18:00:19 <JayF> #startmeeting tc
18:00:19 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Dec 19 18:00:19 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is JayF. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:19 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:00:19 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
18:00:26 <JayF> #topic Roll Call
18:00:30 <rosmaita> o/
18:00:32 <gmann> o/
18:00:36 <slaweq> o/
18:00:39 <JayF> Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct.
18:00:42 <JayF> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee.
18:01:02 <JayF> #info Three noted absences: dansmith, spotz, jamespage
18:01:29 <frickler> \o
18:01:36 <knikolla> o/
18:01:44 <JayF> that makes the six of us
18:01:57 <JayF> There are no due action items; going to skip that topic.
18:02:01 <JayF> #topic Gate Health Check
18:02:16 <JayF> Any observations on the gate?
18:02:28 <gmann> i have not observed any frequent failure this week.
18:02:29 <JayF> It's been looking better than usual to me; which I think is to be expected during this time of year.
18:02:38 <gmann> yeah, less traffic
18:02:42 <slaweq> me neighter
18:02:47 <slaweq> all looks good IMO
18:02:50 <fungi> we had a few incidents over the weekend... an automatically upgraded haproxy minor release included a regression that took the opendev.org site (gitea/git) and zuul dashboard offline. also a regression in the zuul timer trigger resulted in lots of extra periodic job runs until we emergency fixed it
18:03:41 <JayF> Sorry you all had to lose part of your weekend; thanks for getting it back to a happy place.
18:04:20 <fungi> yeah, i was just glad we got everything straightened out by the time activity picked back up for monday
18:04:41 <JayF> Thanks for that for sure. I'm going to move on if there's nothing else?
18:05:21 <JayF> #topic Leaderless Projects
18:05:23 <JayF> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.1-leaderless
18:05:52 <gmann> one thing, how we want to go for ec2-api, PTL appointment proposal is up and marking it inactive alos #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/903163  #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/902625
18:06:24 <gmann> both can be done also but we should decide either way
18:06:59 <gmann> PTL appointment make sense to me and no negative vote there
18:07:21 <JayF> Absolutely, please, lets get votes on these, either positive or negative. It's especially awkward with the inactive proposal as it's stacked on a passing vote item.
18:07:34 <JayF> It's hard to tell explicit abstentions from inattention.
18:07:57 <JayF> Thanks for taking care of this gmann, we've made a lot of progress.
18:08:04 <JayF> Going to move on if there are no other comments.
18:08:06 <gmann> np!
18:08:22 <JayF> #topic Implementation of Unmaintained branch statuses
18:08:34 <JayF> rosmaita: any updates from last week? I'd presume not?
18:08:41 <rosmaita> nope
18:08:46 <fungi> my change to update the security site merged
18:08:59 <JayF> Can you link that fungi?
18:09:06 <JayF> I'm honestly not 100% sure what exactly you're referencing
18:09:34 <fungi> #link https://review.opendev.org/901137 Update stable branch terminology for unmaintained
18:09:51 <fungi> fairly minor
18:09:57 <JayF> Useful though, thank you!
18:10:06 <JayF> #topic TC Charter updates & Openinfra Bylaw Changes
18:10:12 <JayF> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/903236/
18:10:21 <JayF> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/903239/
18:10:31 <gmann> i replied to frickler comment on #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/903236
18:10:41 <JayF> It's important we vote on these and either approve or reject them in a timely fashion.
18:11:09 <JayF> I'm going to note, I'm not sure we emailed the list specifically about this charter change
18:11:18 <gmann> yeah, other tc-members also can reply and add you point so that we can move fast in charter change and then resolution
18:11:26 <JayF> I'm not seeing it in my search, unless someone can confirm we did it, I'm going to take an action to send that email
18:11:29 <JayF> so it's eligible to land next week
18:11:42 <JayF> #action JayF to send email publicizing charter changes
18:12:03 <gmann> I usually used to mentioned those in my weekly summary email but no separate email
18:12:10 <gmann> but a separate email is also ok
18:12:51 <gmann> but I would like to ask what is tc plan, do we want to wait till holidays end or we cna do before
18:12:59 <fungi> it's not often the tc is asked to approve bylaws changes, so can't hurt to call it out in a dedicated announcement
18:13:02 <JayF> frickler: you are here, many of the TC members are here, are there concerns we want to try to work out here and now?
18:13:16 <JayF> fungi: I prefer separate emails for these things generally, I think it's easy to ignore recurring stuff
18:13:27 <gmann> remmeber there is hard deadline but it make sense to do soon for foundation staff to get bylaws change in effect
18:13:33 <frickler> well I'm still not fine with approving the diversity wordings
18:13:59 <frickler> IMO in the current state, we could as well drop the whole thing
18:14:18 <gmann> frickler: any other suggestion you have for having some way to handle the diversity thing if that happen?
18:14:22 <JayF> frickler: I had similar concerns to yours, brought them up in the syncronous session we had with OIF representatives and lawyer, and basically got the impression that the existing language and tenor of the board made the existing diversity language essentially toothless as it is.
18:15:04 <gmann> my suggestion is to improve our diversity requirement over time and we can merge the current version which is coming from bylaws chnage discussion
18:15:21 <JayF> frickler: I am fairly certain if we had a situation, with bylaws and charter as they are now, where diversity rule was threatened, that rule would be changed/waived by the board in the same way you are concerned it could be waived by the TC in the new charter :/
18:16:00 <gmann> as it will be in charter, tc has always time to improve/revise it.
18:16:37 <frickler> as a compromise just deleting the second sentence could work for now I guess
18:16:46 <rosmaita> gmann: ++ it doesn't leave us any worse off than we are now, and it will be easier for the TC to make revisions with it in the charter instead of the bylaws
18:17:19 <gmann> yeah
18:17:27 <JayF> AIUI, any changes to that text has to be vetted by the counsel for foundation, yes?
18:17:33 <frickler> or if all other members agree to the current text, I'll leave it at my minority -1
18:17:50 <frickler> s/all/majority of/
18:18:00 <fungi> at least changes to the charter don't need approval of the foundation board of directors and vetting by legal counsel
18:18:38 <JayF> frickler: I think that's a likely endpoint, based on the conversation in the sync meeting. I am onboard with any efforts you want to make to help add more teeth to a diversity requirement. I do not know how to structure such a requirement.
18:19:28 <gmann> frickler: you can start a separate review for that either remove it completly  or other idea to improve it
18:19:33 <fungi> that's something we could ask for help from foundation counsel on
18:19:50 <gmann> that is the whole idea of moving things to charter so that TC has easy way to update/improve those
18:19:56 <fungi> but would be better done as an iterative measure with limited scope
18:20:07 <rosmaita> just for the record, i'm opposed to eliminating that second sentence (about waiving the diversity requirement)
18:20:44 <JayF> rosmaita: ++ I am as well *for purposes of this initial change*. I am open to further changes in diversity language in a separate change.
18:20:58 <gmann> that is why it will be easy to propose the new review for improvements otherwise we will go back and forth in current change
18:21:10 <gmann> JayF: rosmaita: ++
18:21:27 <slaweq> gmann++
18:23:19 <JayF> Any further discussion on this topic?
18:24:52 <JayF> #topic 2024.1 TC Tracker
18:24:58 <JayF> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2024.1-tracker
18:25:08 <JayF> Any updates on TC Tracker items over the last week?
18:25:47 <JayF> I suspect the answer is no with folks busy for the holidays, going to give a minute or so for anyone to pipe up before moving on.
18:26:06 <gmann> no updates from me
18:26:14 <JayF> #topic Open Discussion and Reviews
18:26:18 <JayF> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/status:open+repo:openstack/governance
18:26:35 <JayF> Please take a look at governance changes, we have a few we've called out specifically but they aren't the only ones.
18:26:39 <JayF> Anything for open discussion?
18:26:39 <frickler> regarding zuul config errors there seem to be new ones created time and again, so I've given up on those, too
18:27:11 <frickler> most of them by changes to zuul itself
18:27:21 <JayF> frickler: Bugs around ironic branches getting recrated contributed to that too, rpittau is working on a better solution for that.
18:27:35 <JayF> (basically actually making release automation understand/handle retirement of our bugfix branches)
18:28:02 <frickler> yeah, stale stable branches not getting cleaned up is another issue contributing there
18:28:09 <fungi> zuul has made it possible to separate errors from deprecation warnings now, but yes its expectations do evolve over time
18:29:58 <frickler> also please review https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/903498
18:30:15 <frickler> to fix links to release pages
18:30:29 <gmann> frickler: I was good on that, just want to know the plan. commented there
18:30:48 <JayF> yeah, I looked over it, +2, if you are good with it, +2A it gmann and it's landed
18:31:08 <JayF> frickler: feel free to ping me on these anytime, fwiw
18:31:12 <gmann> maybe elodilles can confirm if release team is planning to fix page link  from 2024.2 onwards
18:32:01 <JayF> Just noting
18:32:17 <JayF> #info Next meeting Jan 9 2024.
18:32:40 <JayF> Have a good holiday everyone, either get rested up or find a quiet corner to hide and get stuff done in while everyone else is gone ;)
18:32:55 <JayF> Anything else?
18:33:10 <slaweq> have a good holiday :)
18:33:16 <frickler> JayF: does https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/903992?usp=dashboard need a special topic set?
18:33:19 <slaweq> and see You all next year!
18:33:23 <rosmaita> yes, i'd like to discuss the strategy for the ec2api PTL and make-inactive patches
18:33:50 <rosmaita> sounds like JayF is in favor of both making the project inactive *and* appointing a PTL
18:33:54 <JayF> rosmaita: There is nothing saying both can't land. An inactive project can have a PTL.
18:34:10 <JayF> In fact, an inactive project getting a PTL is a great step to getting activity.
18:34:20 <gmann> frickler: its project-update, done
18:35:01 <JayF> frickler: gmann: I still have to go to the topic glossary everytime to figure out the right one; ty gmann :)
18:35:03 <gmann> but we can wait for murano PTL +1 but seems they are not replying
18:35:27 <frickler> as mentioned earlier, IMO murano should also be marked inactive
18:35:36 <gmann> I agree
18:36:33 <rosmaita> looks like https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/903259 is ready to merge
18:36:52 <JayF> rosmaita: IMO the best possible outcome is we nominate a PTL for ec2-api, they fix the gate and get marked re-active super fast. Second-best is they fix the gate and are marked re-active by D-cycle. Either way, if the gate is broken and they aren't landing patches; it shouldn't be in "C"
18:37:22 <slaweq> +1 to what JayF said
18:37:24 <JayF> rosmaita: I'll run the check-review-status and land things right after this meeting
18:37:33 <gmann> ++
18:41:44 <JayF> Anything else on this topic, or additional topics?
18:43:59 <JayF> Last call before I close up the meeting?
18:44:41 <rosmaita> nothing from me, happy holidays to anyone celebrating
18:44:44 <JayF> Have a good holiday all o/
18:44:46 <JayF> #endmeeting