gmann> I think yes, it was v2.0 instead of network
15:05:49 <rosmaita> i'm seeing a lot of failures on cinder-plugin-ceph-tempest
15:05:51 <slaweq> Neutron gate is currently broken with new neutron-lib release, ralonsoh is working on fix for it (fullstack job is red)
15:06:25 <dpawlik> not onlt neutron was affected - Aodh too
15:06:47 <gmann> dpawlik: ah right
15:07:04 <gmann> let's go one by one. perf thing first
15:07:09 <gmann> dansmith: 80k is valid right as devstack does a lot of operation for account setup or so or they seems suspicious ?
15:07:11 <dpawlik> dansmith: let me know when the performance.json will be ok. I will do next step with logsender and add the performance.json fields into the docs
15:07:27 <dansmith> gmann: 80k is wayyyy too many for the number of accounts we create, IMHO
15:07:35 <dpawlik> by saying docs, I mean elasticsearch doc*
15:07:57 <dansmith> dpawlik: ack, waiting for a couple more patches to merge
15:08:17 <gmann> dansmith: and that is before tempest run right
15:08:51 <dansmith> gmann: yeah
15:08:52 <gmann> because tempest create project/users/assisgn role for every test run
15:08:56 <gmann> humm
15:09:49 <dansmith> anyway, hoping to get a read from the keystone people at some point about that
15:09:57 <gmann> +1
15:10:01 <dansmith> either "this is broken" or "this is so high because $reason"
15:10:39 <gmann> yeah
15:10:41 <gmann> anything else on perf things? patches are up for review #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:db-stats
15:11:15 <gmann> slaweq: thanks for update on neutron-lib issue
15:11:34 <gmann> rosmaita: is cinder-plugin-ceph-tempest failure related to devstack-plugin-ceph-tempest-py3 failure?
15:11:50 <rosmaita> don't know
15:12:01 <gmann> ok, let's discuss it in qa channel anyways
15:12:08 <rosmaita> yeah, makes sense
15:12:23 <gmann> anything else on gate things?
15:12:28 <fungi> recently we've seen a few failures where test nodes can't do dns lookups. it seems like it may just be centos-based jobs and we've got a logging blind-spot for the resolver daemon on those platforms, but there are changes in progress to fix the log collection so we'll hopefully have a better idea of what's going wrong
15:12:54 <gmann> ack, thanks
15:13:08 <gmann> #topic Join leadership meeting with Board of Directors
15:13:29 <gmann> as you saw in email, I have prepared a rough agenda for the meeting, #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-board-meeting-2022
15:14:00 <gmann> tc-members: please check this ^^ and add/comment before today EOD(CST)
15:14:39 <diablo_rojo_phone> Looks like a good agenda to me.
15:14:40 <jungleboyj> ++
15:14:52 <aprice> also, if you are planning to attend the board meeting in person, please add your name and email address here: https://openinfrafoundation.formstack.com/forms/openinfra_summit_berlin_board_meeting_rsvp
15:14:53 <diablo_rojo_phone> The cross community stuff is just kubernetes? Or am I missing something?
15:14:59 <aprice> This will be required to access the meeting room
15:15:21 <rosmaita> gmann: agenda looks good, what kind of comments do you want?
15:15:21 <gmann> diablo_rojo_phone: there is more especially on NVF side too
15:15:34 <gmann> aprice: +1, thanks
15:15:35 <arne_wiebalck> gmann would you like tc members at the summit to attend?
15:15:47 <spotz> *faints* aprice is back on IRC!:)
15:15:55 <aprice> hahah I am :)
15:15:56 <jungleboyj> :-)
15:16:12 * jungleboyj usually has to go ask someone to get her on IRC.  :-)
15:16:15 <gmann> rosmaita: if anything else you think we should and can be beneficial to board?
15:16:37 <rosmaita> ok
15:16:49 <spotz> Just to be clear this is the meeting TheJulia has been emailing about not part of the in-person board meeting
15:16:51 <gmann> arne_wiebalck: no that is individual choice. this meeting can eb virtual I think zoom as discussed in board meeting
15:17:16 <arne_wiebalck> spotz: gmann: oh, ok
15:18:08 <gmann> anyways, we will get the meeting details soon
15:18:09 <spotz> So agenda = thejulia Zoom invite to sit in the board meeting = aprice
15:18:28 <gmann> yeah
15:18:37 <gmann> moving next
15:18:40 <gmann> #topic New ELK service dashboard: e-r service
15:19:10 <gmann> frenzy_friday: dasm : I think most part if clear now on this
15:19:37 <dpawlik> There was an issue that comes few times last week that Opensearch cluster does not have enough space. It was little bit odd, but it seems that few days there was pushed a lot of messages there
15:19:47 <dpawlik> I'm monitoring that situation
15:19:53 <gmann> dpawlik: ok, thanks
15:20:22 <fungi> the volume of logs generated fluctuates wildly depending on what's going on the openstack development
15:20:39 <clarkb> we found 7 days to be stable with 6TB of storage for 5TB effective with one replica on the old system
15:20:44 <frenzy_friday> gmann, we will prepare the code so that it can be merged to master. It will still be tripleo focused but we might clean up some stuff
15:21:09 <fungi> sometimes some projects/jobs end up with failure modes where massive log streams get generated. other times it's just that somebody is repeatedly rebasing a 50-change stack for a project which runs lots of jobs
15:21:15 <gmann> frenzy_friday: and keeping master one also I mean openstack based queries etc?
15:21:26 <dasm> gmann++n
15:21:33 <gmann> ok
15:22:05 <fungi> there's also no reason the e-r being run for the openstack community can't evaluate both tripleo and devstack job logs
15:22:29 <frenzy_friday> gmann, we have decoupled the queries from ER repo: https://opendev.org/openstack/tripleo-ci-health-queries The syntax of the queries have also changed
15:22:46 <dasm> do we have any ETA for bringing it up? or is it: when it's done, it's done?
15:22:47 <dpawlik> clarkb, fungi: ack. If situation will be too much to handle, I will cut off some part of logs that are pushed temporary.
15:23:25 <gmann> frenzy_friday: yeah, that is why we can keep them in separate folder or so in master branch supporitng both syntex
15:23:51 <dpawlik> sometimes logs can have over 200MB....
15:23:54 <gmann> dasm: I think no ETA planned yet but as we are doing we should just get it done in this flow :)
15:24:04 <dasm> gmann: ack
15:24:08 <gmann> frenzy_friday: dasm and e-r we can discuss in separate call also if need or any query on merging. dpawlik will be here and on #openstack-infra for discussion.
15:24:31 * dasm is on #openstack-infra too -- just in case
15:24:53 <clarkb> dpawlik: the old system also filtered out all debug logs
15:24:55 <gmann> cool thanks frenzy_friday dasm for joining and helping on this.  really appreciate that
15:24:57 <dpawlik> feel free to catch me  there ;)
15:25:03 <clarkb> dpawlik: for that reason
15:25:04 <gmann> +1
15:25:12 <frenzy_friday> gmann, ack, that will be good. Once we have the code cleaned up a bit we can discuss if that can be merged to master. dasm what do you think?
15:25:29 <dpawlik> clarkb: ack
15:25:31 * dasm is interested in bringing that up again. if infra allows for that
15:25:55 <dpawlik> what would be the subdomain name for it?
15:25:55 <dasm> frenzy_friday: yes, let's start with making it used by both: rdo and master.
15:26:09 <gmann> +1
15:26:31 <gmann> moving next (two bug topic coming next)
15:26:44 <gmann> #topic 'tick', 'tock' release cadence
15:26:59 <gmann> 1. Legal checks on using 'tick', 'tock'
15:27:08 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/840354
15:27:38 <gmann> as we discussed in last meeting, tick-tock naming is not so clear if that pass legal or how to use them to pass legal so we decided to go with other name
15:28:05 <gmann> current proposal are 1. SLU (Skip level upgradable) 2. SLURP (Skip level upgrade release process)
15:28:28 <gmann> before we start on these two, any other suggestion from anyone?
15:28:55 <jungleboyj> Haven't come up with anything better.
15:29:09 <gmann> we need to decide the name today as none of the name is perfect and can satisfy all the criteria so let's just complete this and focus on actual work :)
15:29:11 <spotz> Me neither
15:29:20 <rosmaita> good idea
15:29:57 <jungleboyj> ++
15:30:15 <gmann> ok, then let's start voting on these two only and we will pick the one with majority vote
15:30:28 <dansmith> ++
15:30:31 <gmann> #startvote new release cadence name ? SLU, SLURP
15:30:31 <opendevmeet> Begin voting on: new release cadence name ? Valid vote options are SLU, SLURP.
15:30:31 <opendevmeet> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
15:30:37 <gmann> #vote SLURP
15:30:40 <spotz> #vote SLU
15:30:47 <arne_wiebalck> #vote SLU
15:30:50 <rosmaita> #vote SLURP
15:30:52 <slaweq> #vote SLURP
15:30:52 <dansmith> #vote SLURP
15:30:54 <knikolla> #vote SLU
15:31:25 <spotz> jungleboyj: vote:)
15:31:31 <jungleboyj> #vote SLU
15:31:37 <jungleboyj> :-)  I was thinking.
15:31:39 <spotz> diablo_rojo_phone: you're the tie breaker
15:31:55 <rosmaita> slurp ... slurp ... slurp
15:31:57 <fungi> (no pressure)
15:32:07 <slaweq> :)
15:32:13 <spotz> hehe
15:32:18 <dpawlik> if you choose slurp...
15:32:29 * jungleboyj plays the Jeopardy theme
15:32:32 <gmann> diablo_rojo_phone: waiting for your vote
15:34:03 <gmann> ?
15:34:36 <gmann> I think she is not online here or may be in another place?
15:34:53 <ttx> she is definitely traveling right now, but was around earlier...
15:34:59 <spotz> aprice: Can you ping her?
15:35:02 <ttx> i did
15:35:10 <gmann> yeah, she messaged here just few min ago
15:35:28 <arne_wiebalck> the tension is unbearable! :-D
15:35:34 <spotz> heheh
15:35:35 <dpawlik> maybe someone want to change own vote, so situation will be more clear
15:35:41 <ttx> haha lol
15:35:48 <spotz> SLU!!!!!!
15:35:50 <gmann> yeah, anyone want to change and we will go with 8 vote
15:36:11 <ttx> (narrator) each camp stayed on their position
15:36:20 <gmann> anyone want to change to SLURP :P
15:36:30 <rosmaita> i will say something in favor of SLURP ... maybe dansmith was already thinking this, but there's a concept of  'slurping' a file (that is, pull the whole thing into memory before  processing it, instead of processing it by chunks), and that's sort of  what we're doing here ... instead of upgrading as releases become  available, you're waiting to have the whole thing before you upgrade
15:36:46 <gmann> +1
15:36:52 <dansmith> rosmaita: yes, I said that and I agree, it has a nice connotation, IMHO
15:36:58 <spotz> It just SOUNDS bad:(
15:37:06 <ttx> If SLURP is skip-level upgrade release process... the skip-level upgrade release (every two releases) is called SLUR?
15:37:22 <spotz> Oh that's worse ttx
15:37:26 <jungleboyj> Oh boy ...
15:37:36 <gmann> :) so SLURP is better see
15:37:46 <diablo_rojo_phone> Catching back up sorry!
15:37:48 <dansmith> there are a number of other things that can come after SLU that are more bad than RP :)
15:37:56 <arne_wiebalck> gmann: better than SLUR, but worse that SLU
15:37:56 <spotz> dansmith: hehe
15:38:02 <dansmith> diablo_rojo_phone: just #vote SLURP and we're done :P
15:38:16 <diablo_rojo_phone> #vote SLURP
15:38:18 <gmann> #endvote
15:38:18 <opendevmeet> Voted on "new release cadence name ?" Results are
15:38:18 <opendevmeet> SLURP (5): slaweq, rosmaita, dansmith, diablo_rojo_phone, gmann
15:38:18 <opendevmeet> SLU (4): knikolla, arne_wiebalck, jungleboyj, spotz
15:38:22 <dansmith> YASS
15:38:28 <jungleboyj> :-)
15:38:36 <gmann> ok so let's go with the SLURP
15:38:38 <ttx> witness tampering!
15:38:43 <diablo_rojo_phone> Only cause I worry SLU is also trademarked because of all the universities.
15:38:56 * dasm can't vote, but maybe SKIP? Skip K(c)urrent Integration Process? ^^
15:39:07 <spotz> ohhh skip!
15:39:14 <dansmith> diablo_rojo_phone: https://www.slu.edu/
15:39:24 <gmann> SKIP also trademark 'SKIP the dishes'
15:39:42 <gmann> anyways we are done. I will update the patch
15:39:47 <ttx> while no one took slurp.com, for some reason...
15:39:48 <diablo_rojo_phone> dansmith: exactly
15:40:32 <gmann> so we will name/designate 1 year release upgradable to SLURP and other one as no name/designate right?
15:41:08 <rosmaita> that was my understanding
15:41:25 <dansmith> yup
15:41:26 <gmann> cool. just to make sure we all are on same page.
15:41:27 <gmann> 2. release notes discussion
15:41:28 <jungleboyj> Yeah, mine as well.
15:41:32 <gmann> rosmaita: go ahead
15:41:47 <rosmaita> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/840996
15:42:08 <rosmaita> i slapped up some samples to see what the proposals we've been discussing would look like
15:42:39 <rosmaita> this is better, in html
15:42:41 <rosmaita> https://5ef6aafd25cfae8cca59-26a37c9db08d9ed7f07a8ba593bf7773.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/840996/1/check/build-openstack-releasenotes/f9875aa/docs/index.html
15:43:06 <rosmaita> i think the simple one is the best
15:43:25 <rosmaita> mainly because trying to combine them is a PITA (for me, anyway)
15:43:28 <dansmith> simple is the "just link" one?
15:43:33 <rosmaita> yes
15:43:40 <rosmaita> the link is added to the preface
15:44:08 <dansmith> I left some comments in there
15:44:15 <rosmaita> but i did the tick + tock just to see whether the release notes would be overwhelming or not
15:44:44 <dansmith> I think manual had too much stuff brought across, which maybe is part of the PITA bits, but I definitely sympathize
15:45:02 <gmann> rosmaita: what is difference frm tick-tock and manual?
15:45:07 <dansmith> can we say "go with the simple approach, but if there's anything really critical for upgrade, you might want to add it in" ?
15:45:36 <gmann> yeah, say 'cinder v1 gone' can be added in both
15:45:39 <rosmaita> gmann: see the comment at the top of https://5ef6aafd25cfae8cca59-26a37c9db08d9ed7f07a8ba593bf7773.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/840996/1/check/build-openstack-releasenotes/f9875aa/docs/tick2-manual.html
15:45:57 <gmann> rosmaita: i see
15:46:02 <slaweq> so simple + manual in case of some really critical stuff, right?
15:46:16 <gmann> yeah, that sounds good
15:46:18 <dansmith> slaweq: IMHO, yeah
15:46:32 <slaweq> I like that idea
15:47:05 <gmann> ok, any objection on this approach ?
15:47:46 <rosmaita> works for me ... all you need to do is add the link to the prelude of the SLURP notes
15:48:15 <rosmaita> key thing is it needs to be in a standard location
15:48:31 <gmann> seems none, let's document it and there we can discuss at the top or where
15:48:39 <gmann> rosmaita: sure.
15:48:56 <rosmaita> ok
15:49:13 <jungleboyj> ++
15:49:16 <gmann> rosmaita: thanks for the possible approaches on that.
15:49:18 <gmann> moving to next topic even we have less time for that but we will see how it goes
15:49:19 <spotz> ++
15:49:26 <gmann> #topic OpenStack release naming after Zed
15:49:38 <gmann> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-April/028354.html
15:49:38 <aprice> i added this as a follow up to the ML thread about how the foundation can help take this on
15:49:45 <gmann> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/839897
15:49:50 <slaweq> there's a lot of push back on dropping names in the review
15:49:56 <gmann> yeah, I think everyone know the context of this
15:50:07 <aprice> I'd also like to push back, but think that the Foundation can take the naming burden off the TC
15:50:09 <gmann> aprice: what is foundation proposal ?
15:50:23 <aprice> the proposal would be for the Foundation to couple the release naming process with the legal checks we are already doing
15:50:43 <aprice> we can put together a framework on continuing to get interaction from the community as i know this is important for folks to help decide the name
15:50:51 <gmann> aprice: if we go with the same process I am not sure how it solve the problem
15:50:53 <dansmith> you had me at "take the burden off the TC"
15:50:58 <rosmaita> :)
15:50:59 <dansmith> after that I don't care about anything else
15:51:01 <gmann> issue is not who is doing issue is process
15:51:20 <aprice> well i think that the sensitivity piece is also something that we can take on as part of the process.
15:51:46 <jungleboyj> aprice:  ++  That would be good.
15:51:47 <aprice> i think that we can do our best to ensure that the names are culturally appropriate, but I think that it would be a big loss to drop the process entirely
15:52:00 <spotz> ++ aprice
15:52:01 <jungleboyj> Agreed.
15:52:04 <gmann> aprice: because if community object on the selected name by same process but selected  by foundation then how we handle that?
15:52:12 <aprice> we have ambassadors worldwide that we can work with to collect feedback from different geos
15:52:37 <gmann> aprice: we did that in last two cycle and ask in community and objection comes after selection only
15:53:01 <rosmaita> gmann: but the key thing is that it won't be the TC's problem
15:53:05 <gmann> I think ambassadors things are slate and no more active but I might be wrong
15:53:06 <aprice> i think that as long as we give folks the opportunity to voice concern (and a clear timeframe to do so), that should sufficient imo
15:53:08 <dansmith> right
15:53:15 <ttx> gmann: arguably people don;t even know the name is being selected in the current process
15:53:20 <aprice> it's how we do other processes like venue selections and things like that.
15:53:21 <gmann> rosmaita: yeah so we are shifting problem from TC to foundation?
15:53:21 <dansmith> I'm more than okay with people being offended, if the target is the foundation and not us :)
15:53:26 <rosmaita> gmann: yep
15:53:27 <dansmith> gmann: yes
15:53:29 <ttx> so they discovet teh choice late and complain
15:53:29 <slaweq> gmann: I think it's because if we ask "community" then nobody really cares, and if foundation will ask some people personally, it may be different
15:54:00 <aprice> i think that it is near impossible to appease everyone in the community on the finalized name, but what we can do is provide clear ways for them to voice concerns before selection to be taken into account
15:54:27 <jungleboyj> I feel that the foundation leading the effort and the community helping is a good approach.
15:54:40 <rosmaita> we can at least give it a try
15:54:50 <slaweq> rosmaita++
15:54:52 <aprice> neither the community nor the tc will be cut out of the process. id like to just help take off all of the heat from you all
15:55:01 <spotz> I think it's a good plan and the foundation can work closely with legal
15:55:02 <gmann> I have no objection to that but I am not seeing 'current problem solution proposal' here instead just give it to foundation and we will see
15:55:03 <jungleboyj> And the Foundation seems more appropriately powered to handle the situations.
15:55:22 <dansmith> gmann: it will help the foundation understand why it's not worth the trouble
15:55:26 <jungleboyj> I am good with trying this.
15:55:27 <rosmaita> gmann: your analysis of the situation is correct
15:55:46 <fungi> some people also object to decisions like dropping support for api extensions, i think the difference is that the tc is more comfortable defending technical choices which some people object to than defending social choices which some people object to
15:56:07 <rosmaita> somehow ubuntu seems to make this work ... or have any of their release names been controversial?
15:56:17 <gmann> if foundation comes with 'solution' and  how it can be solved the it sounds good but with the current process but trying in foundation than TC does not seems convincing to me
15:56:21 <aprice> well i wanted to get tc buy-in before putting together a full process and proposal. i understand and dont want to minimize the issues that have come up with the naming.
15:56:57 <gmann> aprice: +1, strongly feel that we need to change the process also here
15:57:06 <aprice> i agree.
15:57:13 <aprice> i just didnt want to skip steps
15:57:22 <gmann> may be foundation just pick name and finalize. no community/TC involvement
15:57:26 <dansmith> yes
15:57:30 <dansmith> like debian
15:57:35 <aprice> i would hate to take that away from the community though.
15:57:36 <gmann> yeah, like debian
15:57:38 <dansmith> I wish them luck :)
15:57:50 <spotz> It is definitely worth the trouble to have names, we just need to work out the best way
15:58:06 <gmann> aprice: that is main issue then, we thought of giving it to release team or other but than it is same problem there.
15:58:32 <aprice> yeah, but the Foundation picks names / other decisions like event locations for the community (with community input). this wouldnt be the first thing of its kind
15:58:33 <jungleboyj> I think it is important for the community to still be involved to feel a connection to the name.
15:58:45 <ttx> i feel like Foundation is better equipped to receive early private complaints, than a team like TC or release team that does its work in public
15:58:54 <jungleboyj> ttx: Agreed.
15:58:57 <rosmaita> ttx: ++
15:59:17 <ttx> maybe we'll discover that it's a pain and drop it :) But I'm confident we can make it work
15:59:27 <jungleboyj> :-)
15:59:27 <ttx> as a fun community activity again
15:59:39 <spotz> ttx +2:)
15:59:45 <gmann> ttx: may be. but community members raises concern in past so not sure if they do not want to speak to TC prior to selection
16:00:13 <aprice> as a next step, i can work on a strawman proposal, but I think at least giving the foundation the chance to keep the naming release process is something I would very much like to try.
16:00:17 <ttx> i think they have no idea names are being selected. The Foudnation is better equipped to tap into social channels and not surprise anyone
16:00:53 <gmann> aprice: ttx sure
16:01:07 <jungleboyj> That sounds reasonable to me.
16:01:31 <diablo_rojo_phone> It was a fun community thing that's become a chore that can easily be handled by the foundation.
16:01:48 <rosmaita> diablo_rojo_phone: good summary
16:01:58 <diablo_rojo_phone> And it makes more sense given that it's a release marketing thing that the foundation handle it.
16:02:03 <gmann> ok, so proposal is : "TC will not be involved in the name instead just ask foundation to give the final name before deadline (release team has). foundation will discuss and see what process they can do current or new which is all ok."
16:02:08 <diablo_rojo_phone> Since it's not a fun community thing anymore.
16:02:29 <spotz> Can we call a vote for letting the Foundatio take this task? It'll be up to them to put a plan together and make it work
16:02:40 <ttx> gmann that works. With my release tam hat on, the name becomes one of the things we ask the Foundation (like events dates etc)
16:02:44 <gmann> diablo_rojo_phone: indeed and I still not sure how it will be fun we are just changing the place to perfome it :)
16:03:11 <dansmith> gmann: it will be fun in a schadenfreude sort of way now :)
16:03:22 <rosmaita> the best kind of fun!
16:03:23 <gmann> ttx: cool so that can be direct release team to ask foundation and no TC involvement?
16:03:55 <gmann> spotz: I think most of us are ok to give it to foundation so do not think we need vote here? but  I will call for any objection for sure
16:04:08 <fungi> i think it's also, separately, a good idea to continue with the currently published versioning plan to use release numbers as primary identifiers in our scheduling and automated processes,leaving the cycle names as more of a marketing feature which isn't integral to most of the schedule
16:04:08 <ttx> gmann: I think we can add it to the release process yes
16:04:21 <dansmith> gmann: I'm not hearing any dissenting voices, so no need for a vote, IMHO
16:04:23 <gmann> ttx: cool.
16:04:24 <gmann> any objection on giving the name process to foundation?
16:04:29 <gmann> dansmith: yeah
16:04:32 <dansmith> fungi: agree
16:04:42 <jungleboyj> No objections from me.
16:04:47 <aprice> fungi: ++
16:04:50 <rosmaita> me neither, sounds like a good idea
16:04:53 <gmann> fungi: ++ good point
16:04:56 <slaweq> no objections from me
16:05:10 <spotz> Sweet names go to the foundation!
16:05:29 <aprice> thanks for chatting through it everyone
16:05:32 <gmann> ok, I will propose it in gerrit to update the release name process in TC and then we will be good to go.
16:05:39 <rosmaita> aprice: thanks for taking this on!
16:05:44 <aprice> i will work on a proposal with out team and then move forward from here
16:05:45 <jungleboyj> aprice:  Yes, thank you.
16:05:47 <spotz> Thanks aprice!!!!
16:06:06 <aprice> no problem!
16:06:26 <gmann> aprice: ttx thanks for joining and taking it. it has been too noisy for TC for many cycle. not name but also the discussion on what to do:)
16:06:48 <aprice> for sure, im glad that you brought it to the ML so we could take that off yalls list.
16:07:01 <gmann> +1, thanks again
16:07:03 <ttx> definitely not the best use of TC's limited time
16:07:14 <gmann> yeah
16:07:18 <gmann> we are out of time, and closing the meeting
16:07:24 <jungleboyj> :-)
16:07:24 <spotz> Thanks ttx!
16:07:30 <jungleboyj> Thank you everyone!
16:07:45 <arne_wiebalck> Thanks!
16:07:50 <gmann> thanks everyone for joining, very productive meeting today, we figured the two big things
16:07:59 <jungleboyj> \o/
16:08:06 <gmann> #endmeeting