17:00:32 <gouthamr> #startmeeting tc
17:00:32 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Nov  4 17:00:32 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:32 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:32 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
17:00:50 <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.
17:00:55 <gouthamr> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
17:01:00 <gouthamr> #topic Roll Call
17:01:05 <mnasiadka> o/
17:01:09 <gtema> o/
17:01:14 <frickler> \w/
17:01:29 <noonedeadpunk> o/
17:02:44 <cardoe> o/
17:02:54 <gouthamr> courtesy-ping: spotz[m], bauzas
17:03:07 <gouthamr> noted absence: t o n y b
17:03:13 <bauzas> o/ (listening to another meeting)
17:03:27 * bauzas loves the daylight saving, now I'm able to join, woohoo
17:03:50 <gouthamr> nice
17:04:47 <spotz[m]> Here!
17:05:02 <spotz[m]> We are not video correct?
17:05:38 <gouthamr> yes, no video meetings
17:05:57 <gouthamr> lets get started
17:06:02 <gouthamr> #topic Last Week's AIs
17:06:42 <gouthamr> okay, this topic isn't really last week's AIs :)
17:06:58 <gouthamr> i still need to distill all of those into a consumable summary; and will post this to the ML
17:07:55 <gouthamr> but, in the week prior, we had our first meeting in an APAC/EU friendly time zone
17:08:14 <gouthamr> mnasiadka: thank you for hosting it, and it was very nice to see the scrollback and the participation
17:09:01 <mnasiadka> np :)
17:10:29 <gouthamr> during this meeting you folks discussed the user survey results
17:11:52 <gouthamr> and i see two things wrt that: we took an AI to respond to the thread jimmy started asking for some clarity?
17:12:09 <gouthamr> and we wanted to ask if the CSV data can be downloadable from www.openstack.org/analytics
17:15:51 <mnasiadka> I don’t think we assigned that AI to anybody, so probably nobody did that?
17:16:03 <gouthamr> yes, can we have a volunteer for this?
17:18:45 <gouthamr> we also need someone that can do an analysis like the ones linked at the bottom of this page:
17:18:46 <gouthamr> https://governance.openstack.org/tc/
17:20:36 <gouthamr> slaweq: gmaan: do we have any scripts to help with this? or was there a lot of manual work?
17:21:45 <gmaan> afaik, it was done manually but slaweq might know if he did with any automation
17:22:04 <gouthamr> ack ty, he might let us know async
17:23:28 <gouthamr> so we need someone with some cycles to own this work
17:26:48 <gouthamr> an extension of this is we need to see if we can update the questions for the upcoming user survey
17:27:05 * gouthamr looks for a deadline for that
17:27:14 <bauzas> some AI tool could help digesting the results but I won't go into that sideways
17:27:47 <gouthamr> "We would like to have ALL reviews/requests in no later than December 1, 2025"
17:29:25 <gouthamr> bauzas: +1
17:30:07 <gouthamr> alright, we could wait if someone can take this up..
17:30:11 <gouthamr> lets move on
17:30:25 <gouthamr> #topic Project appointment history and why we clear it sometimes
17:30:28 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/964516
17:30:36 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk: could you elaborate what you meant here?
17:30:55 <frickler> iiuc it should never be cleared, is there an instance where it happened?
17:32:34 <spotz[m]> I was thinking GRPD(?) but I don't think that has ever come up with OpenStack historical stuff
17:33:16 <gouthamr> what's GRPD?
17:33:28 <noonedeadpunk> yes, I think it was with watcher for instance
17:33:34 <noonedeadpunk> could be smth else as well
17:33:37 <frickler> I just found https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/940167/1/reference/projects.yaml yes
17:33:54 <frickler> that looks like a bug to me and should be reverted
17:33:57 <noonedeadpunk> as I had to spend some time to figure out history of why we have put a ML with suggestion to retire watcher
17:34:07 <spotz[m]> GRDP the German Data protection...
17:34:08 <fungi> i assume spotz means the eu's gdpr
17:34:46 <fungi> (general data protection regulation)
17:35:06 <spotz[m]> Yes thank you!
17:35:21 <noonedeadpunk> Well, it was not having anything to do with gdpr for me, but at least TC and community to be informed about leadership issues for some projects
17:35:22 <gmaan> when we appointed/elected new PTL then it is kept always.We did clear when project moved from PTL to DPL model because data is associated with the PTL info/schema
17:35:43 <noonedeadpunk> if we get PTL appointed each and every cycle, we might want to step in at some point, for instance
17:35:57 <gmaan> but agree, we should not associate it with PTL fields instead should be kept even leadership model is changed
17:36:41 <noonedeadpunk> I think I saw some other instances as well, but can't recall them already :(
17:37:22 <gmaan> though it can be 'appointed' -> 'Leaders appointed' or something more clear
17:37:25 <gouthamr> but, in the case of watcher, we literally revamped the whole team - so our project health tracking doesn't need that information anymore
17:38:14 <noonedeadpunk> but I wanted to raise that so that we were more aware that this info might be usefull to have and preserve it for history
17:38:21 <gouthamr> +1
17:38:22 <gmaan> ++
17:38:41 <gouthamr> i agree, but, if we encounter an issue like watcher, i think it is okay to lose historical information
17:38:49 <gmaan> when project goes inactive again then it is good to knoe pre-DPL model history
17:39:00 <gmaan> *know
17:39:11 <spotz[m]> I think historical info is always good
17:39:15 <gmaan> yeah
17:39:41 <gouthamr> okay, looks like there's consensus.. do we want to restore any data that we've lost?
17:40:14 <gmaan> If we get leader via PTL elected for project we keep it and it should be same when we get leader via DPL
17:41:58 <gouthamr> ack
17:42:06 <gouthamr> but, do we care to restore the data for watcher now?
17:42:12 <spotz[m]> +1
17:42:22 <gouthamr> or this is just consensus building on this procedure for the future?
17:42:36 <noonedeadpunk> I'd say for the future?
17:43:18 <gouthamr> ack, maybe we should put this up in our doc someplace
17:43:29 <noonedeadpunk> ++
17:43:52 * gouthamr will note that AI, if you'd like to take it.. please do
17:44:08 <gouthamr> anything else for $topic?
17:44:19 <bauzas> -
17:44:35 <gouthamr> #topic A check on gate health
17:44:51 <gouthamr> anything new or concerning on the gate this week?
17:45:20 <fungi> we had another unexpected gerrit outage earlier today
17:45:38 <fungi> clarkb has filed a ticket with vexxhost to look into it
17:46:09 <clarkb> and zuul can boot nodes in different providers again due to a bug that is being actively fixed
17:46:31 <clarkb> it should only happen in specific corner case circumstances (it has to do with trying to reused nodes that get unassigned from old requests to new requests)
17:46:57 <fungi> unrelated, the release/stable folks are in the process of cleaning up stable/2024.1 branches now that unmaintained/2024.1 has been created, and there may be new job config errors as a result
17:47:22 <clarkb> bionic node cleanups have begun too
17:48:13 <frickler> we also had a regression of multinode jobs getting distributed across providers again, but iiuc that's fixed? or need some update still?
17:48:18 <fungi> ah yes, that may impact some old, old unmaintained branches too
17:48:29 <bauzas> yeah the gerrit issue is still an oom issue, right?
17:48:34 <fungi> the bionic cleanup i mean
17:48:36 <clarkb> frickler: yes that the issue I note. There is a fix for zuul but it hasn't landed yet (there are a couple of other zuul bugs that need fixing first)
17:48:49 <clarkb> bauzas: we think so yes. Hopefully the cloud can confirm and mitigate
17:49:01 <fungi> bauzas: that's our theory, we'll need vexxhost staff to look into it to know for sure
17:49:15 <bauzas> cool let us know
17:49:46 <fungi> it's happened twice in the past month now
17:50:15 <fungi> so we're hoping to find a way to keep it from recurring
17:50:37 <frickler> the cleanup of stable/2024.1 I think is waiting for some late projects to transition
17:51:16 <gouthamr> ack; is there a sunset date?
17:51:28 <frickler> gouthamr: in particular https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/963612 is waiting for you ;)
17:51:40 <frickler> I don't think we have a specific date
17:51:42 <gouthamr> ty frickler; will respond..
17:52:06 <frickler> the other open question is who will deal with refreshing opt-in state for older unmaintained branches
17:52:07 <gouthamr> the thing is if we did delay, while the branch renames occur in other projects, the jobs will break anyway
17:52:19 <frickler> though that no longer matches the current topic
17:52:29 <gouthamr> yes, lets see if we can talk about that next week
17:52:42 <gouthamr> anything else about CI?
17:54:48 <fungi> (these technically aren't branch renames, but branch replacements)
17:54:56 <gouthamr> #topic TC Tracker
17:54:56 <gouthamr> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2026.1-tracker (Technical Committee activity tracker - 2026.1)
17:55:09 <gouthamr> ^ we need to refresh this after we distill the PTG AIs
17:55:23 <gouthamr> was there anything to bring up from this tracker today?
17:56:32 <gouthamr> #topic Open Discussion
17:56:52 <gouthamr> ~ all of 3.5 minutes for this :)
17:56:52 <gouthamr> anything else to note for the minutes today?
17:57:22 <gouthamr> i missed the board meeting today, but i suppose there was an interesting brainstorm
17:58:38 <gouthamr> we should hopefully get a recap if you're subscribed to the board ML
17:59:19 <fungi> i also posted a cra status summary to the foundation-board ml over the weekend
17:59:36 <fungi> for people who enjoy that sort of thing
17:59:40 <gouthamr> #link https://lists.openinfra.org/archives/list/foundation-board@lists.openinfra.org/thread/YY5YQLZ3EMCGX5NK63SV3R3KZ6VRJLOZ/
17:59:59 <gouthamr> i read this: "I'm not a lawyer, but the
17:59:59 <gouthamr> prevailing interpretation is that individual contributors and
17:59:59 <gouthamr> maintainers for our open source projects have no legal obligations
17:59:59 <gouthamr> under the CRA"
18:00:06 <gouthamr> and i sighed
18:00:15 <gouthamr> ofc, that's just a gist
18:00:51 <spotz[m]> hehe
18:01:06 <gouthamr> alright, lets wrap this up - it was a light meeting, but, we'll probably get real busy with the PTG takeaways when we've digested it all.. thank you all for participating
18:01:16 <gouthamr> see you here next week
18:01:20 <gouthamr> #endmeeting