18:00:24 <gouthamr> #startmeeting tc
18:00:24 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Jan 21 18:00:24 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:24 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:00:24 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
18:00:50 <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
18:00:55 <gouthamr> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
18:01:00 <gouthamr> #topic Roll Call
18:01:03 <cardoe> o/
18:01:04 <bauzas> \o
18:01:16 <frickler> \o
18:01:36 <cardoe> I'll probably miss next week. I'm on PTO and not sure where I'll be at the time of the meeting.
18:01:38 <noonedeadpunk> o/
18:01:47 <gouthamr> cardoe: ack
18:02:12 <gouthamr> noted absence: s l a w e q
18:02:16 <gtema> o/
18:02:37 <gouthamr> courtesy-ping: gmann, spotz[m]
18:02:54 <spotz[m]> o/
18:02:59 <gmann> o/
18:03:22 <gouthamr> that's everybody; thank you for joining.. lets get started..
18:03:28 <gouthamr> #topic Last Week's AIs
18:03:40 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk: many thanks for running last week's meeting :)
18:03:53 <noonedeadpunk> sorry for not sending notes :(
18:04:03 <noonedeadpunk> there was not much things though
18:04:22 <gouthamr> no problem! i had the log and captured some AIs from there:
18:04:43 <gouthamr> proposal on dealing with poorly maintained repositories that can't be deprecated/retired, case in point openstackdocstheme
18:05:25 <gouthamr> ^ noonedeadpunk this was assigned to you.. would you like to move it to the TC tracker? don't think there's any urgency here.. right?
18:05:41 <noonedeadpunk> yeah, so this scenario was kinda sorted out by providing gtema access
18:06:06 <noonedeadpunk> so indeed no urgency should be so far
18:06:16 <gtema> yeah, still w+ is missing on os-api-ref to proces dependencies
18:07:33 <gtema> no, vice-versa, I have +2/+W on os-api-ref but not in openstackdocstheme
18:08:02 <fungi> i think that needs help from the oslo team to add
18:08:39 <gouthamr> ah; ty.. oslo-core is a pretty slim group
18:09:08 <gouthamr> maybe we can ping tkajinam / stephenfin or hberaud to assist here
18:09:28 <noonedeadpunk> gtema: oh, I thought last week gmann said he grated you openstackdocstheme
18:09:29 <gmann> I added it in the oslo team meeting agenda couple of week back but we can check if that has been discussed or not
18:09:44 <noonedeadpunk> at least I was under this impression
18:09:56 <spotz[m]> I think they're all in this channel though maybe not awake
18:09:56 <gmann> noonedeadpunk: not yet I think, I left oslo core member to add it
18:10:16 <noonedeadpunk> I see
18:10:16 <gouthamr> gmann: i don't think they've met this year, yet?
18:10:23 <gouthamr> gmann: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/oslo/
18:10:32 <gmann> here is discussion
18:10:34 <gmann> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/epoxy-oslo-meeting-tracking#L95
18:11:34 <gouthamr> ah; no meeting yet by the looks of it.
18:11:39 <gmann> I can check with damani and check the plan to discuss/add gtema in core list of openstackdocstheme
18:12:26 <gouthamr> :) i'd hold off and ping someone else
18:12:36 <gouthamr> he'd be afk for a few more weeks..
18:13:06 <gouthamr> i can follow up, gmann and gtema
18:13:15 <gmann> just pinged in oslo channel
18:13:42 <gmann> last time it was discussed, there was no objection but we wanted to discuss it with all core members mostly after holidays
18:13:53 <gouthamr> ++
18:14:35 <gouthamr> ty gmann
18:14:39 <gouthamr> anything else about this AI?
18:16:48 <gouthamr> okay, moving on.. we discussed elections and allowing early nominations but i don't think we closed the loop on this
18:18:05 <gouthamr> election officials have not completed the "kickoff" activities as yet - one of which is to setup the directories
18:18:10 <fungi> there's no candidates/2025.2 directory in the election repo yet, so too soon for candidates to start proposing their nominations
18:18:10 <bauzas> what else then ?
18:18:36 <bauzas> do we have candidates that nominate themselves before the nominations start ?
18:18:36 <gouthamr> bauzas: can i tack an AI on you to track this stuff?
18:18:41 * noonedeadpunk needs to propose resolution for late freezer release :(
18:18:54 <bauzas> gouthamr: shoot
18:18:54 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk: noted
18:19:15 <bauzas> I'll doublecheck with the elections folks
18:19:35 <fungi> i don't see any changes to add it proposed yet either
18:20:01 <fungi> (the election candidates directory i mean_
18:20:06 <gouthamr> ack..
18:20:13 <bauzas> my point is, if anyone can propose themselves now, why do we need to wait until Feb 5 then ?
18:20:27 <spotz[m]> I thought the directories were there, looking for the tab of my last pull
18:20:43 <bauzas> if this is just for signaling that election officials will review your patches by that date, then that sounds a procedural detail
18:20:55 <gmann> there is no restriction on candidate itself add dir with placeholder or candidacy
18:20:55 <gouthamr> yes that's what it means..
18:21:15 <fungi> proposed nominations prior to the start of the nominations period have to be rechecked within the nominations window to get a passing ci result, i think (unless that has changed more recently), but otherwise there's nothing stopping someone from proposing their nomination once the directory structure for the election has been created
18:21:22 <gmann> if we are expecting to nominate before nomination date then they can add dir along with candidacy
18:21:24 <spotz[m]> Nop 2025.1 is the newest
18:21:30 <gouthamr> gmann: sure, but they would probably find that unorthodox, and probably do it wrong.. we just need to run a tox command and submit a change
18:21:44 <gouthamr> fungi: +1
18:21:58 <gmann> which is still ok as nomination before nomination is not a regular thing and it is not forced too right
18:22:36 <bauzas> we're already running the election for a longer period this time, ie. 6 weeks
18:22:42 <gmann> that is why nomination start date is so that election official can plan their work accordingly. if we ask election officials to add these extra things (plan pre-nomination) in their plate it might be extra expectation
18:23:14 <gmann> especially considering that we have been struggling to attract more election officials since long
18:23:24 <gmann> I feel adding more extra thing to them is not good idea
18:23:30 <gouthamr> hmm, i'd hope not.. lets just throw in a bunch of directories at once
18:23:34 <bauzas> accepting nominations earlier is OK to me but I would want to be sure that people shouldn't expect election official reviews *before* the official starting date
18:23:43 <gouthamr> bauzas: yes, there's no such expectation
18:23:52 <gouthamr> CI for instance, would fail because the dates are configured
18:23:55 <bauzas> is this a written statement somewhere?
18:24:04 <bauzas> aha I see
18:24:05 <gmann> gouthamr: early nomination needs to be rechecked, reviewed, and maybe rebase so it is ofcourse more work than just preparing the dir
18:24:52 <bauzas> yeah
18:25:14 <gouthamr> hmmm, it sounds like you two are reneging on our earlier discussion that this was a good thing :) the aim here is to prevent leaderless projects because of long holiday weeks during the election cycle
18:25:15 <bauzas> in the past, have we seen occurrences of nomination patches being open earlier ?
18:25:32 <gmann> IMO, we should plan early-nomination things when we see there is cases who require it (anyong going on vacation during nominations 2 weeks or so). otherwise extending nomination period to 2 weeks is a wide window for them to add nomination on time
18:26:06 <bauzas> gouthamr: haven't we considered that specific holiday period by extending the nomination period ?
18:26:18 <gmann> my only concern here is it add some extra work on election officials
18:26:36 <gouthamr> we haven't extended the nomination period - the voting period increased to 3 weeks
18:26:57 <bauzas> gmann: that's my concern too
18:27:04 <gmann> but is 2 weeks nomination period still short?
18:27:11 <bauzas> gouthamr: my bad, you're right
18:27:49 <bauzas> so, I see the problem now but my concern remains
18:27:51 <fungi> though the nomination window is 2 weeks long
18:28:02 <fungi> that wasn't an increase
18:28:16 <bauzas> yup, pardon my misunderstanding, my maths were wrong
18:28:24 <fungi> at least not in change 938782
18:28:25 <spotz[m]> In the past folks have missed nominations
18:28:25 <gmann> here we are finalizing some dates for election officials to work on but asking them to do tasks before those dates. which might impact their plan
18:28:54 <gmann> spotz[m]: after we extended it from 1 week to 2 weeks?
18:29:46 <fungi> we still (and always wil, i think) have missed nominations
18:29:48 <gmann> I know when it was 1 week, we had cases of missing nomination but after we extended it to 2 weeks I am not sure the example who missed because 2 weeks is short. reason of missing might be something other
18:29:50 <bauzas> tbc, say we merge the directory patch now, this would avoid rebases but not rechecks for people nominating themselves, right?
18:30:13 <gouthamr> yes
18:30:26 <bauzas> this wouldn't be a problem as anyone can request a recheck
18:30:55 <spotz[m]> People just forget:( How many late volunteers do we get every election? Voting I think tends to be more apathy then I forgot or needed longer
18:31:05 <bauzas> for example, election officials could only start to review that nomination patch after they recheck the nomination patches on the day the nomination period starts
18:32:12 <gouthamr> #link https://opendev.org/openstack/election#preparation (Election prep)
18:32:59 <gouthamr> this thing states, "As early as possible but at least a month before election starts" ... don't think we'd be doing anything new
18:33:23 <bauzas> OK, then I take the point to discuss that with the officials
18:33:27 <fungi> the biggest issue i see with early nominations is that it's not obvious when ci would later reject the change and the nominee isn't around to address feedback (fix their foundation profile, et cetera)
18:33:49 <gmann> this is the election official planning for this election
18:33:51 <gmann> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/TC_PTL_Elections2025.2F
18:34:09 <spotz[m]> If I'm understanding what everyone is typing and with past EO knowledge, the only thing the EOs need to do early is create the directories and maybe send a single email?
18:34:14 <gouthamr> gmann: thank you, lost that link myself :)
18:34:21 <gmann> and I think early nomination will impact their plan or they need to change some tasks
18:35:08 <gouthamr> i think the etherpad is missing the early election stuff
18:35:09 <gmann> which is what my concern is. if we want early nomination then I will suggest to do it from next election with election official proper planning
18:35:12 <bauzas> I can propose that directory patch if that helps
18:36:10 <fungi> but in that case, if there's advance planning that makes early nominations desirable and communication will be done far enough in advance, the nomination period could also just be made officially longer
18:36:37 <gouthamr> gmann: makes sense.. we're not requiring it - this is an earnest effort to avoid people missing the nomination window - lets see how it pans out after bauzas follows up..
18:36:46 <gmann> exactly, I will prefer that to extend nomination period for 3 or 4 weeks than unnoticed early-nomination practice
18:37:11 <gmann> gouthamr: sure
18:37:39 <bauzas> I'm just working on a patch, I'll follow up with slaweq and ianychoi
18:37:47 <gouthamr> good stuff, thanks bauzas
18:37:51 <gmann> but early-nomination is not just about dir, it is much more. communication/announcement etc
18:37:53 <gouthamr> anything else about this AI?
18:38:45 <bauzas> -
18:38:45 <fungi> just a reminder that there's an alternative option for people who know they won't be around for nominations: ask someone else to push the patch on their behalg
18:38:48 <fungi> behalf
18:39:02 <gouthamr> not meaning to rush this, but, we've to get to the other topics on our agenda
18:39:11 <fungi> (that's been done in the past)
18:39:16 <gouthamr> i never knew that
18:39:33 * bauzas remembers when he had to run for the PTL election on August every year and organizing his life off the keyboard around the election dates
18:39:33 <gouthamr> always thought we required "self nomination"
18:39:35 <fungi> that's why we stopped keying on the committer address in the change
18:39:48 <spotz[m]> Yeah you don't have to self nominate but I assume you need to confirm the nomination
18:39:59 * bauzas would have appreciated to know he was able to propose his patch earlier than when he was on PTO
18:39:59 <fungi> we've had nominees post their nomination to the mailing list and arrange for someone else to push a patch for them
18:40:36 <gmann> spotz[m]: ++ yeah
18:40:45 <gouthamr> okay, #TIL
18:40:58 <gouthamr> thanks for the discussion, and lets follow up outside this meeting
18:41:05 <gouthamr> next AI:
18:41:08 <gouthamr> mirroring DockerHub images to Quay to avoid rate limits
18:41:24 <opendevreview> Sylvain Bauza proposed openstack/election master: Create candidates/2025.2 placeholder directories  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/939750
18:41:31 <gouthamr> fungi: clarkb: i think this was something you wanted to discuss at the opendev meeting
18:42:12 <gouthamr> any updates regarding this?
18:42:22 <fungi> we did, i don't think we reached any agreement on how we would evaluate proposals to add images to the opendevmirror org on quay, though clarkb can correct me if i'm wrong
18:42:49 <fungi> though we did have a fair amount of luck switching some of our builds/jobs over to use things we've started auto-mirroring to quay
18:42:49 <clarkb> ya I think we're trying to see how it grows organically. I'm happy to mirror things under that namespace that are generic enough to be widely applicable.
18:43:03 <clarkb> and yes it seems to have helped quite a bit for things that have switched over
18:43:22 <clarkb> basically we wouldn't mirror kolla images there. Kolla should set up their own mirror. But we are mirroring python and httpd and mariadb imges
18:43:42 <clarkb> we have also seen image updates fail
18:44:06 <clarkb> which isn't unexecpted due to the rate limits. But it is worth noting as a limitation of the system. If you need things to update quickly it may not be the best choice
18:44:09 <fungi> for anything we're already mirroring to opendevmirror, i expect projects could choose to switch their jobs to use those rather than duplicating that effort
18:44:17 <gouthamr> sounds reasonable.. maybe project teams need this information somewhere? or would they already know to contact #opendev to set this up
18:44:35 <clarkb> I suspect most of the groups that have had these problems with docker hub have already reached out
18:44:39 <fungi> for now definitely ask in #opendev or attend weekly meetings
18:44:41 <clarkb> we've talked to an umber of people already
18:44:48 <gouthamr> ++
18:45:21 <fungi> it's still definitely evolving
18:45:40 <gouthamr> thank you for working on this; hoping the job instability subsides over time with this
18:45:56 <gouthamr> anything else to share wrt this AI?
18:46:02 <fungi> not from me
18:46:20 <clarkb> nor me
18:46:27 <gouthamr> ty
18:46:31 <gouthamr> next one: Review/merge the eventlet goal proposal
18:46:43 <gouthamr> this was done \o/
18:47:11 * gouthamr hopes the actual migration is just as easy
18:47:31 <gouthamr> /jk
18:47:48 <gouthamr> next one, next steps for reactivating the Freezer project
18:48:09 <noonedeadpunk> so I'm having an issue with launchpad right now
18:48:23 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk: i'm looking for more reviews on the retirement of freezer-dr
18:48:31 <noonedeadpunk> there was a ML some time ago https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/7PD7TVDLSHVXL7O7HFDVQXAZVW2EUV4G/
18:48:33 <noonedeadpunk> aha
18:48:37 <noonedeadpunk> ok, that is needed as well
18:48:45 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/938183 (Retire Freezer DR)
18:48:47 <noonedeadpunk> but actually it's also realted
18:49:04 <noonedeadpunk> as I wanted to move from storyboard to launchpad, which requires governance patch
18:49:06 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/938938/ (Remove Freezer from inactive state)
18:49:20 <gouthamr> ah, sure
18:49:32 <noonedeadpunk> but was wondering if I should push governance patch before we recover access  to launchpad, or we can do in parallel?
18:49:36 <gmann> I think it was to allow freezer release for 2025.1 even it is inactive till m-2 of this release
18:49:39 <noonedeadpunk> As I don't expect any reply to ML
18:49:45 <gmann> and resolution to do that?
18:49:58 <noonedeadpunk> that yes - I will push tomorrow morning first thing
18:50:11 <gmann> noonedeadpunk: I think LP things can be setup in parallel
18:50:33 <noonedeadpunk> as I guess we'd need LP admins to intervene
18:50:50 <gmann> noonedeadpunk: I can do that. we can discuss after meeting
18:50:55 <noonedeadpunk> ++
18:51:18 <fungi> unless you want to create a new openstack-freezer project on lp instead of reusing the old freezer project there
18:51:28 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk: this can be used as an example: https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/819336
18:52:03 <noonedeadpunk> gouthamr: thanks!
18:52:07 <fungi> but yes, the lp admins would be the next point of escalation if the old driver/maintainer group admins aren't responsive
18:52:11 <gouthamr> and maybe Billy Olsen can put in a word again, to expedite
18:53:12 <gouthamr> ty for working on this noonedeadpunk, anything else for this AI?
18:53:15 <noonedeadpunk> I wonder if we should generaly go through launchpad projects and see if openstack-admins is present everywhere
18:53:24 <gouthamr> YES
18:53:36 <noonedeadpunk> as at scale this somehow becomes weird
18:53:41 <gouthamr> i thought to do this in my copius free time, just slacking at the moment :/
18:54:03 <noonedeadpunk> we I had pretty same issue with OSA as well back in the days, except there were quite some active ppl around...
18:54:42 <noonedeadpunk> (as admins)
18:54:56 <fungi> the incubation workflow effectively created this problem, since project initiators were encouraged to set up things in lp and then would forget to switch maintainership over to openstack later once accepted
18:55:00 <noonedeadpunk> (but not active as core reviewers anymore)
18:55:26 <gouthamr> fungi: true, we required individuals to own the teams iirc
18:55:28 <noonedeadpunk> maybe we can set our process to check for this
18:55:46 <noonedeadpunk> (not sure if there's gonna be any more new projects though)
18:56:05 <noonedeadpunk> but it is extremely fair note about root cause
18:56:42 * gouthamr woah we're at :56?!
18:57:11 <spotz[m]> good convos today!
18:57:23 <gouthamr> this has been a great discussion so far - we're catching up on AIs, that's always productive
18:57:34 <gouthamr> we have one other topic
18:57:43 <gouthamr> besides the regular checks
18:57:47 <gouthamr> lets get into that:
18:57:49 <gouthamr> #topic DPL model reset (gmann)
18:57:55 <gouthamr> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/SKLDVCTLO2UBGWXJTRB7VTJHBODJBPOB/
18:58:04 <gmann> not sure we have enough time to discuss it but
18:58:23 <gmann> we have 5 project in DPL model and freezer already opted in for DPL so 4 remaining.
18:58:38 <gmann> we need to take decision on those before election nomination start date which is Feb 5
18:59:15 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/hashtag:%22dpl-reset%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged)
18:59:20 <gmann> as per process they need to move to PTL model and goes for election if project team does not opt-in explicitly to continue the DPL mdoel for next cycle
18:59:44 <bauzas> do we have any feedback from the communities ? only watcher did afaicr
19:00:03 <fungi> it occurs to me that there's no "governance liaison" in dpl, so it's unclear whose responsibility it is to propose the renewal change
19:00:09 <gmann> yeah, freezer and watcher (not all liaison ) responded
19:00:25 <bauzas> I quite appreciate the fact that DPL doesn't span over multiple releases
19:00:39 <bauzas> every release, there is a need to opt into it
19:00:41 <gmann> fungi: we have TC liaison there who will reset the leadership and all liaison can -1 there to continue iut
19:00:44 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/hashtag:%22dpl-reset%22+(status:open+OR+status:merged+OR+status:abandoned)
19:01:13 <gouthamr> we're at the hour.. gmann can we bump that email sometime this week?
19:01:20 <gmann> bauzas: we discussed it to do every 2 cycle but we agreed to be every cycle
19:01:28 <gmann> gouthamr: sure, i can do today
19:01:33 <gouthamr> thank you..
19:01:35 <bauzas> ++
19:01:45 <gouthamr> we don't have time for open discussion today
19:01:57 <gouthamr> but that's the after party post this meeting
19:02:04 <gouthamr> thank you all for attending
19:02:10 <gouthamr> and for the discussion!
19:02:17 <gouthamr> #endmeeting