18:00:11 <JayF> #startmeeting tc
18:00:11 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Mar 12 18:00:11 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is JayF. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:11 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:00:11 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
18:00:15 <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.
18:00:15 <JayF> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee.
18:00:15 <JayF> #topic Roll Call
18:00:18 <JayF> o/
18:00:23 <frickler> \o
18:00:26 <dansmith> o/
18:00:36 <gmann> o/
18:00:43 <jamespage> o/
18:00:51 <JayF> #info No expected absences noted on the agenda.
18:01:08 <JayF> I'll give a few minutes for remaining tc-members to arrive
18:01:09 <rosmaita> o/
18:01:16 <slaweq> o/
18:02:45 <JayF> I'm going to continue with the seven of us :)
18:03:33 <JayF> Skipping topic Follow up on Tracked Action items, there are none to follow up on
18:03:43 <JayF> #topic Gate Health Check
18:04:12 <dansmith> not terrible of late, but basically all the underlying issues are still there I think
18:04:15 <JayF> Ironic has been aggressively trying to fix/keep our gate working.
18:04:36 <dansmith> I have yet to try to examine our job that is running with extra swap and zswap to see how it's helping or not
18:04:36 <spotz[m]> o/
18:04:45 <JayF> I did get a response to my email calling for help with the gate, I am working with the people involved to get their permission to make their offer public
18:04:45 <gmann> yeah, I will say much better considering the release time
18:05:01 <slaweq> I started slowly looking at the main reasons of rechecks - I hope to have some data this or next week and I will send email about it
18:05:05 <frickler> there were some issues due to release candidates, but I think they should mostly be fixed by now
18:05:20 <JayF> slaweq: I'll be very interested to see that for sure :D
18:05:35 <JayF> Is there anything else to talk about here or should we move on?
18:06:05 <JayF> #topic Implementation of Unmaintained Branch Statuses
18:06:11 <JayF> how goes the great branch rename of 2024? :D
18:06:24 <frickler> steadily proceeding I'd say
18:06:37 <frickler> sadly not much feedback on the questions I posted last week
18:07:52 <JayF> What questions/venue specifically? Just wanna make sure they get in the log if you have a link
18:08:05 <frickler> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/unmaintained-release-issues
18:08:18 <frickler> yeah, was looking for that already, bad preparation
18:08:56 <gmann> frickler: i opened it last week but then forgot to add feedback. I will do this week (most probably today/tomorrow)
18:09:52 <JayF> I updated the Ironic patch to try and move that forward, I have that etherpad open and will try to make a look at the others.
18:09:59 <JayF> frickler: can we get that mailed out to the list for a larger audience?
18:10:15 <frickler> I'm sure you can if you want
18:10:43 <JayF> I'm just going to move on.
18:10:56 <fungi> i'll note there's still been limited communication (as far as i've seen) on how to get involved with/grow the openstack-unmaintained-core group, which has led to some projects growing impatient and adding their own acls in order to be able to merge changes
18:11:30 <frickler> ah, yes, I kind of keep seeing devstack bugs about it, too
18:11:50 <frickler> so soon there also needs to be a discussion about when to consider EOLing stuff
18:12:10 <JayF> Would the PTG be good timing/venue for that discussion?
18:12:26 <gmann> added response for tempest/its plugins cases.
18:12:27 <frickler> not the worst one I'd say
18:13:13 <JayF> I added some notes about it in the PTG planning etherpad.
18:13:35 <JayF> fungi: I believe there was a call to action to do that, I think project team guide was to be updated, then emails sent
18:13:58 <JayF> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817
18:14:03 <JayF> 2x +2 but not yet workflowed
18:14:13 <JayF> it seems like it'd be helpful to get that landed and an email sent out
18:14:23 <fungi> yeah, in hindsight, we shouldn't have renamed branches until the process for adding people to review changes was decided and in place
18:14:47 <fungi> instead it's led to a lot of impatience and projects taking the path of least resistance rather than waiting for further guidance
18:15:17 <fungi> which adds to overall technical debt
18:15:30 <frickler> fungi: well if any volunteer showed up, they could be added to the gerrit group
18:15:40 <frickler> but I haven't heard any interest so far
18:15:50 <fungi> volunteers keep showing up, but don't know how to ask to be added
18:16:03 <dansmith> where are they showing up?
18:16:13 <gmann> yeah, did not see at least in ML
18:16:21 <frickler> just ping the existing team members as usual
18:16:28 <fungi> mostly by proposing acl changes for their projects to get control of those branches because nobody's been approving the changes on them
18:16:47 <fungi> and then we point out that there's already a group with access to do that they could be added to instead
18:16:51 <dansmith> okay I'm not sure that's the same thing
18:16:59 <dansmith> I mean, it might be, but...
18:17:02 <frickler> all acl changes I have seen were from people who explicitly did not want to add themselves to the global group
18:17:03 <gmann> but the process is also not different and hidden also, just - "ask member of the group on how to be added"
18:17:19 <fungi> and they wait for further instructions from the (two?) people who currently comprise that group but it never comes
18:17:28 <fungi> so then they move forward with the original acl request instead
18:17:55 <JayF> The path out of this is landing 910817 (linked above) and ensuring that path is as clear as possible
18:18:04 <JayF> how we got here matters less than getting to a better place
18:18:36 <frickler> even without being core, they could do thinks like propose CI fixes
18:18:42 <frickler> *things
18:18:58 <fungi> but not approvethem. the main concern i've seen raised is that the changes are sitting there unapproved
18:19:03 <JayF> As I understand it, these are core reviewers seeing patches on branches they don't have votes on, trying to resolve their ability to vote on them.
18:19:15 <gmann> yeah, if something they proposed and not merging then we can say we are blocking them
18:19:16 <JayF> I had similar upset contributors in Ironic at one point because I botched the ACL we added for ironic-cores.
18:19:21 <spotz[m]> Can there be a bakcup plan to get people added if no response?
18:20:12 <frickler> well I'd certainly add anyone who asks for it, assuming someone known within the community
18:20:12 <gmann> but anyways we can merge 910817 soon as no objection on that or if anything need more clarity than can be done later
18:20:18 <fungi> i didn't really want to be involved in unmaintained branches, but at this point i'm willing to just add anyone to that group myself if they ask, assuming that's acceptable
18:20:59 <JayF> I'm in that group and would basically take the same approach fungi says (Just adding people), but IMO the right path forward, as gmann has also said, is to land https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817
18:21:04 <fungi> because it might be less work for me than dealing with the additional acl changes
18:21:10 <gmann> well if no response then existing group needs to be cleaned up so it is kind of re-activation of this global group which can happen anytime or like to any other core group also
18:21:24 <JayF> fungi: if they are a core in a preexisting OpenStack project, I am +2 to it. If not I'm like, +0.5 lol
18:22:47 <frickler> JayF: yes, some proven experience with gerrit and zuul would be expected IMO
18:22:47 <fungi> anyway, i didn't want to derail, just pointing out that not prioritizing completing the process document/guidance is leading to additional work for some people and accumulation of tech debt
18:23:04 <JayF> It seems like we have clear paths forward: 1) land https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817, 2) review and try to get fixes for issues documented here https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/unmaintained-release-issues
18:23:14 <JayF> both of those are doable; is there any other actionable suggestions before we move on?>
18:23:17 <gmann> ++
18:23:23 <fungi> because people don't want to wait for further instructions, they just want whatever will get them back to approving changes soonest
18:24:34 <JayF> #topic Testing runtime for 2024.2 release
18:24:42 <JayF> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/908862
18:24:56 <JayF> I believe this currently has enough support to merge once the waiting period has completed (it should be landable by EOD).
18:25:05 <JayF> Please cast your vote there if you haven't already
18:25:12 <JayF> Is there any discussion needed related to this?
18:26:27 <frickler> all said and done I guess
18:26:38 <gmann> nothing from me too. mentioned plan sounds good
18:27:06 <gmann> I will work on generic job template change after it merge
18:27:09 <JayF> I'm sorry we couldn't get to a point where we have unanimous consensus, but I'm glad we're going to have a runtime defined for the next release.
18:27:14 <JayF> Thanks for all the participation
18:27:19 <JayF> #topic TC vPTG 2024.2
18:27:25 <JayF> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2024-ptg-os-tc
18:27:44 <JayF> I also tentatively booked us some time in line with times from last cycle
18:28:08 <JayF> Please let me know if any of the booked times for os-tc on https://ptg.opendev.org/ptg.html (Monday, Tuesday, Friday) are a hardship.
18:28:18 <JayF> and if you have any topics for discussion, please add them to the etherpad
18:28:51 <frickler> s/Tuesday/Thursday/
18:28:55 <JayF> #topic Open Discussion and Reviews
18:28:58 <JayF> #undo
18:28:58 <opendevmeet> Removing item from minutes: #topic Open Discussion and Reviews
18:29:01 <JayF> frickler: that is correct
18:29:10 <opendevreview> Merged openstack/project-team-guide master: Add NOTE about becoming Unmaintained core team member  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817
18:29:21 <JayF> Wow, I really want to "Tuesday" these, don't I. That's the second time I've made that specific mistake.
18:29:50 <JayF> Moving on
18:29:52 <JayF> #topic Open Discussion and Reviews
18:30:11 <JayF> I'll note that mnasiadka asked we particularly try to get https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/910240 landed for magnum
18:30:19 <spotz[m]> I'll be up at Texas Linux Fest as an organizer on Friday but I was just going to find a quiet place to sit for it
18:30:32 <JayF> In general, we have a lot of governance patches up, shortly after lunch I'll be landing any eligible patches
18:30:40 <JayF> spotz[m]: Where in TX is that?
18:31:26 <spotz[m]> Austin at the Palmer events center
18:31:39 <slaweq> I may have to leave a bit earlier on Friday
18:31:40 <JayF> ah, I don't know anyone up that way but I hope you have a good time o/
18:31:47 <slaweq> but other than that it's good for me
18:31:51 <JayF> alright
18:32:11 <JayF> Giving a couple minutes for new items for open discussion or further chat on any open topic before closing the meeting
18:33:32 <frickler> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/910817 merged, how can you not love projects with a fast CI stack :)
18:33:47 <JayF> That's the exact kinda positive note we should leave on :D \o/
18:33:49 <JayF> #endmeeting