18:00:19 <JayF> #startmeeting tc
18:00:19 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Mar 19 18:00:19 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is JayF. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:19 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:00:19 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
18:00:25 <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.
18:00:26 <JayF> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee.
18:00:29 <JayF> #topic Roll Call
18:00:31 <JayF> o/
18:00:31 <dansmith> o/
18:00:43 <frickler> \o
18:00:45 <gmann> o/
18:00:48 <spotz[m]> o/
18:00:51 <jamespage> o/
18:01:01 <slaweq> o/
18:01:27 <rosmaita> o/
18:01:39 <JayF> I'm going to take this time to note that the election is over tomorrow; and this is the last meeting of the TC as currently constructed. Thanks to everyone who has been a part of TC over the last six months o/
18:02:19 <JayF> #info There are no tracked action items to follow up, agenda item skipped.
18:02:23 <JayF> #topic Gate Health Check
18:02:27 <JayF> How is the gate?
18:03:02 <dansmith> not great in nova land, there were a bunch of rechecks on trivial patches last week trying to get them in
18:03:13 <dansmith> a number of guest kernel crashes, which we have been seeing less of lately
18:03:24 <JayF> I know for Ironic it's been a little rough; we had to disable a set of jobs because something broke in CI automation around building cirros partition images; we're going to be discussing at PTG how to get that build out of the CI flow
18:03:39 <fungi> note there was an increase in zuul config errors from friday's centos-7 nodeset/label removal, but it mainly impacts very old branches (and a lot went away in subsequent unmaintained branch cleanup)
18:04:16 <JayF> Thanks for the update Dan and fungi. Going to give another bit of time for additional info before moving on.
18:04:40 <slaweq> speaking about rechecks, I sent today email https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/7L6DSFN6GB65FBVHQATTLSQ7HWGBZJHM/
18:05:01 <slaweq> I was looking at the reasons of rechecks in last 30 days and most of them are "unrelated failure" :/
18:05:30 <rosmaita> if only we could eliminate all those unrelated failures!
18:05:34 <JayF> Thanks slaweq -- I'm glad you aggregated that. I'm a little concerned that 'unrelated failure' rechecks may indicate that we have contributors who are uncomfortable with how to troubleshoot CI.
18:05:38 <slaweq> so I asked there if people can be more verbose and give some more specific reasons, hopefully we may have some better data in few weeks
18:05:40 <fungi> how unhelpful (the recheck comments i mean, your research is very helpful!)
18:05:48 <JayF> and/or are so busy that they don't have time to further dig and are only focusing on the task in front of them
18:06:07 <frickler> or get tired of typing long comments again and again
18:06:10 <dansmith> yeah the "recheck unrelated" has become the new bare recheck unfortunately
18:06:20 <frickler> because nobody fixes the unrelated failures
18:06:38 <dansmith> the point is to get people looking at the why and not just assuming "must not be my problem"
18:06:53 <dansmith> there was one report recently of someone in nova re-re-re-rechecking things that were indeed failing because of stuff they broke
18:06:55 <slaweq> dansmith +100 to what You said :)
18:07:33 <dansmith> :)
18:07:33 <spotz[m]> ouch
18:08:02 <JayF> dansmith: that's yet another sign of contributors who are focused on the change in front of them and/or are missing context on how to troubleshoot CI. I don't really know how to fix the first half of that, and I only know how to help with the latter via 1:1 mentoring
18:08:03 <gmann> yeah, unrelated recheck is not helping at all
18:08:33 <dansmith> JayF: to be clear, their patch was broken, they weren't even seeing it was failing a test that covered the code they were doing
18:08:49 <dansmith> I don't think it was a failure to understand some cryptic CI failure
18:09:08 <dansmith> but if you mean that we've trained people to assume that things just fail a lot so they don't even look, that's definitely true
18:09:11 <JayF> dansmith: ack; I will note that with extreme junior level contributors I've had to have that kinda conversation even in obvious context
18:09:23 <gmann> is it because we have many job running in gate and a few of them failing and other passing make them of thinking that 'my code is ok as some job pass' ?
18:09:36 <dansmith> and why I say hoping they'll at least look instead of assume is the reason that asking people to cough up a reason is at least mildly helpful
18:10:33 <dansmith> obviously if we have people that aren't even going to click on a failed job and look at the testr results, then there's not much we can do there, other than 1-on-1 coaching, which is what happened in this case
18:10:38 <JayF> I almost said "this is a good topic for PTG", but I'm not sure what could be said/discussed that hasn't been said/discussed before :/
18:10:52 <dansmith> but I have seen more than a few seasoned should-know-better people doing it :)
18:11:00 <dansmith> and I poke them when I do
18:11:33 <JayF> Yeah. It's a tough problem because even with some of the issues (the kernel panics on nova side; dnsmasq crashes on Ironic side), we've identified, escalated to people who should know and be able to help
18:11:36 <JayF> and we end up stuck
18:11:58 <dansmith> yup, but at least checking and commenting helps slaweq's stats show where the hot spots are
18:12:09 <JayF> ++
18:12:14 <JayF> I'm going to move on
18:12:17 <dansmith> if everything is "recheck unrelated" then even chatgpt (groan) can't summarize without hallucination :)
18:12:30 <slaweq> :)
18:12:37 <JayF> "Write me a recheck comment describing the failure in these logs" ;)
18:13:02 <JayF> #topic Implementation of Unmaintained Branch Statuses
18:13:15 <slaweq> JayF it actually may have more sense than just "recheck unrelated" ;)
18:13:27 <spotz[m]> hehe
18:13:32 <JayF> I assume this is mostly on pause/moving slowly due to release activities for 2024.2? Is there an update beyond the issues noted in the etherpad from last week
18:13:49 <frickler> not much happened due to rc1 stuff
18:14:00 <gmann> maybe we can update here about 'unrelated recheck' or something like this is another bare recheck type https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/testing.html#how-to-handle-test-failures
18:14:04 <JayF> That's what I suspected, and thanks for all the work getting Caracal out o/
18:14:28 <fungi> there was a fair amount of branch cleanup at least?
18:14:31 <JayF> gmann: I'd +1 such a change, depending on wording
18:14:45 <JayF> fungi: nice, thank you
18:15:14 <slaweq> gmann I will propose some additional info to that document
18:15:19 <fungi> i didn't do any of the cleanup, that was down to frickler and elodilles i think, just reporting it ;)
18:15:19 <slaweq> thx for pointing that out
18:15:58 <gmann> slaweq: thanks
18:16:15 <JayF> #topic TC vPTG 2024.2
18:16:30 <JayF> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2024-ptg-os-tc
18:17:00 <JayF> I suggest to please add any additional topic over the next week.
18:17:38 <JayF> I have a few things I'm writing up as starters for PTG topics which I'll add over the next couple of days.
18:18:47 <JayF> Going to give another minute in case there is input/comment on PTG before moving to open discussion.
18:19:08 <opendevreview> Merged openstack/governance master: Fixing typo in 2024.2 testing runtime  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/913704
18:19:18 <JayF> #topic Open Discussion
18:19:23 <JayF> Anything for Open Dicsussion?
18:19:44 <JayF> I'll reiterate that I will be landing the wsgi goal https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/902807 after the tc meeting today
18:19:51 <rosmaita> reminder that TC voting closes in a bit over 24 hours
18:19:54 <dansmith> ++
18:19:55 <spotz[m]> Can we please get the repos under the TC to count for AC status?
18:20:17 <JayF> and we have other governance changes up for review: https://review.opendev.org/q/repo:%22openstack/governance%22+status:open
18:20:19 <fungi> should be a relatively minor patch to the election tools to get them indexed
18:21:06 <JayF> spotz[m]: I'd be OK with that, let me know if you get a patch up and I'll review it.
18:21:08 <gmann> yes, many TC repo are not just governance part but a good contribution area for community for example p-t-g, doc repo etc
18:21:37 <gmann> and we should include contributors of those repo in election AC status
18:21:45 <JayF> Also, along the lines of rosmaita's comment: please evaluate if you want to be TC chair in next cycle.
18:21:45 <spotz[m]> <- !AC apparently due to repos not counting
18:21:56 <fungi> yes, i think the fact that docs repos dropped from being sig-owned created a fairly large blindspot for contributions
18:22:23 <gmann> we count SIG repo right?
18:22:45 <fungi> yes
18:22:50 <gmann> cool
18:23:02 <fungi> but there's no longer a docs/tech writing sig
18:24:00 <gmann> yeah, that was not good to exclude them bcz repo added under TC
18:24:50 <frickler> does that need a resolution or is it really just a tooling issue?
18:25:28 <fungi> the tc electorate is defined in the charter, it needs someone to double-check that the charter doesn't say they shouldn't count, at least
18:25:33 <spotz[m]> I honestly thought we had fixed it a few elections ago but when I asked where my ballot was this election found out it wasn't
18:25:51 <gmann> I am thinking about the same
18:26:00 <fungi> but unless adding them requires an adjustment to the charter for some reason, just do it
18:26:02 <spotz[m]> I know back when we had doc repos it counted
18:26:31 <spotz[m]> So Jayf can you retro make me an AC:) I can't vote but for the release anyways
18:26:31 <fungi> the docs repos counted initially because they belonged to a project team, and then because they belonged to a sig and we added sigs repos
18:26:45 <fungi> but now there is no sig, they belong to the tc directly
18:27:15 <gmann> charter  says 'who committed a change to a repository under any of the official OpenStack Project Teams (as defined in Projects) '
18:27:15 <gmann> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#voters-for-tc-seats-ac
18:27:29 <JayF> spotz[m]: it is past the deadline, I don't think that'd be appropriate unless someone wants to rules-lawyer me to being convinced it's legal
18:27:36 <JayF> spotz[m]: unsure if you were serious :)
18:27:42 <spotz[m]> So we would need to update the charter
18:27:49 <gmann> I think we can explicitly say in charter that 'project repo', SIG repo, TC repo..
18:28:19 <JayF> Does someone want to take an action to revise the charter to correct this oversight?
18:28:33 <spotz[m]> I will
18:28:46 <gmann> i can help if needed
18:29:08 <gmann> let's do this once election are close just to avoid any confusion of changing it in between
18:29:20 <fungi> also it will be decided by the new tc anyway
18:29:25 <gmann> yeah
18:29:47 <gmann> that way it will easy to count the vote etc also
18:30:26 <JayF> #action spotz[m] Will propose an update to TC charter, to ensure documentation contributors are properly recognized automatically as ACs.
18:30:34 <JayF> Thanks. Is there anything else we wanna hit on?
18:32:18 <JayF> #endmeeting