17:00:04 <gouthamr> #startmeeting tc
17:00:04 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue May 13 17:00:04 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:04 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:04 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
17:00:43 <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.
17:00:47 <gouthamr> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
17:00:50 <gouthamr> #topic Roll Call
17:01:14 <frickler> \o
17:02:13 <gtema> o/
17:03:26 <frickler> hmm, pretty empty around here
17:03:30 <gouthamr> courtesy-ping: noonedeadpunk, gmaan, spotz, cardoe, mnasiadka, bauzas
17:03:31 <gmaan> o/
17:03:48 <gmaan> board meeting still going on but should be closed soon
17:03:52 <mnasiadka> o/
17:04:06 <gouthamr> gmaan: ack..
17:04:14 <bauzas> o/ but distant
17:04:38 <gouthamr> spotz[m] should replace spotz on the ping list, don't know if she has notifications set for just "spotz"
17:04:42 <noonedeadpunk> o/
17:05:08 <gouthamr> alright, most of us are here, lets begin..
17:05:13 <gouthamr> #topic Last Week's AIs
17:05:54 <spotz[m]> Board meeting is still going but here
17:06:42 <spotz[m]> Ok we're done there
17:07:00 <gouthamr> i have a few on me that i am going to punt to this week too, lest someone can lend me an extra pair of hands/time :D
17:07:00 <gouthamr> - mailing list discussion about Skyline SBOM
17:07:00 <gouthamr> - adding VMT process links to the "New Projects Requirements" doc
17:07:00 <gouthamr> - reach out to all project teams to refresh security liaisons and coresec groups
17:07:31 <gouthamr> in similar vein i think fungi was taking a look at adding escalation documentation for unresponsive liaisons and PTLs within the VMT docs
17:07:38 <fungi> yes
17:08:23 <gouthamr> i think you had a busy week, so we can work on these when/if you have time this week.. i'll keep tracking this
17:09:23 <gouthamr> any update on "ansible-collections-openstack"?
17:09:32 <gouthamr> did anything change wrt the review situation there?
17:10:18 <gtema> why should it change just magically?
17:10:20 <cardoe> o/
17:12:04 <gouthamr> not magically, just checking if anyone here worked on this further
17:12:14 <noonedeadpunk> I was not :(
17:14:13 <gouthamr> ack, ty..
17:14:56 <gouthamr> we took an AI to update our OpenInfra profiles with current affiliations.. this helps a couple of things we're trying to do/formalize before the next elections:
17:15:19 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949432 ( Require declaration of affiliation from TC Candidates)
17:15:52 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/876738 (Add affiliation lookup functionality)
17:16:16 <gouthamr> ty for the reviews on the proposal so far gmaan and JayF.. i'll post an update soon
17:16:28 <fungi> ah, yeah i was just about to mention that change
17:16:32 <gmaan> so main goal is here to make affiliation visible to community when voting right? and off course to have it up to dated in openinfra profile.
17:16:41 <fungi> if anyone wants to take it over and flesh it out, i'm happy to un-wip that
17:16:53 <fungi> it's sort of bare-bones at the moment
17:17:09 <gouthamr> gmaan: yes
17:17:34 <gmaan> I am thinking if somehw we can show it (from openinfra foundation) to TC member table also?
17:17:50 <gmaan> I know we discussed it in past but hardly recall why we did not do
17:17:58 <gouthamr> oh, i didn't know of that discussion
17:18:18 <gmaan> #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/#current-members
17:18:20 <gmaan> this one ^^
17:18:38 <gmaan> at least it will help if any affiliation change in between and it will be easy to know by everyone
17:19:28 <gouthamr> that table is statically compiled..
17:19:36 <fungi> publishing it on the governance web page was considered iffy because it makes it look like tc member seats are assigned to specific companies
17:19:59 <fungi> or that tc members are expected to act as representatives of their employers
17:20:21 <JayF> I wonder if you could combat that with only showing the aggregate data.
17:20:29 <fungi> we tried to avoid giving that impression, since there definitely are other open source projects which operate that way
17:20:56 <gouthamr> #link https://github.com/kubernetes/steering
17:20:56 <gouthamr> ^ as an example
17:21:00 <spotz[m]> And how you word it could make folks think we can't police the diversity rule ourselves
17:21:22 <JayF> e.g. "TC membership is in compliance with corporate diversity requirements, with X members from Y company, A from Z,..."
17:21:47 <JayF> instead of trying to map people:companies, just express that we have diverse corporate perspectives; which is the point?
17:21:49 <gmaan> yeah, showing affiliation is not very new things and we know we should be community first not just as TC but  a community member
17:22:43 <spotz[m]> But the problem is if folks affiliations aren't up to date then it's harder to verify
17:22:56 <fungi> if you show the totals for different organizations, still would want to include a disclaimer that these are not x number of seats assigned to employer 1, y number of seats assigned to employer 2, et cetera
17:23:12 <gmaan> we are asking everyone to add affiliation in TC candidacy and profile. Showing it in governance page is more of making data easily visible to everyone.
17:23:35 <gmaan> there is nothing we need to hide or make less visible about it
17:24:47 <gouthamr> maybe we just propose a change and debate on it? i do think adding disclaimers will be useful, and we should trust our community not to misconstrue this
17:25:10 <fungi> but publishing it without providing clear context can be more confusing than not putting it front and center on the main page of the technical governance site too
17:25:15 <JayF> gouthamr: I am not concerned about *our community* misconstruing this, I think the concern is how it appears to external folks
17:25:22 <gmaan> yeah, if we are doing for election candidacy then we should do it on TC member table also.
17:26:22 <gouthamr> ack, i think the foundation could be concerned about external perceptions.. and i'm sympathetic to their view given all the campaigning they do to grow the community
17:26:33 <gmaan> we can highlight the main motive of org diversity, column name can be "Organization diversity"  or something
17:26:54 <JayF> Yeah I think it's all implementation details. Please add me as a reviewer on the proposed change and I'll happily help.
17:26:56 <fungi> i already hear somewhat regularly from people in other communities that "openstack is not openly governed" because they saw that companies get to purchase seats on the foundatition board, not realizing that the board doesn't decide the technical direction of the project
17:27:04 <gmaan> we do have affiliation shown for board members also in main page so it is not just for TC
17:27:12 <gmaan> JayF: ++
17:27:15 <gouthamr> true, fungi
17:27:21 <gouthamr> i actually want to fight this misconception
17:27:43 <gouthamr> on a tangent, people assume everythng the board adopts is automatically applicable to OpenStack
17:28:09 <gmaan> I think if we see that then it will be valid when we put it in TC election candidacy
17:28:11 <gouthamr> it isn't, the TC still governs the project independent of the board's decisions, and we need to accept/adopt their recommendations/stance
17:28:14 <spotz[m]> Historically it was, now it's not:)
17:28:54 <gmaan> someone can say having affiliation in candidacy also influence the votes?
17:29:02 <gouthamr> it should :D
17:29:50 <gmaan> well, we should not think only min requirement of org diversity  .
17:29:54 <gouthamr> i mean, we are hoping if company X has 6 candidates for an election, the electorate votes keeping in mind that only 4 of them will ever be on the TC
17:30:55 <JayF> It's completely reasonable to allow folks to vote against candidates based on their employers actions in/attitudes towards the OSS community.
17:31:26 <gmaan> I feel adding it in election is more externally concern then having elected TC member data showing
17:31:56 <gmaan> JayF: against is fine, but who stop them to be in favor when they see the affiliation as one of the data for voting
17:32:44 <JayF> gmaan: Ah, I hadn't thought about it from that perspective; but I suspect that if that sorta stuff is happening it's going to happen internally if not externally. Bad actors will find a way to act bad.
17:33:08 <JayF> gmaan: and I say this as a person who had their vote specifically solicited by a former employer while I worked there via internal mailing lists during early, early OpenStack days :)
17:33:18 <gmaan> I mean if "openstack is not openly governed" is perception then adding affiliation in election does not solve it instead it bump it more
17:34:09 <fungi> yeah, we had at least one case (long ago now) where a candidate was censured because their employer was contacting customers suggesting voting for that employee
17:34:29 <spotz[m]> I personally just remind folks to vote because we have a bad turnout issue. I don't care who they vote for:)
17:34:44 <gouthamr> ^ deeper problem :D
17:35:03 <gouthamr> i mean = our voter turnout
17:35:15 <noonedeadpunk> indeed...
17:35:22 <spotz[m]> Yeah I know what you meant:)
17:35:25 <gmaan> I was ok initially but seeing the points here especially fungi mentioned make me change my vote not to make affiliation more visible especially during election.
17:35:56 <gmaan> let's keep it same as it is now, do diversity checks and advertisement on ML, IRC etc
17:36:01 <gouthamr> okay, lets work out a proposal and discuss this some more
17:36:11 <gouthamr> we have other topics to get to today
17:36:28 <gouthamr> ty for engaging here, but please hold your pitchforks for the gerrit changes :D
17:36:49 <gouthamr> next AI: we had a couple of "AI" meetings in the past week!
17:37:43 <gouthamr> at this point, who's to say we're not sending ai agents to all these meetings.. but i did see spotz[m] and bauzas at these meetings, and i don't know if there's anything to share here beyond the summary i posted with the TC weekly email
17:38:00 <bauzas> cool indeed
17:38:10 <gouthamr> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/BX7XVZ4I6AAKJETU6Y2TQBNFXO7BUKZ2/
17:38:10 <gouthamr> tl;dr: first paragraph
17:39:02 <gouthamr> on the last AI that i was tracking: "update all project contributor guides to list how to reach core teams" - i sought some action on this through that same email
17:39:49 <gouthamr> i was curious, do we do PTL-only emails like the release team does?
17:40:46 <gouthamr> i am inclined to stick to the list and prefix something with [all] and [ptl]
17:40:57 <fungi> can't hurt
17:41:16 <gmaan> ++, we are not asking any confidentiality to PTL, they can always share it with team or community. at least it will help to have better response/communication.
17:41:17 <mnasiadka> +1
17:41:28 <gmaan> I am ok if we send to PTL personal email also
17:42:06 <gouthamr> i did that before the PTG, and i don't know if it was useful or annoying :D no one complained, but people did come to our community leadership forum
17:43:05 <gouthamr> that's all the AIs i was tracking
17:43:14 <gouthamr> was anyone else working on anything else to note here?
17:43:42 <gmaan> we can send ML and the ping PTL who did not respond/take action. like election official did last time. I find that very useful
17:44:01 <gouthamr> true, good idea
17:44:19 <gouthamr> #topic 2026.1 Elections kick-off
17:44:50 <gouthamr> you may have noticed gerrit updates, ty for reviews thus far on election setup that ianychoi and slaweq have been posting
17:44:54 <gouthamr> #link #link https://governance.openstack.org/election/
17:45:00 <gouthamr> #undo
17:45:00 <opendevmeet> Removing item from minutes: #link https://governance.openstack.org/election/
17:45:02 <gouthamr> #link https://governance.openstack.org/election/
17:45:27 <gouthamr> ^ the dates for the next election cycle are published
17:45:51 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/949554
17:45:51 <gouthamr> we are creating directories for folks to submit their nominations at any time here
17:46:43 <gouthamr> since i'm not contesting these elections in any capacity, i don't mind the collab with ianychoi and slaweq and helping with the TC stuff.. but, if you'd like to do it with me, please feel free and join the #openstack-election channel
17:47:05 <gouthamr> ^ all the planning/updates are posted here, along with specific gerrit changes..
17:47:40 <gouthamr> any questions/concerns/feedback to share wrt elections?
17:50:07 <gouthamr> alright, unfortunately, we're pressed for time again, so i'd like to table the topic follow up on the contributor experience to next week.. any objections?
17:50:44 <spotz[m]> no but I won't be here:)
17:50:55 <gouthamr> a reminder to please push your colleagues to take the contributor and maintainer surveys..
17:51:02 <gouthamr> ack spotz[m]
17:51:14 <gouthamr> #topic A check on gate health
17:51:23 <gouthamr> ^ any gate health concerns to report?
17:51:52 <gmaan> nothing much this week. py3.9 drop fixes are settle down now
17:52:32 <frickler> well rpittau made a revert for the py39 drop from reqs and is adding extra work in to keep things updated
17:52:45 <fungi> a setuptools update broke pbr in some situations, work is in progress to address that
17:53:06 <gouthamr> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/DOJZL5WZJMN4NEAD5GLIQZ455D2NUREY/ (wsgi/deployment changes)
17:53:18 <frickler> except that pbr CI is badly broken
17:53:45 <gmaan> most of project py3.9 are dropped or adjusted (c9s ad rocky joibs), not sure what was blocker to re-add py3.9 constraitns
17:53:53 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/948876
17:54:08 <frickler> seem ironic has some more twisted deps
17:54:32 <gouthamr> "For example, without RHEL 10/CS 10 support in Bifrost, we're risking having no upgrade path for the current RHEL 9/CS 9 users."
17:55:29 <gmaan> not sure if we will be ready with cs10 by oct when 3.9 is EOL but somewhere we need to hard stop to support it
17:55:43 <frickler> there also was some CI failures due to an osc-lib updates, sample fix is https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/python-octaviaclient/+/948981
17:55:58 <gmaan> cs9 can be run on 3.11, that is how yatin moved devstack jobs to
17:56:23 <gouthamr> right now, with the revert, any changes to the requirements repo not compatible with py3.9 will not be allowed, correct?
17:56:52 <frickler> well you can make version specific changes, like for >=py310
17:57:18 <frickler> there's a lot of those in there already anyway
17:57:49 <frickler> (for upper-constraints.txt)
17:58:38 <gmaan> I am not sure requirement test the every bit of 3.9 but a basic checks yes. Many project dropped py3.9 testing like functional tests
17:59:02 <gmaan> and unit tests from generic python testing template are also gone since start of cycle
17:59:20 <frickler> that check only verifies that all of u-c is co-installable for every python version
18:00:01 <gmaan> yeah, it is hard to say we support/test python 3.9 it is just we do not break if any testing exist
18:00:16 <gouthamr> ~time check~
18:00:26 <gouthamr> thanks for highlighting this issue
18:00:33 <gouthamr> anything else to note in the minutes today?
18:01:31 <fungi> #link https://summit2025.openinfra.org/cfp/ paris-saclay summit cfp closes in exactly one month!
18:01:43 <gouthamr> ++
18:01:56 <mnasiadka> Well, we have py3.9 back in reqs - but PTI for 2025.2 still does not include py3.9, right?
18:02:01 <gouthamr> yes
18:02:21 <fungi> also based on discussion at today's foundation board meeting, sounds very likely we'll be able to drop the icla and ccla in favor of dco (signed-off-by) once the foundation joins the lf
18:02:28 <gmaan> not just PTI, we removed the testing also
18:02:59 <gmaan> we are heading towards situation of py3.6
18:03:01 <gouthamr> fungi: ack, ty because i missed the meeting and will need to rely on minutes that won't be posted until they are approved at the next meeting :D
18:03:04 <fungi> there will be an announcement to the foundation ml about it, and i'll bring it up on openstack-discuss once that's posted
18:03:23 <gouthamr> ++
18:03:52 <gmaan> I think jbryce  will send in on openstack-dicuss also but if ont then yes it will be on foundation ML at least
18:03:53 <gouthamr> gmaan: i suspect this is temporary, but i share your suspicion that we may not be able to resolve CS10 issues by Oct
18:04:25 <gmaan> gouthamr: mainly to run CS10 test at upstream
18:04:54 <gouthamr> yes..
18:05:05 <gouthamr> lets wrap this meeting up, thank you all for joining, and for the spirited discussion.. we have lots to follow up on
18:05:08 <mnasiadka> Maybe it's just me, but gmaan's replies are invisible to me via Matrix bridge - I'll need to re-read the meeting again in the logs ;-)
18:05:16 <gouthamr> #endmeeting