17:00:07 #startmeeting tc 17:00:07 Meeting started Tue Jul 8 17:00:07 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:07 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:07 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 17:00:16 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. 17:00:20 Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee 17:00:24 #topic Roll Call 17:00:32 o/ 17:00:36 o/ 17:00:48 o/ 17:01:00 o/ 17:01:38 \o 17:02:41 o/ 17:03:04 courtesy-ping: noonedeadpunk, cardoe 17:03:38 o/ 17:03:40 sorry 17:03:54 Sorry. I’m getting to my computer. I’m on mobile. 17:04:02 no problem, hello everyone 17:04:07 thanks for joining, lets get started 17:04:14 #topic Last Week's AIs 17:04:49 bauzas: we took one on the eventlet timelines change on gerrit 17:04:57 thanks 17:05:03 i.e., to follow up on the comments so far 17:05:06 sorry had no time to update it 17:05:14 anything to summarize ? 17:05:48 nope, i think we were trending towards a consensus on the proposal.. there are a few comments to clarify that 17:05:55 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/952903 (Make Eventlet removal deadlines more acceptable for operators) 17:06:37 okay, I'll try to update it this week 17:06:56 thanks, next up was pbr.. 17:07:11 i did see some changes up to fix the broken gate 17:07:28 and start the pkg_resources removal 17:07:31 #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22pkg_resources-removal%22 17:07:53 thanks stephenfin \o/ 17:08:44 we took an AI to cleanup mentions of the CLA 17:08:54 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953843 (Remove mentions to CLA in licensing guide) 17:08:58 this was merged yesterday 17:09:17 there are still some mentions in project specific contributor documentation 17:09:52 i'll send a note to project teams to clean that up 17:10:18 the last AI i see is the TC meet-and-greet session at the Summit 17:10:27 spotz[m]: was this submitted? will you be leading it? 17:11:09 I haven’t yet but will 17:11:31 ack ty spotz[m] 17:11:39 * spotz[m] uploaded an audio file: (32KiB) < https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/ARvCChTu9DoS1D8sq9-Af1AB40TseHVd8cyCDkBfPTo4mUUB2zq6i5f1-4w7JHa1fA7grDXZUDaYJ7vK2ka3lpJCeYMx6XBAAG1hdHJpeC5vcmcvdVd5Z1BhRkRpSVJra2tkWlVXT2dwY1dq > 17:11:58 a cryptic voice note? :D 17:12:11 a reminder for other folks here considering a forum session or project update session for the summit, that the deadline is today 17:12:20 Me playing with app 17:12:50 that's all the AIs i see, was anyone working on anything else? 17:14:33 #topic A check on gate health 17:14:46 any gate updates this week? 17:15:42 there were a few more multinode hiccups related to zuul-launcher providing mixed cloud nodesets. Several bugs around that have been fixed. Hopefully it doesn't happen anymore 17:16:22 And hopefully CentOS 10 Stream and Rocky Linux 10 nodes should be available this week, there's a light in the tunnel ;-) 17:16:31 I was just about to ask about this ^ 17:16:45 also debian-trixie, probably 17:17:28 that would be also really nice to have once eventlet not really a blocker 17:18:05 ++ 17:19:21 i'd like not to jinx the gate bang in the middle of the cycle, but this all sounds like good news 17:19:35 anything else for $topic? 17:20:08 hmmm 17:20:18 I'll be at the Summit, got green light 17:20:34 \o/ 17:20:38 but in case we want to run a session like meet-and-greet with ops, sure I can help 17:20:47 I'm not having any Forum session 17:20:55 or jetlag ;) 17:21:13 :P 17:21:15 (envious) 17:21:19 #topic TC Tracker 17:21:22 oh, I might have one for you bauzas :p 17:21:54 we have some open patches that could use more reviews: 17:22:01 #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/governance+status:open 17:25:53 elod proposed the retirement of Monasca, and it looks like we need a few more things per the retirement process 17:25:58 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/953671 17:27:20 yeah, it is already inactive since many cycle 17:27:25 i dont know if the PTL would object to this.. 17:27:33 there's been no activity in the project itself 17:27:35 #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:%5Eopenstack/monasca-.* 17:27:55 I will say keep it inactive and this election we will have more clarity if anyone step up 17:28:29 if any volunteer then we can have question for them about plan as it has been inactive for many cycle 17:28:33 ack, feels like users/operators are keeping it alive 17:29:12 #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22upgrade_monasca%22 17:29:23 ^ these are the last tangible changes 17:30:42 that sounds fine gmaan, but, even if the PTL re-nominates themselves, it looks like this is in "maintenance mode" of sorts 17:31:17 if something major breaks in the dependencies (e.g.; eventlet), this could fall apart 17:31:38 sure but as we do not have separate status like 'maintenance mode' for projects either it should be active as per governance requirement or inactive or retire 17:31:48 yeah 17:32:19 and the requirement we have to keep it active is not so much, it is similar to any 'maintenance mode' software like many projects are in same situation 17:32:44 current maintainers are not marking it active if it is so we do not know the actual situation 17:33:24 as per process, it should be retire by now but we do not need to be pro-active for retirement and can give time if maintainers need 17:33:54 * gouthamr copies hasan acar and thuvh to the change 17:34:17 maybe we can use the change to discuss their plans if any, and offer advice if they have questions 17:34:52 yeah, we did in past and PTL agree to the plan but things got disappear 17:36:03 true 17:36:05 I am not against of starting retirement or at least putting it in ML but as it is already marked inactive we know the situation. 17:36:25 ack, if there's no response on the change, we can hit the ML 17:36:26 it is matter of whether we want to give more time to them. 17:36:30 ++ 17:36:43 #topic Open Discussion 17:36:44 and will be excluded from the coordinated release, removed from overview diagrams of the software, et cetera 17:36:53 ^ after retirement? 17:37:00 usually inactive is meant to only last one cycle, we are at how many now, 3? 17:37:06 it is already excluded from release for many cycles 17:37:07 they're not a part of the release 17:37:10 no, currently. inactive deliverables are not included in the coordinated release 17:37:25 and we typically don't include them on the software map and such 17:37:32 ah, i didn't know that 17:37:43 frickler: true, we also provided extension to inactive phase 17:37:56 there's no warning on the documentation either correct? a la retired projects? 17:38:11 #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#current-inactive-projects 17:38:51 so 4 cycles now 17:39:04 yeah, no warning for inactive projects. I remember artem or someone mentioned about in past PTG about showing some warning or status for inactive projects more wider than just TC doc 17:39:18 good point about docs, we make it look more active by continuing to publish a https://docs.openstack.org/monasca-api/latest/ with a banner stating "This release is under development. The current supported release is 2025.1." 17:39:37 and that can be good idea to inactive status on doc but we need to implement it 17:39:51 (neither of those sentences being true wrt monasca) 17:39:55 yeah 17:39:56 I think this is assigned to me right now 17:40:04 and I can't say I had any progress :( 17:40:04 noonedeadpunk: ++ 17:40:35 Seems I'm sort of done with centos/rocky10 - so I can try to help with that if needed 17:42:03 that would be super helpful.. its monasca now, but we could use a template/documentation note to alert users like we have for retired projects for any other inactive projects in the future 17:43:08 yeah, basically we need to define what we could show in the /latest or README.rst which is more of temporary status and ask for help 17:43:31 that should not sounds like this project is retired or cannot be active/ready to use again 17:44:04 this ties in really nicely with some of the things the foundation community managers have been discussing recently too 17:44:26 trying to brainstorm ways to better communicate to the right people when projects need help 17:44:46 mnasiadka: thanks for help, once you have something up. I will be happy to review. 17:45:09 (historically we've failed at that over and over, with at least half a dozen different solutions tried) 17:46:03 IMO, this is little different situation. I will say "if you are using/interested in this project then it need help otherwise maybe retiring in future" 17:46:19 fungi: I'd be happy to know which solutions failed before I try them again :) 17:46:30 and projects we cannot effort to go away like QA, keystone etc can be projected as "projects need help" 17:47:11 mnasiadka: off the top of my head, the project managers working group, the architects working group, the hidden influencers working group, the help wanted list, upstream investment opportunities... 17:47:41 keep in mind this is a history of struggles and attempted solutions stretching back 15 years 17:48:00 What about a header on the doc itself aka larger font saying the last release 17:49:34 yeah, we call that header a "badge" in the openstack manuals repo 17:49:57 and there's a "deprecated" badge template too 17:50:02 #link https://opendev.org/openstack/openstack-manuals/src/branch/master/www/templates/deprecated_badge.tmpl 17:51:01 so for an inactive project, we could properly reflect the last (real) release similarly 17:51:31 and probably add a similar banner asking for help/new maintainers 17:54:34 well, isn't what we all need are some updates to www-generator.py pointing out such projects? 17:55:44 yes 17:56:01 currently that has the logic for RETIRED_REPOS, so we should make it look at inactive ones too 17:56:29 might have to yank the RST list out of the https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#current-inactive-projects page and make it a yaml 17:56:59 Nice, I feared my approach is too naive - but I can work on this pointer :) 17:57:24 thank you mnasiadka 17:57:43 alright, three minutes left, anything else for the minutes? 17:57:48 Mine was more naive:) 17:59:02 fungi clarkb: will this ever go away? https://review.opendev.org/static/cla.html 17:59:22 yes 17:59:50 it's on my near-term priority list once we rip out cla enforcement from the non-openinfra project acls in opendev 17:59:59 i still see all three agreements under https://review.opendev.org/settings/new-agreement 17:59:59 i dont know if there's a use case for any of these now that we don't require it 18:00:01 ah 18:00:08 i see 18:00:09 there are not, no 18:00:15 all of those will go away 18:00:30 thanks for confirming! 18:01:07 spotz[m]: all the new contributor workshop/presentation material will need slight tweaking (for the better) to remove CLA stuff :) 18:01:09 we have a handful of gerrit image rebuild reasons piling up 18:01:24 the updates tothe zuul status page, cleaning up cla stuff, moving to quay 18:01:32 nice 18:01:36 we may be able to bundle them all together and roll that out at once. I'll bring it up in our meeting later today 18:01:43 thanks clarkb 18:01:49 alright, we've passed the hour.. thank you all for attending 18:01:53 I’ll take a look at that as I actually was showing it to someone today 18:01:59 Thanks all 18:02:00 ty spotz[m] 18:02:03 #endmeeting