17:00:21 <gouthamr> #startmeeting tc
17:00:21 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Dec  2 17:00:21 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:21 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:21 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
17:00:28 <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.
17:00:41 <gouthamr> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
17:00:44 <gouthamr> #topic Roll Call
17:00:52 <spotz[m]> o/
17:01:04 <gtema> o/
17:01:06 <bauzas> o/ (but I'll barely pay attention)
17:01:09 <cardoe> o/
17:02:46 <gouthamr> courtesy-ping: noonedeadpunk, frickler, mnasiadka
17:02:51 <mnasiadka> o/
17:02:57 <gouthamr> noted absence: t o n y b
17:04:27 <noonedeadpunk> o/
17:04:29 <noonedeadpunk> sorry
17:05:05 <gouthamr> no worries, lets get started..
17:05:16 <gouthamr> #topic Last Week's AIs
17:05:49 <gouthamr> we chatted a bit about changing the FIPS goal
17:06:06 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/969145 (Move FIPS Compliance goal back to proposed)
17:06:21 <gouthamr> there's a ton of content on the commit message - i tried capturing the concerns during the PTG
17:06:52 <gouthamr> i can address the comments from frickler, but hoping this can get us started with whatever needs to be done regarding this
17:07:50 <gouthamr> the next AI was around documenting the PTL appointments, and preserving them through leadership style switches
17:08:13 <gouthamr> still assigned to to ny b; will follow up outside this meeting
17:08:37 <gouthamr> gtema took an AI regarding passlib - i.e., to write to the list and chase some patches to the requirements
17:09:18 <gouthamr> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/SGMP7SKKBOCKIH2FPFH53HYHNCHSRABS/ ([tc][all][security] Supporting Post-Quantum Cryptography in OpenStack code (all projects))
17:09:24 <gouthamr> ^ the details are here
17:09:47 <gtema> passlib change requires +w
17:09:58 <gtema> others (chained) got it already
17:11:25 <gouthamr> ack, ty for working on this
17:11:57 <gtema> wlcm
17:12:12 <gouthamr> the last AI i see is around the openstack-manuals patch regarding tracking metrics:
17:12:12 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/905614
17:13:13 <gouthamr> ^ we merged this with a comment, but, not against removing the tracking itself in teh future
17:13:32 <gouthamr> that's all the AIs i was tracking, was anyone working on anything else?
17:16:30 <cardoe> No. I've closed down the one about the AI tag in the commit.
17:16:52 <gouthamr> i missed it cardoe
17:18:30 <gouthamr> sorry, would need you to elaborate :) i didn't see anything on gerrit?
17:22:14 <gouthamr> we can catch up async.. lets move to the next topic
17:22:19 <gouthamr> #topic Approaches to making big changes
17:22:35 <cardoe> Sorry. Drive by.
17:22:42 <gouthamr> i wanted to bring this up here because there were some interesting ideas
17:23:00 <cardoe> So I had asked if we should have a gerrit header like assisted-by to state what kind of assistance you did from AI.
17:23:16 <cardoe> But after getting feedback from folks I think it's not a great idea. So putting that down.
17:23:48 <gouthamr> oh, i get it now
17:24:39 <gouthamr> ty cardoe, will catch up after this topic if we have room or after the meeting
17:24:46 <cardoe> +1
17:25:06 <gouthamr> alright, around this $topic
17:26:01 <gouthamr> fully agree with many sentiments that clarkb shared over the initial message, i felt like we needed to put it down somewhere, akin to this document here:
17:26:02 <gouthamr> #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/technical-vision.html?_ga=2.42535660.850854672.1745410202-224944396.1732558908
17:26:15 * gouthamr GAH, google analytics
17:26:23 <gouthamr> #undo
17:26:23 <opendevmeet> Removing item from minutes: #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/technical-vision.html?_ga=2.42535660.850854672.1745410202-224944396.1732558908
17:26:30 <gouthamr> #link https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/technical-vision.html
17:27:16 <gouthamr> the core argument was derived from several ongoing threads that seemed to indicate that our community's existing policies and procedures are merely "bad bureaucracy"
17:28:08 <gouthamr> we definitely need a better process to update them, and i was thinking that we headed there with the "ideas" work
17:28:22 <gouthamr> #link https://governance.openstack.org/ideas/
17:29:21 <clarkb> yes, I was hoping to point out that the rules we've got exists for reasons, but those reasons may not apply any longer and our goals may have shifted. We need to be able to update policy to accomodate. And ideally we'd do so in a way that continues to preserve the four opens rather than leading to people just secretly doing a bunch of work and saying take it or leave it
17:29:28 <spotz[m]> So use ideas repo vs someone submitting a change to the vision?
17:29:57 <gouthamr> clarkb: +1
17:30:01 <fungi> ideas was the replacement for the more formal community specs we had prior, and then later evolved into the current goals framework
17:30:29 <gouthamr> spotz[m]: nope, not suggesting that we use it, i wanted to know what the intent of it was, and if we should explore that route again
17:31:38 <gouthamr> fungi: wow; but, a goal is an accepted idea with a definitive timeline? its not a place for brainstorming is it?
17:32:47 <fungi> what was attractive, and also ultimately regrettable, about the ideas process is that it allowed people to suggest work for others to do and not take responsibility for making happen themselves
17:33:36 <gouthamr> we'll have a lot of that, even with goals.. but, its valuable, isn't it
17:35:30 <fungi> i guess it's a matter of opinion, at least in most open source communities any suggestion that doesn't come with a commitment to invest one's time on typically fails to get implemented
17:36:41 <fungi> which is why goals at least require a champion to project-manage them before they can be accepted
17:37:11 <mnasiadka> Well, we have active goals that are not so active - so even having a champion doesn’t warrant that
17:37:49 <fungi> right, so if even the accepted goals aren't a priority to implement...
17:38:07 <gouthamr> mnasiadka: i think actively pushing a goal back to "proposed" or "abandoned" would help
17:38:35 <fungi> as happened with the fips testing goal, and yes that was a good move
17:40:18 <gouthamr> spitballing - we need to let innovation happen with the mindset that something will always challenge norms/guidelines.. but, it's okay, because we can change these norms/guidelines by providing sound reason..
17:40:18 <gouthamr> 
17:40:26 <mnasiadka> gouthamr: sure, but I also understand frickler’s comments about what happens if nobody ever picks that up - and we have ,,artefacts’’ of previous implementation attempt in the ecosystem
17:41:08 <gouthamr> mnasiadka: yes, its a bother cleaning them up, but, it taught us some valuable questions to ask when accepting a community goal
17:42:06 <mnasiadka> Actually FIPS is something I never understood, given the ,,target audience’’ of that feature - but let’s not open that discussion :)
17:42:40 <clarkb> fwiw the goals behind policies are at a higher level than the project goals implementation imop
17:42:44 <clarkb> *imo
17:42:46 <gouthamr> yes
17:43:27 <clarkb> things like the use cases we consider fundamental, the platforms we support, our approach to testing (gating, etc), and so on
17:44:35 <fungi> i guess what i don't understand is why adjustments to policies and processes can't start out as a discussion somewhere that leads to one or more changes in the governance repo
17:45:32 <mnasiadka> I wanted to ask what’s the problem in discussing needed changes in policies and doing the change in governance repo
17:45:53 <clarkb> I don't think there is one. I think the problem is more that there is either a perception or reality that if one does so you will always be shot down
17:45:59 <gouthamr> they surely can, we're not forcing one pattern of making change.. but the governance repo doesn't capture _everything_ and surely not "half baked" things
17:46:31 <fungi> wrapping that in yet another process seems like propagating the existing complaint that we have too many processes
17:46:58 <clarkb> and this may be a case where explicitly working through what we've got that we know isn't working anymore or is no longer reality and leading by example may help break down that perception/reality
17:47:26 <clarkb> I think the problem is more that we don't practice this as a thing we do
17:47:31 <clarkb> so everyone assumes it isn't something that can be done
17:47:47 <clarkb> whcih is why in my email I suggested maybe we just start doing it every 6 months or something
17:48:20 <clarkb> the golang platform is a perfect example for where reality doesn't match policy imo
17:48:34 <clarkb> there is no golang code in openstack as far as I know. Why do we keep that as a valid option?
17:49:10 <clarkb> if we start from there we can reevaluate the origianl goals behind adding go and consider if those are still valid. If so then we know why we keep it is an otpion. Otherwise we can pivot
17:50:09 <spotz[m]> Ok so is there a problem with policy? Or a problem with perception and potentially documentation?
17:50:29 <clarkb> spotz[m]: I think both, but one leads to the other
17:50:43 <clarkb> from my perspective our policy is bit rotting
17:50:57 <clarkb> and there isn't an effort to address it because the perception is that doing so is futile
17:51:18 <mnasiadka> Well, the vision document doesn’t really look like a policy - or we’re talking about some different document than the one gouthamr linked?
17:51:42 <clarkb> mnasiadka: I think you start from that vision document to determine what is important for policy to address
17:51:54 <clarkb> mnasiadka: for example that document doesn't metnion python
17:52:23 <clarkb> to me that implies that python is an implementation detail. There are many good reasons to use python, but maybe we don't only have to use python etc
17:52:58 <clarkb> (or go or ...)
17:53:10 <mnasiadka> Well, the question if we use python, or something else - is mostly dictated by the testing infrastructure - currently only Python is in PTI IIRC
17:53:14 <gouthamr> yes; at some point, we defined "PTI" as complementing that vision.. and we had a python pti, golang pti etc
17:53:21 <spotz[m]> Ok so it sounds like a review and a re-write of the vision is the first place to start, then increase communication, etc
17:53:27 <gouthamr> mnasiadka: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/golang.html
17:53:30 <fungi> the vision is due to be revised anyway if the tc wants to maintain one. the entire point of vision statements (based on the workshop we attended when we drafted the first one) is that they're supposed to be time-bounded
17:53:38 <gouthamr> (and this: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/pti/javascript.html)
17:53:43 <mnasiadka> gouthamr: thanks, I was blind :)
17:54:04 <clarkb> spotz[m]: yes I think that is a reasonable first step
17:56:16 <gouthamr> i agree, i would do it, but poorly, i wonder if, clarkb you'd like to take a stab or work with me on it?
17:56:25 <spotz[m]> So my suggestion is to focus there if everyone is in agreement on that being the first step. Start small and then grow from there or we won't make progress on the whole issue
17:56:47 <fungi> the gist of the workshop was that we were supposed to imagine the state of the tc five years out, and then describe that in a way that all the tc members could agree on
17:57:00 <clarkb> gouthamr: I'm happy to help. I don't know that I can drive it. But happy to review and draft as I'm able
17:57:08 <gouthamr> fungi: i need notes of this workshop :D
17:57:27 <fungi> i'll go spelunking for them
17:57:54 <gouthamr> i haven't said it enough, we need to index your brain into an OpenStack History spanning 500+ volumes
17:57:57 <spotz[m]> Yeah I'm not sure what workshop
17:58:17 <clarkb> the openstack tc went to a deli in michigan years and years ago and did a leadership workshop
17:58:42 <clarkb> a major output of that workshop was the vision document iirc (I wasn't there)
17:58:52 <fungi> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/453262
17:59:06 <fungi> it was driven by the stewardship working group (which no longer exists)
17:59:26 <fungi> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Stewardship_Working_Group#Build_a_vision_for_the_TC
18:00:32 <fungi> the thing at the deli in michigan was put on by the same group, but was on servant leadership
18:00:49 <clarkb> ah separate activities then
18:00:50 <fungi> the vision drafting mini-workshop happened at an in-person meeting in boston
18:00:51 <spotz[m]> names that are definitely a blast from the past
18:01:17 <gouthamr> haha, good reading.. ty for digging these up
18:01:31 <fungi> tons of review comments on the vision draft change
18:02:06 <gouthamr> i suggest we reflect on this in light of the original question and continue this discussion in the next meeting
18:02:58 <spotz[m]> Or in a deli in Michigan:)
18:03:16 <fungi> (the boston meeting was in the dla piper offices, if memory serves)
18:03:39 <gouthamr> haha, /me thinks of pastrami sandwiches or bagels and lox
18:03:50 <gouthamr> we're over by a few mins.. but, this was an insightful discussion that was worth doing
18:04:00 <gouthamr> anything to note for the minutes today?
18:04:00 <mnasiadka> It’s 7pm here, don’t make me hungry
18:04:51 <gouthamr> mnasiadka: something i learned in the US, breakfast is meant to be eaten all day - ignore anyone that says otherwise :D
18:04:55 <spotz[m]> I'm a pro at scheduling meetings in the Boston RH office
18:05:47 <gouthamr> alright, thank you for joining/participating everyone! please continue the chatter here..
18:05:48 <fungi> i've been eating breakfast for 7 hours nonstop
18:05:54 <gouthamr> :D
18:05:56 <gouthamr> #endmeeting