18:00:18 <gouthamr> #startmeeting tc 18:00:18 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue May 28 18:00:18 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:18 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:00:18 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 18:00:26 <gouthamr> #chair frickler 18:00:26 <opendevmeet> Current chairs: frickler gouthamr 18:00:54 <gouthamr> 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. 18:01:00 <gouthamr> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee 18:01:05 <gouthamr> #topic Roll Call 18:01:06 <dansmith> o/ 18:01:08 <gmann> o/ 18:01:17 <gtema> o/ 18:01:19 <frickler> \o 18:01:23 <slaweq> o/ 18:01:32 * frickler likes that extra ping, that's helpful ;) 18:02:16 <gouthamr> JayF and noonedeadpunk are away today 18:02:30 <spotz[m]> o/ 18:02:50 <gouthamr> perfect; lets get started.. 18:02:59 <carloss> o/ 18:03:01 <gouthamr> #topic AIs from last week 18:03:33 <gouthamr> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/XU4TF7BZVYFD57ORCOE56UA6RTP2M2DP/ (Summary from previous week) 18:04:34 <gouthamr> its been a quiet week, at least for me; i was out for most of the week :) 18:05:12 <gouthamr> so i'm a bit slow on the two AIs we did take (both are on me).. 18:05:59 <gouthamr> fungi will bring up PyPi maintainers cleanup in the #opendev channel in ~1 hour where we'll have a few other infra maintainers 18:06:19 <gouthamr> we'll take it from there, and make some progress this week 18:06:55 <gouthamr> i've an update incoming to https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/918488 (Show TC and SIG repos in projects page) 18:07:50 <gouthamr> this should help with Amy's AC update change, which when we merge will allow us to make tooling changes for the elections 18:08:12 <gouthamr> speaking of elections 18:08:19 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/920092 (Add configuration for 2025.1/"E" elections) 18:08:26 <gouthamr> we now have dates 18:08:51 <gmann> this can give better view of dates #link https://governance.openstack.org/election/ 18:09:00 <gouthamr> ah thank you 18:09:11 <gouthamr> i'll address frickler's comments on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/920145 so we can display this on our release calendar as well 18:09:41 <gmann> ++, that will be helpful. 18:10:12 <gouthamr> that's the story with AIs; did i miss anything? 18:10:27 <fungi> (technically the opendev meeting happens in #opendev-meeting) 18:10:47 <gouthamr> nice; ty frickler 18:10:51 <gouthamr> nice; ty fungi* 18:12:03 <gouthamr> alright; lets move on.. 18:12:17 <gouthamr> #topic 2024.2 TC Tracker 18:12:21 <gouthamr> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2024.2-tracker (Technical Committee activity tracker) 18:13:22 <frickler> regarding inactive projects, I'm concerned about freezer and monasca. both still prominent with zuul config errors 18:13:49 <frickler> and the initial rush to avoid them getting retired seems to have cooled off 18:13:49 <dansmith> I had a question about watcher too 18:14:03 <gmann> I think we have time of m-2 for them to be active otherwise we can discuss the retirement 18:14:13 <gmann> on leaderless projects, 5 project have been retired. 4 projects still pending on action. out of it Trove PTL proposal is there #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.2-leaderless 18:14:28 <gmann> dansmith: yeah, watcher also have no clear plan 18:14:36 <dansmith> I'm trying to evaluate if we care about watcher, and I'm up to three patches just trying to get it to finish devstack 18:14:42 <gouthamr> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.2-leaderless (Tracking leaderless projects) 18:14:44 <dansmith> AFAIK, there are no cores to approve those patches 18:15:37 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/920462 (Appoint ChunYang Wu as PTL of Trove) 18:15:41 <gmann> yeah, either it needs to be adopted by the existing team (like kuryr) or we can add new core members to maintain this project 18:16:27 <dansmith> well, I don't want to commit to being a core, but we kinda need some temporary solution so we can at least merge patches to make it work 18:16:43 <dansmith> I'm trying to evaluate if we care about it longer term than that, but kinda need to have it fixed to even make that determination 18:17:11 <gmann> +1, we can add tc group as core there and that will help to merge and handover the core maintenance to new team if there will be any ? 18:17:21 <slaweq> maybe all TC members should be added to the core team of such project (just in case we simply need to move it forward temporary) 18:17:29 <gmann> yeah 18:17:44 <dansmith> sure 18:17:53 <gouthamr> what kind of move forward are we talking though? 18:18:24 <frickler> I'd prefer to proceed with retirement if nobody wants to even be core, much less PTL 18:18:53 <dansmith> well for watcher, I'm trying to determine if we want to adopt it 18:19:02 <gouthamr> dansmith: noob q: were you trying to get its CI working, because you were interested to lend a hand in its maintenance so it can stay a moderately active project, and probably become active again? 18:19:03 <dansmith> so IMHO, this needs to go before that hammer 18:19:19 <gouthamr> ah; we here is the "nova" project team? 18:19:40 <dansmith> gouthamr: I'm trying to get it running locally, so we can get it running in CI, so yeah, we could keep it on life support _if_ we decide to 18:19:47 <dansmith> gouthamr: not necessarily nova, no.. 18:20:00 <dansmith> gouthamr: but one of the other "we" groups I belong to :) 18:20:44 <gouthamr> ah ty dansmith 18:20:45 <dansmith> so if we could just add the tc to watcher-core for the moment, 18:21:17 <dansmith> that would mean I could merge (or get someone else to merge) these fixes at least so the jobs will run and we can actually evaluate 18:21:21 <gouthamr> ^ hold; no; i was hoping we could just add you and anyone else interested? because adding the tech-committee seems unorthodox no? 18:21:26 <spotz[m]> It almost sounds like it might be beneficial to have the tc group added to any core group that is considered in danger? 18:21:44 <dansmith> adding the tc in this scenario to all those projects makes sense to me 18:22:09 <dansmith> (as slaweq and gmann and spotz[m] mentioned) 18:22:25 <gmann> yes, it will help if we add TC group there to recover this project even there are more volunteer or other direction it goes to 18:22:58 <gouthamr> ack; but hoping it doesn't send the wrong message that the TC has taken over the maintenance of a project? 18:23:07 <frickler> I don't think adding the TC as a whole is helpful. if specific persons want to be added, why not do that? 18:23:11 <frickler> gouthamr: +1 18:23:17 <dansmith> the TC is the backstop for all core teams technically right? 18:23:28 <spotz[m]> My thought is it helps things to get through until we aren't needed or to aid in the retirement 18:23:37 <frickler> but not to keep project alive on live support 18:23:45 <gmann> yes, we do add it in many other places and retirement projects also so that we can handle the cleanup/activity in future 18:23:51 <dansmith> whatever, this is not worth the time to argue about.. add me to watcher if that's the desire, but I see no reason not to just use the TC for convenience 18:24:21 <gmann> well, adding individual can also leads to have that person be PTL or DPL model otherwise TC will retire it 18:24:58 <dansmith> yeah, I think the TC being there is an easier "providing life support" indication than a single person, personally 18:25:12 <fungi> we already grant the tc members submit rights on retired repos, fwiw 18:25:17 <gmann> that is why I am saying until dansmith figure out that where it goes as maintenance, TC can help in intermediate direction/merges 18:25:18 <dansmith> right 18:25:35 <slaweq> +1 18:26:01 <gouthamr> ^ lets formalize this a bit; if you'll indulge me.. i want to ensure also that this isn't misconstrued 18:26:06 <gouthamr> #vote should the TC be added to the gerrit approving group for inactive projects? yes no abstain 18:26:40 <gouthamr> #startvote should the TC be added to the gerrit approving group for inactive projects? yes no abstain 18:26:40 <opendevmeet> Begin voting on: should the TC be added to the gerrit approving group for inactive projects? Valid vote options are yes, no, abstain. 18:26:40 <opendevmeet> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. 18:26:46 <spotz[m]> #vote yes 18:26:49 <dansmith> #vote yes 18:26:56 <gmann> #vote yes 18:26:57 <slaweq> #vote yes 18:26:58 <frickler> #vote no 18:27:21 <gtema> #vote no 18:27:42 <gouthamr> sigh 18:27:49 <gouthamr> #vote no 18:27:49 <opendevmeet> gouthamr: no is not a valid option. Valid options are yes, no, abstain. 18:28:00 <gouthamr> lol 18:28:03 <gouthamr> #vote no 18:28:08 <gouthamr> #endvote 18:28:08 <opendevmeet> Voted on "should the TC be added to the gerrit approving group for inactive projects?" Results are 18:28:08 <opendevmeet> yes (4): slaweq, spotz[m], dansmith, gmann 18:28:08 <opendevmeet> no (3): gtema, gouthamr, frickler 18:28:22 <fungi> hung jury, mistrial? 18:28:39 <dansmith> since I wasn't asked before, I think voting is too heavy a tool for this 18:28:52 <dansmith> I have no idea why this is so controversial, but if it is, ffs, just add me and we can move on 18:29:05 <spotz[m]> It's all good, and to be honest I can see both sides but I think this is a better option then a call out for people to be cores randomly like docs, refstack, etc 18:30:21 <gouthamr> yeah; i can see that argument.. but, i would like to word this to be "the technical committee can approve critical procedural/release/gate fixes" 18:30:54 <fungi> the tc effectively already can, by asking me or another gerrit admin to do so 18:31:07 <gmann> " and hand over the core group to the next one when it is finalized" 18:31:18 <gouthamr> +1 and in this case, help seed the core team ^ 18:31:32 <gmann> yeah 18:31:54 <spotz[m]> Yeah end goal is us not to remain permantently but help folks revive and then be removed or we retire it 18:32:24 <slaweq> exactly, it shouldn't mean that "tc is now maintaining the project" 18:32:56 <fungi> the longer term concerns (setting aside whatever needs doing to expedite a solution to the current situation), might be better addressed in a resolution 18:33:04 <gmann> yes, it stays in leaderless list 18:33:07 <dansmith> if you just add one person to an otherwise empty core team, it also means that person has to +2 their own fixes 18:33:17 <gouthamr> yes 18:33:28 <gouthamr> that's kinda useless 18:33:30 <dansmith> it would be a lot nicer to add the tc so I can push up patches and ask gmann or frickler to approve them, since they're CI and requirements-related in most cases 18:34:10 <dansmith> not only for that, but also to spread that around a bit... if you just add me and gmann then when gmann is sleeping (which never happens, granted) I'm stuck 18:34:21 <frickler> I wouldn't want to do that. if gmann wants to, he can be added, too 18:34:47 <fungi> as a workaround, feel free to get them to +1 and then ask me to elevate my privileges to add the required gating votes, if that works better for you 18:34:49 <dansmith> I personally see no danger in implying that the tc is "maintaining" the project longer term than what we're discussing, personally 18:34:52 <gmann> ok so do we have agreement here or still need more discussion? 18:35:12 <frickler> agreement on what? 18:35:16 <gmann> i think it is not big deal if we add TC or not but anyways I am ok with either 18:35:25 <gmann> adding TC group there or not? 18:35:50 <frickler> 4 vs. 3 doesn't sound like consensus to me 18:35:57 <dansmith> I guess I'm confused.. gouthamr were you doing the vote and hoping for consensus? surely not since you voted no 18:36:31 <gmann> so what is criteria for consensus in voting? 3/4 ? 18:37:14 <frickler> consensus to me means no objection. a vote could be decided by a majority, but I wouldn't call that agreement 18:37:56 <gouthamr> i would; because we have established precedence on granting the tc membership in groups for projects getting retired 18:38:14 <gouthamr> i wanted to see how everyone felt about extending that to inactive projects that are on their way to retirement 18:38:32 <dansmith> um, okay. 18:38:38 <gmann> not just inactive but 'project with no maintainers' 18:38:50 <gouthamr> if we were okay with the responsibility - i.e., folks ping you for help to land changes and to help get added to the respective core-team 18:39:01 <gouthamr> you'd help; and when there are enough maintainers, we step away 18:39:06 <fungi> finding a middle ground consensus on broader policy like that is usually handled through formal resolution 18:39:45 <dansmith> can we move on? 18:39:49 <fungi> since some stakeholders may object over specific nuances that can be reworded to refine the policy 18:40:05 <gouthamr> ^ yeah i can see that argument... 18:40:29 <gouthamr> dansmith: not right now; no, you started a fire.. lets put it :) 18:40:38 <gouthamr> (out) 18:40:51 <gmann> I do not think it need resolution, that will be too much and more blockers/time consuming for people like dansmith who is trying to help fixing the things and we are blocking him to do so 18:41:09 <dansmith> I put it out when I said it wasn't worth discussing this at length, so if you want to keep the fire burning, it's yours 18:41:32 <fungi> if there is a desire for recording a broader solution to address future cases, i don't think that has to hold up immediate solutions 18:41:40 <gmann> I am ok to be added there help merging the things if those are CI/requirement related 18:42:04 <slaweq> me too 18:42:05 <gouthamr> yes.. the immediate solution is we add tech-committee to the watcher group; and pursue a resolution and air out concerns about the other projects 18:42:07 <dansmith> I'm just going to do what was suggested and ping fungi to merge all the things I have once they're ready 18:42:11 <gmann> slaweq: thanks 18:42:15 <dansmith> so we don't need a resolution 18:42:29 <fungi> dansmith: that works for me, please feel free 18:43:03 <fungi> if this is something that is likely to come up for other projects in the future, taking time to put forth a resolution with a more concrete process makes sense 18:43:22 <fungi> but that can presumably be done outside the meeting 18:43:25 <gmann> gouthamr: leave about tech-committee. and adding me and slaweq will work here 18:44:08 <gouthamr> okay; totally fine with that approach 18:44:18 <gmann> thanks 18:44:52 <gouthamr> because even with a working CI, if the project remains leaderless by M-2, it'll get on our retirement list - i'm hoping dansmith gmann slaweq succeed at seeding the core team ... 18:45:26 <gmann> yes, those deadlines/next step stay same. 18:45:57 <frickler> I'm still unsure about the m-2 deadline, the retirements should be finished by that to avoid issues with release team? 18:45:58 <gmann> can I bring next item from tracker 18:46:33 <fungi> yes, the tc needs to decide *by* milestone 2 week so that they can let the release team know no later than then 18:46:42 <gouthamr> ack; i misspoke 18:46:45 <fungi> but ideally they'd decide sooner 18:46:47 <gouthamr> but lets move on, gmann 18:46:57 <gmann> I think marking Inactive is what gouthamr means 18:47:02 <gouthamr> +1 18:47:27 <gmann> yeah, this is hanging for long time, need more review on this DPL model change #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833 18:48:00 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833 (Add DPL model & liaison reset policy) 18:48:05 <gouthamr> (^ for the logs) 18:48:10 <gmann> if any question on this, we can discuss here or on gerrrit 18:48:41 <gouthamr> yeah; would anyone like to abstain, you can do so with an explicit Roll-Call 0 vote 18:48:44 <gmann> but I really want to close this DPL topic either we merge it or abandon it and leave DPL as it is 18:50:06 <gouthamr> frickler's concerns may be addressed by the latest patch and its follow-up: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/917516/ 18:50:15 <gouthamr> do you mind taking a look again, frickler 18:50:23 <gmann> yeah 18:50:29 <frickler> sure, will do 18:50:33 <gmann> thanks 18:50:35 <gouthamr> ty 18:51:49 <gouthamr> frickler: you mentioned zuul config errors; were you only concerned about those only for the inactive projects? 18:52:06 <gouthamr> or was it the number of these on "unmaintained" branches 18:52:32 <frickler> unmaintained is not in a nice state, either, but that's another topic 18:52:59 <gmann> yeah, unmaintained branches should not be in scope for project status as Active or Inactive 18:53:37 <frickler> I commented regarding unmaintained on https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2024.2-tracker#L100 some time ago 18:53:53 <gouthamr> ack; i remember 18:55:34 <gouthamr> monasca has a PTL (no IRC); and noonedeadpunk is the TaCT liaison for freezer.. so we should probably poke them about the zuul config errors with these projects 18:56:03 * gouthamr takes that AI 18:56:24 <gouthamr> alright lets get a few mins in for open discussion 18:56:29 <gouthamr> #topic Open Discussion 18:58:43 <gouthamr> *crickets* 18:59:23 <fungi> keep up the good work, everyone! 18:59:37 <gouthamr> :) yes 18:59:49 <gouthamr> thank you all for attending! i'll see you here next week 19:00:11 <gouthamr> (here and on Video!) 19:00:12 <slaweq> see you! 19:00:17 <gouthamr> #endmeeting