| fungi | i'm on the fence since we already seem to mostly have things proposed to the election repo this time, but would like to hear from other tc-members on the matter when they're around | 00:17 |
|---|---|---|
| tonyb | Okay | 00:17 |
| * tonyb cools his heals | 00:18 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 00:32 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 00:32 | |
| *** mtreinish has quit IRC | 00:45 | |
| *** mtreinish has joined #openstack-tc | 00:46 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 00:52 | |
| *** mtreinish has quit IRC | 01:06 | |
| *** mtreinish has joined #openstack-tc | 01:08 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 01:15 | |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 01:33 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 01:53 | |
| openstackgerrit | Trinh Nguyen proposed openstack/governance master: Self-nominate as Searchlight PTL https://review.openstack.org/590601 | 02:14 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 02:16 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 02:18 | |
| openstackgerrit | Trinh Nguyen proposed openstack/governance master: Update with results from the Stein PTL election https://review.openstack.org/589691 | 03:12 |
| openstackgerrit | Trinh Nguyen proposed openstack/governance master: Self-nominate as Searchlight PTL https://review.openstack.org/590601 | 03:12 |
| *** ianychoi has joined #openstack-tc | 03:56 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 07:02 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 07:06 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 07:15 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:59 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 08:49 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 09:14 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 09:27 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 09:31 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 09:37 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 09:48 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 10:19 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:21 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 10:28 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 10:35 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 10:36 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 11:01 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jean-Philippe Evrard proposed openstack/governance master: Reorganise OpenStack-Ansible deliverables https://review.openstack.org/589446 | 11:39 |
| openstackgerrit | Jean-Philippe Evrard proposed openstack/governance master: Reorganise OpenStack-Ansible deliverables https://review.openstack.org/589446 | 11:42 |
| openstackgerrit | Jean-Philippe Evrard proposed openstack/governance master: Reorganise OpenStack-Ansible deliverables https://review.openstack.org/589446 | 11:54 |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 11:58 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 12:01 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 12:03 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 12:05 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 12:17 | |
| TheJulia | fungi: I guess I'm worried that we seemingly desire to add more complexity, processes, and expectations, when I can't actually detect what the value-add would be for all involved. Perhaps I need more coffee though. | 12:39 |
| fungi | TheJulia: agreed, asking the election officials to approve tc appointees after the election seems like extra process to me too | 12:47 |
| fungi | especially given they don't actually have the authority to approve appointments | 12:48 |
| TheJulia | I guess the better question I should be asking, in order to better understand, is what is broken/bad/not ideal about the current process and what exactly are they trying to fix | 12:49 |
| fungi | i'm not sure there is a current process, which is part of the problem | 12:51 |
| fungi | in the past the election officials just told the tc when there was no candidate for a ptl election, and then the tc took it up with the team in question | 12:52 |
| fungi | this time we've apparently asked volunteers for those seats to amend the election results | 12:52 |
| cmurphy | in some cases we asked them to amend governance directly https://review.openstack.org/588617 | 12:53 |
| cmurphy | so we've not been consistent | 12:53 |
| fungi | which results in the election officials approving them when it's not within their authority (but they're the only ones who can approve them because they're the ones with approval rights on the election repo) | 12:53 |
| fungi | so this is more a question of how we can do better next time, and whether we should really go ahead with alterations to the election results this time as a one-off or not | 12:55 |
| TheJulia | I think not, I think the process from the TC standpoint as to who/what/why should be documented clearly, since I'm fairly certain that things like this will happen again. | 12:56 |
| TheJulia | (the not was in response to the second half of your last comment fungi) | 12:57 |
| cmurphy | I don't really think it makes sense to keep altering the election results, after all appointments aren't elected | 12:57 |
| fungi | part of the confusion is probably that in a couple past cycles (ocata and queens) appointments made by the tc during the election period were recorded in the election results, but as part of the change which recorded the entirety of the election | 12:59 |
| evrardjp | fungi: I am not understanding the problem: Is that a problem that we tracked/asked volunteers and amend the results, is the problem the lack of process, is the problem that we are changing all the time? | 12:59 |
| fungi | in this case we have appointments we're making after conclusion of the election, so it's questionable whether we should add them to the election reop | 12:59 |
| fungi | repo | 12:59 |
| evrardjp | with ^ I understand better | 13:00 |
| fungi | evrardjp: yeah, i'm not sure if the request for those ptl appointees to update the election repo was intended to provide retroactive consistency in the election info, or if it means something more | 13:01 |
| evrardjp | fungi: what was different in Pike and Rocky? | 13:01 |
| evrardjp | fungi: ok | 13:01 |
| TheJulia | I have loaded the page erroniously in the past, when I should have looked at the governance yaml file describing who the PTLs are. I can see people going to the election page to verify who the PTL is, but...it is the wrong place outside of an election window or election process | 13:01 |
| fungi | yeah, and the governance repo is certainly where we record the official decision in such matters | 13:02 |
| fungi | the election results are merely intended as a means of informing the tc of the results of community elections | 13:02 |
| fungi | so that they can be recorded accurately into governance | 13:02 |
| TheJulia | "This page does not account for all current statuses, for the most up to date and current information including appointments, please see <link>." | 13:04 |
| fungi | anyway, i'm okay just going ahead and approving those additions this time (with my election official hat on) since we (tc members) asked people to submit them, but would like to think a little about whether it's appropriate going forward | 13:05 |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 13:05 | |
| cmurphy | we haven't merged any of them yet, we could still abandon those reviews and repropose them against governance and reference the abandoned reviews | 13:07 |
| persia | As I am without a TC hat, I'd much more prefer explicit instruction from the TC to approve such changes. Also, I think of the elections repo has being an artefact of how the elections officials have chosen to pursue delegated activities, rather than being a governance artifact itself. | 13:08 |
| *** jaypipes is now known as leakypipes | 13:21 | |
| *** dansmith is now known as SteelyDan | 13:31 | |
| openstackgerrit | Ade Lee proposed openstack/governance master: update nick for Ade Lee https://review.openstack.org/590772 | 13:43 |
| *** hongbin_ has joined #openstack-tc | 14:03 | |
| dhellmann | In the past we had meetings where we could hold votes. Today we need some other way to hold a vote, and the changes to the governance repo serve that purpose. Except that some PTLs are serving again, which means we would need to remove their name and re-add it. I did propose that the first time it came up, and the people around at the time seemed to agree it felt a bit silly. | 14:05 |
| dhellmann | Hence updating the election repo with the appointment info. | 14:06 |
| dhellmann | I'm not sure why updating that is an issue, since it's clearly saying there was an appointment. | 14:06 |
| dhellmann | I don't have a strong opinion about what the process should be, except that it needs to include a step where the TC actively confirms the appointment. So if the current process doesn't suit, let's figure out something else. | 14:08 |
| cdent | maybe the ptl entry in projects.yaml needs a date apppointed key | 14:10 |
| cdent | a date that is outside the norm is a sign that it was something different and thus is a thing that needs its own commit | 14:10 |
| cdent | the eleection results all get the same date and same commit | 14:10 |
| cdent | or "date appointed" is perhaps optional | 14:11 |
| cdent | signalling: not elected | 14:11 |
| cdent | a part of me thinks that a ptl that wasn't elected should not show up in the election repo | 14:11 |
| cmurphy | or could just be appointed: true sort of like we're doing in the election repo | 14:11 |
| cdent | where it matters is in projects.yaml | 14:11 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 14:11 | |
| cmurphy | ++ | 14:11 |
| cdent | cmurphy: yeah, cuz blame could give the date | 14:11 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, they weren't actually part of the election, so that just seems a little odd to me. | 14:12 |
| smcginnis | Not saying it's an issue, just one of those things. | 14:12 |
| dhellmann | does someone want to write up a process proposal and send it to the -dev list? or even document it in the governance repo somewhere? | 14:15 |
| persia | dhellmann: I think the main problem with updating the election repo is that process doesn't actually require or enforce any TC blessing. There is also some resistance based on the existing stance of "don't update the candidate data between elections", but that's something easily overridden by TC direction. | 14:23 |
| dhellmann | ok, I guess I can understand both of those things. | 14:23 |
| dhellmann | I still want a volunteer to write up something different so we don't have to guess what to do next time. :-) | 14:24 |
| persia | Alternately, having a stack of changes to projects.yaml, being the election results (removing info), and appointments (restoring) is entirely restricted to TC. | 14:24 |
| dhellmann | using a stack of changes this time around has proven to be a bit of a pain, because an inexperience person rebased the one setting the election results which reset the approval date if we follow our strict rules | 14:24 |
| dhellmann | it at least wiped out the votes | 14:24 |
| dhellmann | I'm reluctant to say we want a tc member to make whatever patches are involved, but I would like to try to avoid that situation in the future | 14:25 |
| dhellmann | so perhaps we want to shorten the amount of time we wait to approve that initial set of election rules (that would be a house rules change) to avoid the problem | 14:26 |
| dhellmann | then other volunteers could nominate themselves after that one is approved | 14:26 |
| persia | I may be out of date, but last I looked, the election results change also didn't expressly reflect "None" in cases where there was no PTL as a result of the election. | 14:27 |
| dhellmann | perhaps it should? | 14:28 |
| dhellmann | usually we just have 1-2 of these and it's not such a pita | 14:28 |
| persia | That it perhaps should was discussed ~14 hours ago, but more input from more of the TC was desired before updating the change (especially as that wipes all the votes, etc.) | 14:29 |
| persia | There's also the current situation where some folk were instructed to update the elections repo. | 14:29 |
| persia | I think the summary is that we need one true way going forward, and we may end up with some messiness or cleanup this time, but until we have the way forward, folk are reluctant to set precedent. | 14:30 |
| dhellmann | I am asking for a volunteer to propose *something*. I don't have time to do it today, given the release work. | 14:31 |
| dhellmann | If we get all of this down in one place we can poke holes and do the usual revision, but I think we've done enough IRC chatting about it and need a more concrete proposal somewhere. | 14:32 |
| * persia offers to propose *someting* in ~8 hours, and will happily collaborate or defer to someone else if they get to it first | 14:32 | |
| dhellmann | persia : excellent, thank you | 14:32 |
| cdent | dhellmann: I can propose the idea I made up above.. | 14:32 |
| cdent | or persia feel free | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | cdent : also good, yes, thank you :-) | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | let's do it as changes to the house rules section of the governance document | 14:33 |
| cdent | k | 14:33 |
| dhellmann | if we decide it should eventually live elsewhere we can deal with that once we agree on what it is we're moving | 14:33 |
| persia | cdent: I have several things in the next few hours: if your evening is sooner, feel free to do it in advance of me. | 14:33 |
| cdent | i'll do it pretty much now | 14:33 |
| cdent | and then if we (or you) don't like it, we can make another or tweak it | 14:33 |
| persia | Excellent :) | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | thank you both | 14:34 |
| fungi | dhellmann: to me, from an election official standpoint, it's unclear what rules we follow for approval of those changes. are the election officials gauging when a sufficient number of tc members have added a code-review +1? | 14:35 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yeah, that's a fair point. I didn't think that through. | 14:36 |
| fungi | and how many do we need? do we consult the tc member roster to sort out which +1s are from tc members and which aren't? | 14:37 |
| fungi | that sort of thing | 14:37 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 14:39 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 14:51 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 15:03 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 15:03 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 15:10 | |
| openstackgerrit | Chris Dent proposed openstack/governance master: Add a house rule about how to signal appointed PTLs https://review.openstack.org/590790 | 15:13 |
| cdent | dhellmann, cmurphy, persia, smcginnis ^ | 15:19 |
| cdent | fairly short and sweet | 15:19 |
| smcginnis | cdent: Thank | 15:21 |
| smcginnis | s | 15:22 |
| cdent | made an email too | 15:22 |
| cmurphy | i like it | 15:26 |
| openstackgerrit | Chandan Kumar proposed openstack/governance master: Move refstack-client, refstack and python-tempestconf to interop WG https://review.openstack.org/590179 | 15:29 |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 15:30 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 15:43 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 16:27 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 16:35 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 16:38 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 16:38 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 16:38 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 16:41 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 16:43 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 17:01 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 17:11 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 17:32 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 17:40 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 17:43 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 17:48 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 17:48 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 17:54 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 17:54 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 17:56 | |
| *** ianychoi has quit IRC | 18:10 | |
| *** ianychoi has joined #openstack-tc | 18:11 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: update nick for Ade Lee https://review.openstack.org/590772 | 18:15 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Update PTL for OpenStack RPM Packaging https://review.openstack.org/588617 | 18:17 |
| *** zaneb has joined #openstack-tc | 18:39 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 18:50 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 18:52 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 18:54 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 18:59 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 19:28 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 19:31 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 19:51 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 20:14 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 20:17 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 20:48 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 20:51 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 21:02 | |
| fungi | whee! http://www.joinfu.com/2018/08/project-mulligan-openstack-redo/ | 21:25 |
| fungi | sounds less like openstack v2 and more like nova v2 | 21:37 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 21:58 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 22:01 | |
| fungi | when he says "projects that can stand alone and | 22:04 |
| fungi | provide a well-defined, small scope of service" i read that as "projects that don't need nova" which is a decidedly nova-centric view | 22:04 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| *** leakypipes has quit IRC | 22:31 | |
| jroll | I was wondering who would post that here first :) | 22:55 |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** hongbin_ has quit IRC | 23:00 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!