| *** asettle has quit IRC | 01:21 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 04:05 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 04:33 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 06:19 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 06:20 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 06:45 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 06:46 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 06:49 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc | 06:51 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jean-Philippe Evrard proposed openstack/governance master: Resolution to define distributed leadership for projects https://review.opendev.org/744995 | 06:51 |
|---|---|---|
| openstackgerrit | Jean-Philippe Evrard proposed openstack/governance master: Resolution to define distributed leadership for projects https://review.opendev.org/744995 | 06:57 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:35 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 07:35 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 07:39 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:42 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-tc | 07:50 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 07:51 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 08:30 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:14 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:15 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 13:07 | |
| smcginnis | TC input needed on another deliverable thing. | 13:13 |
| smcginnis | Thierry ran a report on some of our release deliverables looking for ones that have not being doing regular releases. | 13:13 |
| smcginnis | The karbor project has not done any releases in this cycle, and their ussuri release was forced by the release team. | 13:14 |
| smcginnis | I knew some of the folks behind that project, and I don't believe they are around anymore. | 13:14 |
| smcginnis | I'm not aware of any adoption, so I don't think we will likely get someone to step up like we did for cloudkitty. | 13:14 |
| smcginnis | But even if we did, at this point, I think it should be dropped from the victoria set of deliverables. | 13:15 |
| smcginnis | We can always bring it back in wallaby if someone actually does step up to take it on. | 13:15 |
| tosky | for the record, when I pinged around, someone started a zuulv3 porting review: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/745614/ | 13:15 |
| smcginnis | So just wanted to make the TC aware of this and give a chance for discussion before we drop the deliverables from this release. | 13:15 |
| smcginnis | Oh, so at least some interest then. | 13:16 |
| tosky | of course from the goal point of view I'm fine as long as the legacy job is not around - either ported, or the project being dropped | 13:16 |
| smcginnis | tosky: Looks like the same person did two? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/744404/ | 13:17 |
| tosky | just noticed; I suspect an error while fixing the patch, which generated a new review | 13:18 |
| tosky | the second review is a follow-up of the first one | 13:18 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, looks like they meant to amend it but just added another. | 13:18 |
| gmann | smcginnis: let me check with PTL about reason and accordingly we can ask for help on ML if anyone interested. | 13:23 |
| gmann | ussuri stable branch setup patches are also still not merged, i think we should make decision before Victoria release and drop if there is no one to maintain it. | 13:24 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, the timing is my concern at this point. We are past milestone 2 and they haven't even finished up on ussuri work. And the fact that the release team force released ussuri doesn't give me much comfort that someone is really maintaining this project. | 13:25 |
| gmann | smcginnis: yeah, may be if release team stop force release can help and let project go to retire at that time itself | 13:27 |
| smcginnis | In fact, we should probably have a policy that if N-1 cycle was force released and there is no release proposed by N's mielstone 2, it should just automatically be dropped. | 13:27 |
| ttx | yeah | 13:28 |
| gmann | +1 | 13:28 |
| gmann | or if force release, then at the start of cycle itself, release team ask TC to check the health and TC can ask PTL to ack to release team if active otherwise mark ertire. | 13:29 |
| gmann | retire | 13:29 |
| ttx | not "automatically be dropped" but at least automatically be considered for removal | 13:29 |
| gmann | m-2 itself might be late | 13:29 |
| ttx | it's late but also corresponds to membershipfreeze which is ehen we theoretically freeze content for next erlease | 13:30 |
| gmann | specially from goal champion point of view also not to spend time if it is going to remove | 13:30 |
| ttx | so good match | 13:30 |
| gmann | but goal work is my concern if champion spend time on that | 13:31 |
| ttx | fair point | 13:31 |
| ttx | maybe we should move that up to a couple weeks before m-2 | 13:31 |
| gmann | yeah that works | 13:32 |
| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 13:32 | |
| gmann | ttx: smcginnis: i sent email to karbor PTL with mugsie and belmoreira (TC liaison for karbor) in CC. if no response by Monday i think we can start the removal process(first with ML for help if there is any). | 13:46 |
| tosky | btw, what is the status of, say, zaqar? | 13:48 |
| gmann | tosky: it should be active, i can see wanghao reviewing the patches, last reviewed was 3 days back | 13:50 |
| tosky | oh, oki | 13:50 |
| gmann | tosky: for goal patches, when patches are ready to merge, i usually ping most active review on IRC or add in gerrit. that work for most of the time. | 13:51 |
| tosky | it has been working so far | 13:51 |
| tosky | I attended all the meetings that are still scheduled | 13:51 |
| tosky | and sent a emails to the PTLs | 13:52 |
| gmann | great | 13:52 |
| tosky | the problem is that some projects stopped any meeting (at least on IRC) last year | 13:52 |
| gmann | ohk, you mean stopped meeting right? not moved to somewhere else than IRC? | 13:53 |
| gmann | if there is such cases, we should address that. | 13:53 |
| fungi | not having meetings is fine, i think, as long as the folks working on it are responsive in other expected venues (mailing list, code review) | 13:53 |
| gmann | yeah | 13:53 |
| fungi | not having meetings, but also ignoring changes proposed from people who aren't core reviewers and not replying to posts on the mailing list... that's effectively no longer acting as part of openstack | 13:54 |
| tosky | they meetings may have been moved somewhere else, but there is no entry of any type on http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/ | 13:54 |
| gmann | usually I list all non-active/note-merged repos in my goal summary report which is good trigger to start checking those repo | 13:55 |
| gmann | if that is case, meeting somewhere else and we do not know where then it is conern | 13:55 |
| gmann | concern | 13:55 |
| tosky | that's a good thing to do, I will do in the next report, now that the number of projects which didn't answer is really small | 13:56 |
| gmann | i remember, we had the same case for tricircle or some project. | 13:56 |
| gmann | fungi know exact which project it was they moved meeting to wechat and nowhere it was mentioned. | 13:56 |
| tosky | most of the projects either answered, merged patches, or proposed patches (or all of the 3) | 13:56 |
| gmann | nice | 13:56 |
| tosky | the only one where I didn't get an answer are senlin and zaqar, but I will retry; senlin should be easy enough and I may provide a patch | 13:59 |
| fungi | gmann: yeah, i remember that but i don't remember which team it was | 14:12 |
| fungi | we do have this: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html "If the project has meetings, regular or otherwise, they should be public and in IRC. They should all be logged and published." | 14:14 |
| fungi | we've generally considered it acceptable for projects to have additional meetings in other ways (in-person for mis-cycles/ptg/forum obviously, but also things like video chat) as long as they held their regular meetings in irc | 14:16 |
| gmann | yeah, problem is to detect such cases when there is no public information on meeting happening outside of IRC | 14:16 |
| gmann | yeah | 14:16 |
| fungi | well, i think we trust them to follow the rules. if we find out they're not following the rules, that's when a broader conversation with the community needs to take place | 14:17 |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 14:33 | |
| knikolla | o/ | 14:56 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 14:59 | |
| diablo_rojo | o/ | 14:59 |
| njohnston | o/ | 15:05 |
| diablo_rojo | I feel like we should talk about the office hours patches, but I don't know who else is around. | 15:06 |
| knikolla | there doesn't seem to be quorum. | 15:09 |
| gmann | o/ | 15:10 |
| diablo_rojo | We don't need quorum to just talk about them? | 15:11 |
| gmann | Also I would like to discuss about TC liaison for PTL-less model https://review.opendev.org/#/c/744995/5/resolutions/20200803-distributed-project-leadership.rst@46 | 15:11 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo: may be we can wait for some time in case. | 15:11 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, sure. We can start with that if you want. | 15:11 |
| gmann | sure, njohnston, evrardjp and I were discussing the need of TC liaison for PTL-less mdoel, I feel we need a single point of contact for TC instead if 'all mandatory members as contact'. https://review.opendev.org/#/c/744995/5/resolutions/20200803-distributed-project-leadership.rst@46 | 15:14 |
| gmann | what other TC members think? | 15:14 |
| fungi | quorum is needed to consider a discussion as an official meeting of the tc, but office hours are not meant to be official tc meetings | 15:14 |
| knikolla | fungi: thanks for clearing that up | 15:15 |
| fungi | and really, aside from being able to say there was a meeting, quorum is only necessary for confirming resolutions and charter changes, which is all done asynchronously in code review so easily counted there | 15:16 |
| gmann | yeah but to conclude the office hour patch, we need all or most of the members | 15:16 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, yeah I think we still need a single point of contact. Some default. Unless there is more than one and each one has a specific role like we had discussed at the PTG with a release person, a security person, etc. | 15:17 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:18 |
| ricolin | o/ | 15:18 |
| gmann | and slaweq also raised good point of 'user survey' point of contact ? I think that can also be merged in TC liaison or any other global but less-frequent responsibility | 15:19 |
| diablo_rojo | I would agree with that. | 15:22 |
| diablo_rojo | I can't remember what phrasing we used at the PTG for that third person. | 15:25 |
| diablo_rojo | But yeah I think there were 3 points of contact depending on the topic? | 15:25 |
| knikolla | anyone know of a good way to print gerrit reviews to pdf? | 15:29 |
| diablo_rojo | I can't say thats a thing I ever considered doing, let alone *how* to do it. | 15:30 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 15:31 |
| fungi | knikolla: gerrit has a one-page diff view | 15:35 |
| fungi | if you only care about the diff and inline comments for a single patchset, that could be a clean way to print it | 15:36 |
| fungi | if you also want general review contents, votes, non-inline ci results, multiple patchsets and so on, then that probably still doesn't scratch the surface of what's in the ui | 15:36 |
| knikolla | fungi: i tried that before but it only prints out the visible part of the screen. | 15:37 |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 15:42 | |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, was there more you wanted to chat about wrt the patch? | 15:43 |
| gmann | no | 15:44 |
| gmann | anyways, please add your opinion on gerrit. | 15:44 |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/governance master: Move towards dual office hours in diff TZ https://review.opendev.org/746167 | 15:44 |
| gmann | tc-members: this is ^^ for covering two different TZ for office hours | 15:45 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo: ^^, we can see response on this too | 15:45 |
| *** e0ne_ has joined #openstack-tc | 15:45 | |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, oh nice. Thanks for updating that! It was on my todo list for today. | 15:45 |
| diablo_rojo | Oh, I was going to update the other one rather than starting a new one, but that works too. | 15:46 |
| jungleboyj | Cool. Will take a look. | 15:46 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, so you're just removing one time, not using the data from the poll? | 15:47 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo: usually having separate is better to know the response. otherwise with updating the existing, it is not easy to see the conclusion | 15:47 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, makes sense :) | 15:47 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo: i am using data from poll | 15:47 |
| gmann | i mean keeping 01:00 UTC on Wednesdays as it is and replacing rest two with poll one | 15:47 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 15:47 | |
| gmann | '15:00 UTC on Wednesdays' is poll data right | 15:48 |
| gmann | in case i missed | 15:48 |
| diablo_rojo | Oh. Maybe I am miss remembering. Will do a proper review today. | 15:48 |
| diablo_rojo | No, that's right. | 15:48 |
| diablo_rojo | (I think) lol | 15:48 |
| gmann | thanks | 15:48 |
| diablo_rojo | I think I am fine with that generally. I want to double the 1 UTC against poll data. | 15:50 |
| gmann | ohk, that is even better to match that too with poll | 15:50 |
| diablo_rojo | Yeah. I can double check after the release team meeting. | 15:55 |
| diablo_rojo | Unless you get there first :) | 15:55 |
| gmann | Wed 1 UTC is 3 vote, 2 UTC is 2 vote. | 15:57 |
| gmann | https://doodle.com/poll/q27t8pucq7b8xbme | 15:57 |
| diablo_rojo | 2 UTC on Tuesday is 5 ? | 16:03 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, ^ | 16:03 |
| diablo_rojo | Oh wait. | 16:04 |
| diablo_rojo | Nope. | 16:04 |
| diablo_rojo | My view is on LA time. | 16:04 |
| diablo_rojo | 1 UTC Tuesday is 5 though? | 16:05 |
| fungi | 01:00 utc is 6pm pdt | 16:06 |
| diablo_rojo | fungi, I mean 5 people not the time in PDT :) | 16:06 |
| gmann | yes, 1 UTC Tues is 5 vote | 16:06 |
| fungi | oh, hah | 16:06 |
| diablo_rojo | My science teachers always drilled usage of units into my head for this very reason lol | 16:07 |
| gmann | updating the patch. | 16:07 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, cool. I think I'd be good with that then. | 16:07 |
| fungi | 5... 5 people... ha, ha, ha... | 16:07 |
| diablo_rojo | Yeah my bad :) | 16:08 |
| * fungi gives up on his failed textual impersonation of the count from sesame street | 16:08 | |
| openstackgerrit | Ghanshyam Mann proposed openstack/governance master: Move towards dual office hours in diff TZ https://review.opendev.org/746167 | 16:09 |
| diablo_rojo | fungi, I got the reference :) | 16:10 |
| gmann | done ^^, added vote summary for those time in commit msg also | 16:10 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, perfect! Thanks. | 16:11 |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 16:43 | |
| jungleboyj | Sorry I missed the Cloudkitty vote. I am glad that we were able to get someone to take over there though. | 16:44 |
| smcginnis | They have been very busy getting things moving again. Glad to see it. | 16:54 |
| jungleboyj | smcginnis: ++ | 16:55 |
| *** e0ne_ has quit IRC | 17:50 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 19:01 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 19:02 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 19:15 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 19:59 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:02 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 20:07 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 20:10 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:37 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 20:43 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:48 | |
| mnaser | someone wanna eye https://review.opendev.org/#/c/745913/ quickly? | 22:33 |
| *** tkajinam has joined #openstack-tc | 22:58 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 23:09 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 23:59 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!