| fungi | i'm going to guess you're talking about https://review.opendev.org/699277 | 00:00 |
|---|---|---|
| fungi | is there a mailing list thread corresponding to the required "public discussion" for that charter change? if so, i can't find it | 00:03 |
| fungi | it definitely seems relevant to the earlier thread we had on election schedules, so could at least warrant a mention there | 00:04 |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 00:05 | |
| *** tetsuro_ has quit IRC | 00:07 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 01:04 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 01:04 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 01:08 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 01:10 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 01:17 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 01:17 | |
| *** tetsuro_ has joined #openstack-tc | 01:22 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 01:26 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 02:00 | |
| *** tetsuro_ has quit IRC | 02:04 | |
| *** tonyb has quit IRC | 02:10 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 03:07 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 03:07 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 03:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 03:16 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 03:28 | |
| *** ricolin_ has joined #openstack-tc | 03:57 | |
| *** ricolin_ has quit IRC | 03:57 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 03:59 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 04:02 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 04:03 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 05:11 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 05:16 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 05:33 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 05:34 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 06:29 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 06:33 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 07:52 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jean-Philippe Evrard proposed openstack/governance master: Add ideas for OpenStack repository https://review.opendev.org/701678 | 07:59 |
| openstackgerrit | Jean-Philippe Evrard proposed openstack/governance master: Reorder repos https://review.opendev.org/701679 | 08:01 |
| openstackgerrit | Jean-Philippe Evrard proposed openstack/governance master: Add ideas for OpenStack repository https://review.opendev.org/701678 | 08:05 |
| *** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau | 08:06 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 08:25 | |
| *** slaweq_ has joined #openstack-tc | 08:29 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 08:31 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 08:42 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 08:43 | |
| *** iurygregory has joined #openstack-tc | 08:45 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 09:20 | |
| *** slaweq_ has quit IRC | 09:38 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 09:45 | |
| *** slaweq_ has joined #openstack-tc | 09:50 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 10:05 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:08 | |
| *** tetsuro has joined #openstack-tc | 11:07 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|bbl | 11:18 | |
| *** tetsuro has quit IRC | 12:15 | |
| njohnston | o/ | 12:38 |
| asettle | o/ | 12:46 |
| *** rpittau|bbl is now known as rpittau | 13:25 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 13:38 | |
| ricolin | o/ | 13:59 |
| *** slaweq_ is now known as slaweq | 14:26 | |
| ttx | o/ | 14:58 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 14:58 |
| evrardjp | o/ | 15:00 |
| jroll | \o | 15:00 |
| ricolin | o/ | 15:11 |
| evrardjp | how is everyone? | 15:13 |
| evrardjp | you had a good end of year break ? | 15:13 |
| ttx | Trying to gather my thoughts on proposing a TC/UC merge | 15:13 |
| jungleboyj | Good. How are you evrardjp | 15:13 |
| ttx | The UC is defined in the bylaws so it's a bit of a can of worms | 15:13 |
| evrardjp | yeah I didn't add it on the agenda for next week because you said February IIRC | 15:14 |
| fungi | the bylaws don't say that the uc has to be separate people from the tc though | 15:14 |
| evrardjp | yeah indeed | 15:14 |
| evrardjp | fungi oh ? TIL | 15:14 |
| zaneb | o/ | 15:14 |
| fungi | it says the uc has to exist | 15:14 |
| evrardjp | oh I see what you mean | 15:14 |
| ttx | hmm, IANAL but suuuure | 15:15 |
| evrardjp | well I suppose that's cheating! | 15:15 |
| ttx | appendix 10 says it has 5 members for example | 15:15 |
| ttx | i don;t see how you can square that with the TC | 15:16 |
| evrardjp | oh yeah that's kinda be interesting ... only the five first are member of both... ? ;) | 15:16 |
| evrardjp | joking ofc | 15:16 |
| ttx | hmm at least it's not a protected section :) | 15:17 |
| evrardjp | just curious: why was this can of worms almost opened ? | 15:17 |
| jungleboyj | evrardjp: I was wondering that too. | 15:17 |
| jungleboyj | Because the TC is shrinking? | 15:17 |
| evrardjp | We have less people and they are matching in goals so I understand that part... but still... | 15:18 |
| ttx | evrardjp: well the UC was/is struggling to find candidates, and its existence perpetuates the idea that ops are not welcome at the TC | 15:18 |
| ttx | basically the UC os not doing much those days, and we could use more ops representation at TC level | 15:19 |
| ttx | The only active group within UC would be the Ops meetup team | 15:19 |
| jungleboyj | ttx: ++ | 15:19 |
| ttx | a TC+UC would avoid the silly community division. I would not propose it if the UC was alive and kicking and highly representative of our users | 15:20 |
| ttx | But then I can see how that can be (mis)interpreted as overreach, and the bylaws make it a bit painful to change | 15:20 |
| ttx | so maybe its a can best left closed | 15:21 |
| fungi | we could also do a better job of highlighting that there are more operators who are also developers than operators who are not developers | 15:21 |
| ttx | explaining taht they are not separate voters group would definitely help in that | 15:21 |
| evrardjp | ttx I have the impression it's my role to help you there, and I didn't do it yet. how can I help? | 15:23 |
| evrardjp | I can start with moral support and a copy of the bylaws, but I suppose you already have the latter. | 15:24 |
| ttx | evrardjp: do you think it's a valuable can of worm to open, or is the timing bad? | 15:24 |
| fungi | the current "auc" designation would be a challenge to assimilate, but maybe it's a way to identify non-code contributors for tc elections? | 15:24 |
| evrardjp | ttx for timing, I would prefer seeing the impact of TC downsizing | 15:25 |
| ttx | that is fair | 15:25 |
| evrardjp | but it doesn't prevent an investigation | 15:25 |
| fungi | it does seem like combining them before the coming election in a couple months would be challenging timewise | 15:25 |
| ttx | it's probably not a 2020 thing anyway | 15:26 |
| evrardjp | fungi could you clarify your sentence with auc? | 15:26 |
| * mnaser feels like we should start with the UC/TC sooner than later | 15:27 | |
| evrardjp | (more its second part) | 15:27 |
| mnaser | it's just been a long time coming IMHO. | 15:27 |
| ttx | hmm ok, I can open the can and see | 15:27 |
| fungi | https://governance.openstack.org/uc/reference/charter.html#active-user-contributors-auc | 15:27 |
| evrardjp | mnaser do you think the downsizing of the TC would not have an impact ? | 15:27 |
| fungi | basically the current uc charter contains a list of types of contributions which qualify someone to vote in uc elections | 15:28 |
| evrardjp | I remember that part | 15:28 |
| evrardjp | Still not sure what you meant ;) | 15:28 |
| mnaser | i don't think downsizing the tc and the uc being dissolved has anything to do with each other | 15:28 |
| fungi | it's a grab-bag of different, and in some cases subjective, sorts of participation in the community | 15:28 |
| fungi | if combining the uc into the tc means getting rid of the auc "recognition" a number of special interests lobbied to see get added, that could foment unrest | 15:29 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: Why would combining the two cause the AUC recognition to go away? | 15:30 |
| jungleboyj | I thought the discussion here was just if the UC was a separate group. | 15:30 |
| fungi | jungleboyj: i don't necessarily think it would, which is why i was speculating how it could be incorporated | 15:30 |
| evrardjp | I thought you proposed an idea for that , fungi | 15:30 |
| evrardjp | oh | 15:31 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: Ok. Good. | 15:31 |
| fungi | evrardjp: yes, i did, and you then asked me to clarify what i meant by it | 15:31 |
| evrardjp | now I get the sentence | 15:31 |
| evrardjp | I am glad I asked a clarification :) | 15:31 |
| njohnston | What if the UC and TC were kept as they are, but just merged meetings? That would cause the groups to get synergy together but would avoid the AUC question etc. | 15:32 |
| mnaser | we'd still have to hold UC elections which (struggle) to get much traction (hey, we're not that much better, but still) | 15:33 |
| evrardjp | njohnston: that wouldn't solve the absence of volunteers and still need to organise elections | 15:33 |
| evrardjp | mnaser: agreed | 15:33 |
| mnaser | and i think the UC meets weekly which is the devil within the TC from what i hear | 15:33 |
| mnaser | :-P | 15:33 |
| evrardjp | mnaser: hahaha | 15:33 |
| evrardjp | proves meeting weekly doesn't change much , if we start with the ttx reason of the merge | 15:34 |
| evrardjp | hahaha | 15:34 |
| mnaser | i think we should meet at least once a week but hey i've put my case down a few times already | 15:35 |
| evrardjp | would people active right now in this channel mind a show of hands, showing who is against (-1) the merge of some scope of the uc into the tc (and who is in favor with a +1)? | 15:35 |
| fungi | just to step back and get the reasoning clear in my mind... the idea is that the uc is mostly (or entirely?) defunct, but hard-to-modify bits of the osf bylaws mandate the existence of a uc, so we're trying to find a way for the also-required tc to fill that requirement in the bylaws? | 15:35 |
| zaneb | -1 | 15:36 |
| evrardjp | thanks zaneb | 15:36 |
| evrardjp | mnaser: is a +1 I think | 15:36 |
| evrardjp | jungleboyj: njohnston what do you think? | 15:36 |
| jungleboyj | I didn't see an answer to the question about it mostly being about merging meetings for Synergy. | 15:36 |
| evrardjp | fungi: I would say we are just investigating what would it take to merge the governance bodies | 15:36 |
| fungi | evrardjp: yes, but why? | 15:37 |
| jungleboyj | But if that is part of the goal I am +1. | 15:37 |
| evrardjp | for the reasons explained by ttx above | 15:37 |
| zaneb | I get that it's a problem that the UC is moribund, but making it our problem doesn't solve the problem, it just gives the TC more problems | 15:37 |
| jungleboyj | I think that OpenStack should be becoming more User focused. | 15:37 |
| evrardjp | that's legit thinking zaneb :) | 15:37 |
| ttx | zaneb: I'd argue it's moribund because there is no more UC-specific activities | 15:38 |
| mnaser | i agree with ttx | 15:38 |
| jungleboyj | We are beyond the phase where it is crazy development for development's sake. It is sad that we don't get more user participation. | 15:38 |
| ttx | basically the UC is not as much needed today | 15:38 |
| mnaser | i wouldn't say merge as much as dissolve because it doesn't really serve much *tbh* (and i totally appreciate the work the folks on there are doing, it's just significantly less and less) | 15:38 |
| zaneb | ttx: let them go to the board and ask for it to be removed from the bylaws if they want | 15:38 |
| ttx | while ops representation at the TC is more needed than ever | 15:38 |
| fungi | i suspect what jungleboyj desires is part of what's sapping the uc of juice... the tc's activities are already user-focused leaving little else for the uc to do or care about | 15:39 |
| jungleboyj | ttx ++ | 15:39 |
| ttx | One way to solve both is to say that there is a single "community" and representation for it | 15:39 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: That may be the case. | 15:39 |
| mnaser | yes, because we're not really doing much tEcHnIcAL work realistically | 15:39 |
| evrardjp | in the case of a dissolve, what would be lost that we want to continue? | 15:39 |
| ttx | call it TC or TC+UC or CC | 15:39 |
| jungleboyj | ttx: ++ I think that is what we should get to. | 15:39 |
| evrardjp | AUC being ones | 15:39 |
| mnaser | you can still be an AUC if we do this | 15:40 |
| evrardjp | organising ops meetups are another one | 15:40 |
| mnaser | organizing ops meetups will still go on, i dont think they'll "stop" in the absence of a uc | 15:40 |
| fungi | does the uc organize ops meetuips? | 15:40 |
| mnaser | and if anything yes, i agree with the tc+uc | 15:40 |
| mnaser | no they don't | 15:40 |
| fungi | i thought those were effectively self-organized already | 15:40 |
| smcginnis | Correct | 15:40 |
| evrardjp | mnaser: correct, but we need someone to take care of that. I just don't want to "loose" something, this is why I am querying for investigation first :p | 15:40 |
| fungi | so losing the uc doesn't lose ops meetups | 15:40 |
| evrardjp | I am too slow to type :p | 15:41 |
| evrardjp | I see | 15:41 |
| *** mordred has joined #openstack-tc | 15:41 | |
| fungi | the other primary output of the uc in recent years has been analysis of the openstack user survey | 15:41 |
| fungi | which has really wound up falling on folks outside the uc as well | 15:42 |
| evrardjp | well, sorry for my wording, but if it's not relevant, why do we have it then? I am confused. | 15:42 |
| evrardjp | except legacy | 15:42 |
| mordred | they're mentioned in the bylaws | 15:42 |
| fungi | evrardjp: because very hard-to-edit sections of the osf bylaws say the uc must exist | 15:42 |
| evrardjp | yes indeed but bylaws can be changed, even if it's hard | 15:42 |
| fungi | s/hard/expensive/ | 15:42 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 15:42 |
| evrardjp | yes I remember that part when we wanted to change it last time :p | 15:42 |
| fungi | the recent and relatively minor rewrite of the bylaws we went through last year was quite costly | 15:43 |
| jungleboyj | I have never found the implied development vs operators split to be healthy for the community. | 15:43 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: Lawyers required? | 15:43 |
| zaneb | it changed the whole scope of the foundation, I wouldn't call that minor | 15:43 |
| fungi | because it's a legal document which needs a fair amount of contract lawyer time to go back and forth over, and then it needs a vote of the entire foundation membership and the gold members and the platinum members, and then it has to be filed with a government body somewhere | 15:43 |
| fungi | we can certainly push specific updates there, but it will probably take a couple years to get done | 15:44 |
| jungleboyj | :-( | 15:44 |
| evrardjp | wouldn't it be easier in this case though? "This is defunct, we just need to remove it" | 15:45 |
| mnaser | nothing is easy with lawyers | 15:46 |
| evrardjp | though I am not a lawyer ... | 15:46 |
| mnaser | and esp satisfying all the foundation members who also have a whole bunch of lawyers too | 15:47 |
| evrardjp | haha yeah I remember some meetings :p | 15:48 |
| fungi | yeah, the vote of the platinum and gold member classes ultimately ends up being a vote of their individual legal departments | 15:48 |
| * jungleboyj is not a fan of legal stuff. | 15:49 | |
| evrardjp | jungleboyj: this conversation is far from the "T" of TC | 15:49 |
| fungi | so... all of the things we've been talking about we would change in the tc to incorporate operators and include aucs as tc election voters and so forth... couldn't the tc still do that whether or not the uc technically still exists? | 15:49 |
| evrardjp | though I guess these are technicalities? :p | 15:49 |
| jungleboyj | evrardjp: He he. | 15:49 |
| zaneb | if there's going to be a change I think it should be driven from the UC to the board in the first instance. it's inappropriate for us to start the discussion with how we can take over the UC imho | 15:49 |
| evrardjp | I agree with zaneb | 15:50 |
| mnaser | we can take this discussion elsewhere | 15:50 |
| evrardjp | it's not a takeover too | 15:50 |
| evrardjp | this is not how we do things :p | 15:50 |
| mnaser | i agree its not a tc thing, but its an openstack thing, and we all care about it so i see it as that sort of discussion | 15:50 |
| ttx | let me drop a bomb thread with my TC hat off | 15:50 |
| fungi | is there any risk if there are a handful of people who want to run for uc seats just to be able to say they're on the uc, and never actually have time/interest in doing anything, but also have a vested interest in keeping it in existence and so would have no reason to ask the board to dissolve it? | 15:50 |
| evrardjp | yeah everyone is welcome to talk about openstack things in general in tc office hours, that's kinda the goal :p | 15:51 |
| evrardjp | ttx: that's probably better. But I think it needs to be discussed with UC first before starting a potentially seen hostile thread on the ML. | 15:51 |
| evrardjp | IMO | 15:51 |
| evrardjp | still IMO, the next step would be an evaluation of what it would take and gain. If it's a lot of effort for little value, I would rather we put our energy somewhere else. | 15:52 |
| njohnston | I agree, I think this needs to be a very, very open process - first by getting the sense of the existing UC, and if they approve then perhaps even letting the community know so people who may have what they see as a vested interest in the UC feel good that their concerns are not going to be drowned out by developers. | 15:53 |
| ttx | I'll loop them in first see what they think | 15:53 |
| evrardjp | njohnston: agreed | 15:53 |
| fungi | at one point the uc agreed (was it the in-person meeting in dublin?) to dissolve, and then months elapsed and they never followed up on that decision | 15:53 |
| evrardjp | oh I wasn't aware of that. | 15:54 |
| ttx | yeah it's not the first time I discuss it with UC members | 15:54 |
| ttx | Just *different* UC members | 15:54 |
| evrardjp | also, I would like to know what would be the legal problem of not having an UC elected or an empty UC, without changing the bylaws. | 15:54 |
| jungleboyj | So it sounds like a discussion that may need to be taken up again? | 15:55 |
| fungi | right, the sitting uc members agree to wind down the uc, then at the next election they don't run again and get replaced by new folks with essentially no hand-over of information as to what was underway | 15:55 |
| ttx | I'll contact the current members and get a read | 15:55 |
| mnaser | we're pretty close to an individual board member election (with the gold one having one by yesterday) | 15:55 |
| jungleboyj | ttx: That sounds like the right place to start. | 15:55 |
| evrardjp | agreed with jungleboyj | 15:55 |
| jungleboyj | Don't want this to seem hostile. | 15:55 |
| mnaser | it would be interesting to bring this up to the board to discuss once the election is done (it seems a bit much to bring it up now before starting) | 15:55 |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 15:57 | |
| ttx | mnaser: can I cc you on that thread? I could use your middleman position | 15:57 |
| evrardjp | ttx: on that thread, I would like for it to be clear about where does this come from. You have multiple hats, so does mnaser :) | 15:58 |
| evrardjp | in other words, thread lightly :) | 15:59 |
| ttx | It would be my "I wrote that damn governance" hat... not TC or UC | 15:59 |
| mnaser | ttx: sure, i know we talked about working on this in shanghai | 15:59 |
| evrardjp | ttx: hahaha yeah | 16:00 |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 16:02 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 16:17 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 16:30 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 16:34 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 16:40 | |
| *** iurygregory has quit IRC | 16:46 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:56 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 17:02 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 17:03 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 17:06 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 17:33 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 17:34 | |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk | 17:44 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 17:57 | |
| gmann | I agree on UC things and but did not get the meaning of 'merging' ? Most of the UC tasks/mission are done by projects team or operators/users during events/ML etc [1]. IMO merging into TC itself is not needed as such. we can just say UC is no longer maintained as separate team but inbuilt unto projects team(or better say contributors) . 1 https://www.openstack.org/foundation/user-committee/ | 18:29 |
| gmann | merging into TC will require the TC mission statement and roles change, so does the future potential candidates. | 18:30 |
| gmann | because last mission statement of UC should not be in TC scope which is more of managerial task than technical- 'Work with the user groups worldwide to keep the OpenStack community vibrant and informed' | 18:33 |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 18:48 | |
| fungi | how much of what the tc does now is "technical"? | 18:54 |
| smcginnis | "governing board" might actually be more accurate than "technical committee" at this point. | 19:06 |
| njohnston | We should make sure that the wording is always focused on evolving or transitioning the role of the UC into a different form and avoiding anything that would hint at "ending". Over lunch I was imagining reading a headline in The Register that went something like, "Nobody Uses OpenStack Anymore: Cloud Mavens Disband Body Representing Users Due To Lack Of Interest". | 19:16 |
| fungi | i've started to just amuse myself with the continuous stream of news articles saying nobody uses openstack. if nobody is using it, why do news outlets continue to run articles about how nobody is using it? nobody uses car phones these days either. how many articles do you see about car phones? | 19:22 |
| fungi | it's laughable how many articles essentially boil down to the author saying "i assume !x because it's been a while since i've personally heard anyone say x" | 19:24 |
| fungi | i assume jumping off tall buildings is safe, because i don't personally know anybody who has died from doing it | 19:25 |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 19:29 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 19:29 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 19:30 | |
| clarkb | fungi: it all has to do with clicks | 19:45 |
| clarkb | bashing openstack is apparently good for clicks | 19:46 |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 19:59 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 20:07 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc | 21:38 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jeremy Freudberg proposed openstack/governance-sigs master: Minor tweaks to Multi-Arch SIG scope https://review.opendev.org/701625 | 21:38 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 21:42 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 22:19 | |
| smcginnis | Just an FYI on the V release naming - last I heard from the Foundation, they expected the copyright and legal review on the selected name(s) to be completed probably late next week. | 22:24 |
| smcginnis | No hard dates, but that is the expected timeframe so far. Hopefully we'll have things finalized soon. | 22:25 |
| openstackgerrit | Monty Taylor proposed openstack/governance master: Adopt js-openstack-lib into openstacksdk team https://review.opendev.org/701854 | 22:27 |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 23:20 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 23:25 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 23:25 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 23:26 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 23:26 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!