17:00:49 <gouthamr> #startmeeting tc
17:00:49 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue May 27 17:00:49 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:49 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:49 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
17:01:05 <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.
17:01:09 <gouthamr> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
17:01:14 <gouthamr> #topic Roll Call
17:01:24 <gtema> o/
17:01:44 <noonedeadpunk> o/
17:01:52 <carloss> o/
17:02:53 <gmaan> o/
17:03:57 <gouthamr> noted absence: c a r d o e
17:04:28 <gouthamr> bauzas is joining late
17:05:07 <gouthamr> courtesy ping: frickler, mnasiadka
17:05:40 <gouthamr> am unsure if spot z is out today, or if i left her in the list of absentees on the wiki from the past week
17:05:43 <frickler> \o
17:06:36 <mnasiadka> o/
17:06:41 <gouthamr> #topic Last Week's AIs
17:07:07 <gouthamr> we had one on the quantum resolution that we merged
17:07:11 <gouthamr> #link https://pypi.org/project/quantum/
17:07:31 <gouthamr> fungi: clarkb ty for taking action and deleting the openstack content there and transfering ownership
17:07:44 <fungi> yw
17:07:51 <clarkb> that was all fungi
17:08:24 <gouthamr> nice; the rest of the AIs from last week were around DCO
17:08:56 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/950463 ([resolution] Replace CLA with DCO for all contributions)
17:09:23 <gouthamr> ^ this was proposed to address a few AIs we took
17:09:31 <gouthamr> there's been quite a lot of review there
17:10:06 <fungi> there's a bunch of associated tooling changes up for review in parallel with that so we can get as much of a head start as possible
17:10:14 <gouthamr> (the Unresolved comments don't make much sense to me honestly)
17:10:33 <gouthamr> ah, nice.. do link us if you have them handy, fungi
17:10:57 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/contributor-guide/+/950839 (Replace CLA instructions with DCO)
17:11:07 <gouthamr> ^ i took a stab at the contributor doc update
17:11:15 <gouthamr> ty for the review there gmaan
17:11:18 <gmaan> ++, i left some comment otherwise lgtm
17:11:53 <gouthamr> ack, i'll make some changes today
17:12:22 <gmaan> thanks
17:12:53 <gouthamr> jbryce checked with lawyers about a couple of things during the past week
17:13:23 <gouthamr> one of these was the DCO switchover timeline. If our enforcement date of July 1st was feasible
17:14:31 <gouthamr> and the other was if there needed to be a stop-gap, a revised ICLA
17:15:16 <gouthamr> we got feedback here and on the governance proposal.. an excerpt: "the last contributions accepted under the CLA checks would be on 2025-06-30 and all contributions after 2025-07-01 00:00:00UTC would require a DCO check."
17:15:19 <spotz[m]> o/
17:15:29 <fungi> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/hashtag:dco-signed-off-by+OR+topic:dco-signed-off-by tooling changs for DCO
17:15:40 <fungi> there are some parents to those too
17:15:47 <gouthamr> ty fungi
17:15:53 <fungi> and some follow-on changes which add generated-by footers to commit messages
17:16:17 <spotz[m]> I was following on the email lists while at summit, what was the result of doing a patch to a patch? Would it need a DCO and can we do it in Gerrit's interface?
17:17:10 <gouthamr> spotz[m]: all new patches after July 1st will need a sign off
17:17:19 <fungi> spotz[m]: add a Signed-Off-By trailer line in your commit messages (git commit -s will do that automatically)
17:17:23 <gouthamr> there's no need to upload a patch just to do a DCO sign off
17:17:53 <fungi> contributor guide updates will cover it
17:17:54 <spotz[m]> So I can't keep editing in the interface then:(
17:18:05 <fungi> you can if you add a Signed-Off-By line
17:19:44 <gouthamr> yes, you can edit the commit message too
17:20:02 <gouthamr> the only thing that would be wonky would be rebasing existing commits
17:20:16 <gouthamr> via the web UI
17:20:28 <spotz[m]> Hrm will look if you can anywhere. I've honestly only done it command line but if I'm editing docs in someone's patch I sometimes get lazy. Might just do suggest edits. Anyways back to the main discussion vs my corner case:)
17:20:34 <gouthamr> you'll need to edit the commit message first, and then click that rebase button
17:21:01 <gouthamr> haha, more corner cases as we'll discover in the days to come
17:21:08 <fungi> i thought we tested and confirmed that you won't need it if you can rebase cleanly in the ui, as long as there's already a signed-off-by from the author or committer
17:21:15 <gouthamr> yes
17:21:16 <gouthamr> ^
17:21:21 <fungi> so would likely only run into that rebasing old changes
17:21:28 <noonedeadpunk> yeah, but there're plenty of existing patches
17:21:28 <gouthamr> if there's no signed-off-by at all, you'll need to add one and then rebase
17:21:36 <fungi> which there will be fewer and fewer of over time
17:21:43 <noonedeadpunk> not necesserely useless, but potentially outdated
17:21:51 <noonedeadpunk> and some might want to pick up and rebase them
17:22:12 <fungi> but also the error message should be pretty clear to anyone who's at that point used to doing it at the command line already
17:22:13 <noonedeadpunk> I'd expect it will be annoying for the next year, but yeah
17:22:22 <gouthamr> we'll learn :)
17:22:27 <noonedeadpunk> with time it'd be safe to abandon them
17:22:51 <gouthamr> okay, that's all the AIs i was tracking
17:22:58 <gouthamr> were there any others you were working on?
17:23:08 <noonedeadpunk> I actually wonder if we should actually suggest abandoning pat6ches in merge conflict on July 1
17:23:44 <gmaan> abandon?
17:23:52 <noonedeadpunk> without sign-off
17:24:09 <gouthamr> yeah, might be overkill.. it'd be nice for a bot comment to be added saying that the next commit will need a DCO sign off
17:24:19 <gmaan> I think we can leave them as it is and whenever author comes they can rebase/update commit msg
17:24:51 <gmaan> abandon can be strong action for this situation
17:24:58 <gmaan> gouthamr: ++
17:25:18 <noonedeadpunk> well, it would trigger notificatio nthat smth went off
17:25:23 <noonedeadpunk> and there is no way to proceed
17:25:32 <noonedeadpunk> from project prespective
17:25:39 <gmaan> bcz we do have many out of dated changes for many reason and we mostly comment there instead of abandon them (unless we have 1-2 years of time checks)
17:25:45 <noonedeadpunk> as merge conflicts are not being notified by gerrit
17:26:15 <gmaan> IMO, we can just handle them as we are doing for long standing merge conflict/not updated one
17:26:17 <noonedeadpunk> aut6omated comment is better idea
17:26:31 <noonedeadpunk> but not sure we'll be doing that :)
17:26:39 <gmaan> if project have policy to abandon such changes considering with some timeline then it is ok
17:27:13 <noonedeadpunk> just project maintainers can select patches in UI and abandon can be mass-applied
17:27:17 <noonedeadpunk> on the contrary to comment
17:27:40 <noonedeadpunk> anyway
17:28:19 <gmaan> sure I am saying we do not need to treat them a new things/action to do than what project do for older/merge conflict changes
17:28:30 <noonedeadpunk> right
17:28:32 <gouthamr> lets discuss this some more if we have time later in the meeting, or after the meeting
17:29:02 <gouthamr> #topic OpenInfra User Survey Questions
17:29:19 <gouthamr> the 2025 user survey is live
17:29:54 <gouthamr> it'll close out in August, and foundation staff will try and get us the responses after September
17:30:37 <gouthamr> we could edit questions if we wanted, but, with the caveat that any major updates would confuse the responses/summarization
17:31:24 <gouthamr> can i have your eyes at the existing questions here
17:31:29 <gouthamr> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2025.2-tracker
17:31:39 <gouthamr> line 17 and beyond
17:31:50 <gouthamr> is tehre anything blatantly wrong to fix/correct here?
17:33:56 <gouthamr> if not, would you like to ask anything new with the caveat shared above?
17:35:54 <gouthamr> taking silence as no, if you think of anything please feel free to chime in anytime on this channel
17:36:12 <gouthamr> i got an update regarding the 2024 user survey
17:36:49 <gouthamr> foundation staff did summarize the survey, but, the raw data dump wasn't shared with PTLs and the TC like the past..
17:37:48 <gouthamr> we were discussing that it was easier to gather this alongside the 2025 data..
17:37:55 <fungi> i think it still can be, though people may need to sign an nda if they haven't before
17:38:15 <gouthamr> we'll still be given two raw/anonymized survey result dumps.. one from 2024 and 2025
17:38:23 <gouthamr> ah, i didn't know of that practice, fungi
17:38:34 <gouthamr> is the NDA new?
17:39:12 <fungi> i don't think so, in the past the foundation had project volunteers agree in writing to not disclose the content of personally identifiable response data
17:39:22 <spotz[m]> Yeah raw surveys require NDA, the presented information is Anonymized but there's the risk raw data can be put together for identification
17:39:42 <spotz[m]> NDA is not new
17:40:20 <fungi> it's basically just a measure to help make respondents feel more comfortable about the privacy of their responses
17:40:35 <gouthamr> i see, i meant anonymized data - but called it "raw data" - my bad
17:40:59 <gouthamr> i recall receiving the anonymized data from helena or aprice in the past..
17:42:11 <gouthamr> i can follow up privately on this.. does anyone have a concern with the timeline?
17:43:18 <spotz[m]> Closing it out in August allows for the data to be looked at and results to be presented at Summit
17:43:28 <gouthamr> and discussed at the PTG in October
17:46:02 <gouthamr> we don't have c a r d o e in today, and i think i need to prep a bit more for the next topic to be more productive
17:47:36 <gouthamr> specifically in deriving conclusions from the developer/maintainer survey responses that ildikov shared on the ML:
17:47:55 <gouthamr> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/3YCEOEVDZRG5UU3FMPEP4F6EZIXDAVGU/ (Bridging the gap between community and contributing orgs)
17:48:24 <gouthamr> can we punt this to next week? or would anyone like to speak on this today?
17:49:07 <fungi> if anyone has questions about those surveys or the analyses so far, i'm happy to answer them either in the meeting or after
17:49:34 <frickler> the most important issue is delay in responses ... so let's punt to next week, that fits ;)
17:49:59 <fungi> hah
17:50:09 <ildikov> I'm also available to discuss :)
17:50:51 <gouthamr> i know you're teasing, but i have the monkey side eye meme going off in my head
17:50:54 <gouthamr> #topic A check on gate health
17:50:56 <ildikov> will be around next week too
17:51:02 <fungi> same
17:51:04 <gouthamr> thank you very much fungi and ildikov
17:51:08 <gouthamr> lets do it next week
17:51:14 <ildikov> +1
17:51:48 <gouthamr> any gate concerns to note today?
17:53:31 <gouthamr> sounds like smooth sailing
17:53:45 * gouthamr tries not to jinx it
17:53:48 <gouthamr> #topic TC Tracker
17:53:50 <fungi> there were some gerrit outages observed recently, which seem consistent with brief network disruption at/near the hosting provider
17:53:52 <gouthamr> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2025.2-tracker (Technical Committee activity tracker - 2025.2)
17:54:01 <gouthamr> ah, ty fungi
17:54:43 * gouthamr didn't notice them.. but saw opendevstatus posting on various channels
17:55:01 <JayF> gouthamr: it's late, but I'll note Ironic was severely broken by updates to Neutron's devstack plugin late last week. We have a fix coming down the pipeline, but I'll likely describe the issue in a bug -- we need to have a better way for ML2 plugins to hook into neutron devstack
17:55:18 <gouthamr> #undo
17:55:18 <opendevmeet> Removing item from minutes: #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2025.2-tracker
17:55:22 <gouthamr> #undo
17:55:22 <opendevmeet> Removing item from minutes: #topic TC Tracker
17:55:57 <gouthamr> JayF: ah, is this on the master branch?
17:56:21 <JayF> Yeah. When they switched up the wsgi method and moved some things around it made it a bit awkward to get config in from a plugin
17:56:48 <JayF> we have a functional fix, I'll describe the issue in a bug against neutron/devstack once it's landed and the fire is out
17:57:11 <JayF> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/networking-generic-switch/+/950559 basically documented in the TODOs in the workaround patch
17:57:46 <gouthamr> thank you for the link and the context
17:58:10 <gouthamr> "For now, we're relying on a race condition that we reliably win."
17:58:50 <gouthamr> :)
17:59:42 <JayF> well, 4 for 4 at least so far, which is better than the 0-for-N we had going since like, early/mid last week lol
18:00:35 <gouthamr> haha, hope there's no optimization committed somewhere that defies that
18:00:43 <gouthamr> we're at the hour
18:00:50 <gouthamr> is there anything else to note for the minutes today?
18:01:25 <gouthamr> i did want to ask how comfortable we are to recommend to project teams  to encourage using DCO sign-offs right away?
18:02:02 <gtema> +1 - I started already that for my changes in codegenerator
18:02:15 <gouthamr> ++
18:03:39 <gouthamr> if anyone's familiar with https://git-scm.com/docs/git-interpret-trailers , they could actually show us how to configure local git in case "-s" is too much to type out each time :D
18:04:15 <noonedeadpunk> why not to use config?
18:04:21 <gouthamr> format.signoff?
18:04:26 <noonedeadpunk> yup
18:04:31 <gouthamr> that's only for patches
18:04:37 <spotz[m]> My problem isn't the git side it's the laziness of the gerrit UI side:)
18:05:23 <gouthamr> okay lets end this meeting
18:05:27 <gouthamr> thank you all for participating
18:05:48 <gouthamr> our next meeting will be our monthly Video+IRC meeting
18:05:57 <gouthamr> #endmeeting