| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 04:33 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 04:33 | |
| *** mwhahaha has quit IRC | 04:39 | |
| *** TheJulia has quit IRC | 04:39 | |
| *** TheJulia has joined #openstack-tc | 04:40 | |
| *** mwhahaha has joined #openstack-tc | 04:40 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 05:01 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 06:36 | |
| *** gibi has joined #openstack-tc | 06:56 | |
| *** ralonsoh has joined #openstack-tc | 07:11 | |
| *** yoctozepto2 has joined #openstack-tc | 07:20 | |
| *** yoctozepto has quit IRC | 07:22 | |
| *** yoctozepto2 is now known as yoctozepto | 07:22 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:40 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 08:39 | |
| openstackgerrit | Radosław Piliszek proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Add step 2d to the deprecation procedure https://review.opendev.org/749684 | 09:22 |
|---|---|---|
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 09:29 | |
| openstackgerrit | Radosław Piliszek proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Add step 2d to the deprecation procedure https://review.opendev.org/749684 | 09:37 |
| openstackgerrit | Radosław Piliszek proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Add step 2d to the deprecation procedure https://review.opendev.org/749684 | 09:47 |
| openstackgerrit | Radosław Piliszek proposed openstack/governance master: kolla-cli: deprecation - Mark as deprecated https://review.opendev.org/749694 | 09:55 |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 11:47 | |
| ttx | Note that one benefit of the tag was to point to which deliverables are.., significant from a trademark perspective. There was a maturity aspect to it, and I agree that we can extend that to all official deliverables. But there was a technical aspect to it too... Which deliverables amongst the sea of our official deliverables actually make sense. | 11:56 |
| ttx | So the maturity aspect would be about assigning the tag to Nova but not to CloudKitty. But the teachnical aspect would be to assign the tag to "nova" but not "python-novaclient" | 11:56 |
| ttx | Basically curating the list at https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/tc_approved-release.html to build a clear list of deliverables. | 11:59 |
| ttx | (that list could use some fixes in that respect, like it contains neutron-lib which we most certainly would not want a trademark program built on) | 12:00 |
| ttx | Bonus points for also covering if we would we be ok with a trademark program built around a specific deployment tool, or a specific library | 12:02 |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 12:10 | |
| ttx | commented on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/749363/ | 12:14 |
| *** e0ne_ has joined #openstack-tc | 12:25 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 12:27 | |
| smcginnis | It could make sense to rename that tag to something that's a little more obvious in meaning. But not sure if it's worth keeping at this point. | 12:37 |
| *** ralonsoh has quit IRC | 12:51 | |
| *** ralonsoh has joined #openstack-tc | 12:52 | |
| fungi | it was there to fill a requirement in the bylaws in ways consistent with our project metadata model at the time, but honestly i don't see the foundation board of directors deciding to add another project under a trademark program without at least checking with the tc first | 12:58 |
| fungi | so i think by dropping the tag and just claiming the allowance potentially applies to all projects, nothing will fundamentally change | 12:59 |
| fungi | the same reasons the tc would have for excluding projects from a trademark program apply to the board too, i expect | 13:00 |
| fungi | i mean, at this point i have doubts they board will look into creating more trademark programs or expanding additional ones without prompting from the community represented by the tc to begin with | 13:01 |
| smcginnis | I agree with that. | 13:03 |
| openstackgerrit | Radosław Piliszek proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Add step 2d to the deprecation procedure https://review.opendev.org/749684 | 13:15 |
| ttx | yeah, the safeguard is probably not needed anymore, and there is benefit in dropping the tag completely #simplification | 13:27 |
| gmann | yeah I agree. I think the pick by BoD will be from scope of trademark program, means whether trademark program cover lib or deployment tools also along with services. From TC perspective, we will say these are the list of deliverable TC has which follow release, active team etc and BoD and interop pick any as per trademark program scope. and TC can always give them more info based on what service, or any other tool | 13:29 |
| gmann | they want to cover under trademark. | 13:29 |
| ttx | OK just posted more shallow objections :) | 13:31 |
| ttx | My usual "projects is overloaded, be more specific" objection, plus another one | 13:31 |
| gmann | yeah, i agree i can change that to 'deliverables' | 13:33 |
| gmann | ttx: replied. i just want to cover "OpenStack Technical Committee Approved Release" Bylaw term so that BoD still knows where it is defined instead of thinking TC has removed its definition and we do not know what are "OpenStack Technical Committee Approved Release" | 13:35 |
| ttx | I'm pretty sure they haven't bookmarked that page, and we should be able to define it wherever we want... But I can propose that as a follow-up | 13:42 |
| ttx | so ignore me | 13:42 |
| gmann | you mean 'projetc' -> 'deliverables' as follow up or doing that definition as a resolution ? | 13:43 |
| *** Luzi has joined #openstack-tc | 13:50 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 13:53 | |
| ttx | doing that definition as a resolution | 13:59 |
| gmann | ok | 14:00 |
| mnaser | #startmeeting tc | 14:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Sep 3 14:01:02 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mnaser. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:01 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 14:01 |
| mnaser | #topic rollcall | 14:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "rollcall (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:01 | |
| mnaser | o/ | 14:01 |
| njohnston | o/ | 14:01 |
| gmann | o/ | 14:01 |
| belmoreira | o/ | 14:01 |
| ricolin | o/ | 14:02 |
| diablo_rojo | o/ | 14:02 |
| mnaser | so we have 6 which gives us quorum | 14:02 |
| * ttx takes a seat in the back | 14:04 | |
| mnaser | i guess that's pretty much it. | 14:04 |
| mnaser | #topic Follow up on past action items | 14:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Follow up on past action items (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:04 | |
| mnaser | #link tc-members to follow up and review "Resolution to define distributed leadership for projects" | 14:04 |
| mnaser | #undo | 14:04 |
| openstack | Removing item from minutes: #link tc-members | 14:04 |
| knikolla | o/ | 14:04 |
| mnaser | #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2020/tc.2020-08-06-14.00.html | 14:04 |
| mnaser | tc-members to follow up and review "Resolution to define distributed leadership for projects" | 14:05 |
| mnaser | there is pending comments here to be addressed: https://review.opendev.org/#/c/744995/ | 14:05 |
| mnaser | i think we've mostly reviewed it but waiting for revisions | 14:05 |
| mnaser | next: mnaser schedule session with sig-arch and k8s steering committee | 14:05 |
| gmann | only concern i have is to have 'single point of contact for TC' in new model. | 14:06 |
| mnaser | i didn't do that yet because k8s world was busy with virtual kubecon so held that off until all that slowed down | 14:06 |
| njohnston | yes, and on that I think we have a genuine difference of opinion, so please weigh in with your thoughts everyone | 14:06 |
| mnaser | yeah, i think at least gmann comment should be addressed before being merged | 14:06 |
| mnaser | next up: gmann continue to audit and clean-up tags | 14:07 |
| mnaser | we have an item on the agenda about this to discuss this in a little bit | 14:07 |
| gmann | yeah | 14:07 |
| mnaser | so we can discuss that there, but it started/progressed | 14:07 |
| mnaser | mnaser propose change to implement weekly meetings - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/749279/ done | 14:07 |
| ttx | +1 | 14:07 |
| mnaser | oh just to make sure we dont miss them for next time | 14:08 |
| mnaser | #action tc-members to follow up and review "Resolution to define distributed leadership for projects" | 14:08 |
| mnaser | #action mnaser schedule session with sig-arch and k8s steering committee | 14:08 |
| mnaser | ok, next up is njohnston and mugsie to work on getting goals groomed/proposed for W cycle | 14:08 |
| njohnston | I have been trying to get in contact with mugsie to no avail since mid August | 14:08 |
| mnaser | ah | 14:08 |
| njohnston | Perhaps we could pick another person so we could get these determinations made? | 14:09 |
| mnaser | njohnston: maybe worth reaching out to another volunteer in that case, perhaps on the ML we can ask? i don't want us to try and find someone to pair with now because we don't really have everyone here | 14:09 |
| mnaser | perhaps and office hour thing to bring up | 14:09 |
| njohnston | +1 | 14:09 |
| gmann | +1 | 14:09 |
| mnaser | #action njohnston to find someone to work with on getting goals groomed/proposed for W cycle | 14:10 |
| mnaser | next up: belmoreira start discussion around openstack user-facing apis & clis -- i believe the discussions have started on the ML a few weeks ago | 14:10 |
| mnaser | (but this is also on the agenda) | 14:10 |
| mnaser | so maybe we can keep that for the agenda item? :> | 14:10 |
| belmoreira | yes | 14:11 |
| mnaser | and also the final action item was gmann to merge changes to properly retire projects which also is an agenda item we can update on | 14:11 |
| mnaser | #topic OpenStack User-facing APIs and CLIs (belmoreira) | 14:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack User-facing APIs and CLIs (belmoreira) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:11 | |
| belmoreira | The discussion started few weeks ago in the ML | 14:11 |
| belmoreira | and also some private msgs | 14:12 |
| belmoreira | but honestly, there isn't a lot of progress here! | 14:12 |
| mnaser | belmoreira: anything actionable to try and drive this more forward or just.. "not enough minerals" ? | 14:12 |
| belmoreira | with the mailing list discussion it's clear that some projects/and people are "disappointed" with openstack client | 14:12 |
| belmoreira | I was expecting that the openstack client team would take over the discussion but we didn't see that... | 14:13 |
| belmoreira | actually I'm looking for your opinion on this | 14:14 |
| ttx | yeah i fear that the most vocal in the "openstackclient team" have been away from OpenStack community for a while | 14:14 |
| ttx | so the fight is noble but we are missing troops to drive it through the last hills | 14:14 |
| ttx | while the python-*clients are maintained by their original teams and continue moving forward | 14:15 |
| knikolla | does this seem warranting a pop-up team? | 14:15 |
| fungi | i think it warrants people actually pitching in on osc | 14:16 |
| gmann | i think that was the plan but belmoreira looking for few discussion/positive response over ML first | 14:16 |
| ttx | Ideally it would need peopel to step up in openstackclient itself | 14:16 |
| diablo_rojo | I think if we want the openstack client to replace the projects clients and the osc team needs TC support to drive it, I think so? | 14:16 |
| belmoreira | knikolla, I think it's more complex than that | 14:16 |
| diablo_rojo | (plus actual hands to do the work) | 14:16 |
| fungi | if there are volunteers for a pop-up team, then those people should work on osc | 14:17 |
| knikolla | i see, that makes sense. i haven't checked on the osc team status lately. | 14:17 |
| gmann | and no big objection for projects otherwise pop-up team can end up in same situation we have been till now | 14:17 |
| belmoreira | unless projects are fully commit with that, it will be very difficult. | 14:17 |
| gmann | true | 14:17 |
| njohnston | For projects that are supportive of the osc effort, it's a non-issue. The problem is projects that have not fully bought in to the osc concept, and there is neither will inside the project nor sufficient capacity outside it to get them over the hump | 14:18 |
| gmann | should we write somewhere the list of project do not want/or need help and then start adhoc meeting with those to move forward | 14:19 |
| fungi | right, basically it needs people who are not involved in some of those service projects to reimplement their clients for them in osc/sdk because they're not interested in doing that themselves | 14:19 |
| gmann | every time ML discussion end up with no actual outcome | 14:19 |
| openstackgerrit | wu.chunyang proposed openstack/governance master: kolla-cli: deprecation - Mark kolla-cli as Deprecated https://review.opendev.org/749746 | 14:19 |
| belmoreira | what I was thinking is if we can promote some sessions in the PTG for this | 14:20 |
| mnaser | yeah, i'm a bit at a loss at this point | 14:20 |
| mnaser | if there's no one doing the work | 14:20 |
| diablo_rojo | belmoreira, maybe a forum session? | 14:20 |
| mnaser | i don't know if we can make it happen | 14:20 |
| fungi | i think unless there are people with, for example, sufficient interest in getting glance support in osc/sdk to write the implementation themselves, this isn't going to happen no matter how much of a priority the tc says it is or who tracks the progress on it | 14:21 |
| diablo_rojo | I think it would be good to have a clear picture of where each project is at, in an etherpad or something | 14:21 |
| knikolla | do we have a document describing the gaps between osc and the various clients? | 14:21 |
| knikolla | (apologize if there is one and i haven't looked) | 14:21 |
| ttx | It's also a great area to get your feet wet in openstack development. Not very complex or coming with a lot of baggage, and gives you a horizontal view | 14:21 |
| knikolla | ++ ttx | 14:21 |
| belmoreira | knikolla that's a good point | 14:21 |
| ttx | But yes at the very least we should have a plan that we would execute if only we had the resources | 14:22 |
| mnaser | will documenting the gaps get them done | 14:22 |
| ttx | then we can point newcomers at it aggressively | 14:22 |
| ttx | make it a help-needed thing or whatever the name is today | 14:22 |
| mnaser | we've documented many times the things that need to be done and they never ended up happening. i'm almost at a point of saying if we took the efforts documenting these things to actually implementing them, we MIGHT have actually done something, lol | 14:22 |
| fungi | documenting the gaps *might* guide otherwise available developers/organizations to places where they can provide the most benefit, but only *if* those people exist | 14:22 |
| gmann | and we can get new contributors from intern etc in this if we have some expertise to drive it | 14:22 |
| mnaser | if you took the $hours_to_review_and_draft_and_market the help needed docs and all the revisions and what not.. | 14:23 |
| ttx | Because last it was discussed, it got lost on resources need, before agreeing that it was a good idea | 14:23 |
| knikolla | i also started contributing at a client first, before going into the service codebase. | 14:23 |
| belmoreira | txx this also requires the openstackclient team collaboration. I personally have several patches that don't get any attention for months | 14:23 |
| ttx | like we discuss "it's not ready for us to move to it yet" rather than a roadmap | 14:23 |
| gmann | yeah, client, API or testing software are always better way to understand any software | 14:23 |
| njohnston | this could be a good place for student help, because OSC work doesn't need a full working devstack install on a laptop, it just needs the code and the ability to get to a working OSC install elsewhere | 14:23 |
| gmann | njohnston: agree | 14:24 |
| ttx | belmoreira: yes, that team needs a reboot -- it's always been oldtimers with a savior complex assigning themselves to the area in need of ressources | 14:24 |
| fungi | i agree that client development is a great introduction. it doesn't have as much of the cognitive overhead of async/thread calls and stuff | 14:24 |
| ttx | But the last two/three oldtimers we attached to it are not very present anymore | 14:25 |
| knikolla | and they were overly attached when they were | 14:25 |
| fungi | it's the sort of project people wind up spearheading around the time they're already about to burn out or move on | 14:25 |
| diablo_rojo | I attended the OSC stuff at the last PTG and plan to again at the upcoming one. | 14:25 |
| njohnston | "openstack devs don't die, they work on osc" | 14:25 |
| ttx | so I would definitely support aggressively passing the keys to whoever signs up to implement the plan, whatever it is | 14:25 |
| ttx | Having a clear plan will make it less crazy to hand the keys over | 14:26 |
| gmann | i think multi cycle goal can get more attention form projects to help | 14:26 |
| gmann | like only goal for cycle for these projects | 14:27 |
| mnaser | i hate to be the skeptic in the room | 14:27 |
| belmoreira | ttx by a plan you mean first documenting the gaps? | 14:27 |
| ttx | The other option would be to find a way to spread the load across existing teams, but our framework does not lend well to that | 14:27 |
| ttx | belmoreira: yes | 14:27 |
| mnaser | i think we're trying to do all sorts of work but ignoring the fact that, realistically, no one is jsut going to show up and do the work just because it's documented | 14:28 |
| diablo_rojo | belmoreira, the OSC team might already have a lot of that data collected | 14:28 |
| mnaser | i'd be happy to be correct for a scenario where we documented work to be done and someone showed up, picked it up and did it | 14:28 |
| ttx | mnaser: I would be fine putting one of the students we end up having regularly to work on a documented plan with +2a | 14:28 |
| diablo_rojo | I will have an intern shortly to help pick some things up | 14:28 |
| knikolla | but also not documenting it is not helping. i am skeptical as well, but we can't just not do anything. | 14:28 |
| diablo_rojo | but they will need direction | 14:28 |
| ttx | But not so much without a clear plan | 14:29 |
| diablo_rojo | so a documented list of things to do would be massively helpful | 14:29 |
| ttx | diablo_rojo: ++ | 14:29 |
| mnaser | if we _actually_ have someone ready to work on this, then its' another story | 14:29 |
| knikolla | i'd be happy to help belmoreira on documenting and pushing this. i realize i haven't signed up for much. | 14:29 |
| diablo_rojo | I will have one, possibly two interns for the school year | 14:29 |
| gmann | that will be good help | 14:29 |
| njohnston | diablo_rojo: that's wonderful! | 14:29 |
| belmoreira | I can work documenting the gaps | 14:29 |
| mnaser | so belmoreira and knikolla ? | 14:30 |
| gmann | and then start targetting the project by project instead if whole things at once | 14:30 |
| diablo_rojo | belmoreira, cool, like I said, I would check with the OSC team to make sure they dont already have something started | 14:30 |
| knikolla | ++ | 14:30 |
| smcginnis | There are various Google Spreadsheets/ ethercalcs out there for some projects that can give a jump start | 14:30 |
| belmoreira | diablo_rojo great | 14:30 |
| smcginnis | I'll see if I can find my cinderclient one. | 14:30 |
| mnaser | #action belmoreira/knikolla figure out logistics of a document with gaps within osc | 14:31 |
| knikolla | ^ highly parallel. | 14:31 |
| belmoreira | :) | 14:31 |
| diablo_rojo | I'll be around for auxiliary help belmoreira and knikolla | 14:31 |
| belmoreira | how about the forum session? | 14:31 |
| diablo_rojo | I think that would be a good idea too | 14:32 |
| gmann | +1 on forum session | 14:32 |
| knikolla | ++ | 14:32 |
| ricolin | +1 | 14:32 |
| mnaser | i know someone who might help us very easily schedule a forum session | 14:32 |
| diablo_rojo | Maybe to go over the documented gaps and make sure nothings missing? | 14:32 |
| diablo_rojo | LOL | 14:32 |
| knikolla | the forum can also then lead into the ptg and a possible osc onboarding session. | 14:32 |
| mnaser | #action diablo_rojo help schedule forum session for OSC gaps | 14:32 |
| knikolla | which is the next week. | 14:32 |
| diablo_rojo | knikolla, yes it can, that would be a great plan :) | 14:33 |
| mnaser | cool. can we switch contexts in the due to time? :> | 14:33 |
| mnaser | i think we've progressed a ton in this small discussion | 14:33 |
| diablo_rojo | Yeah sure. | 14:33 |
| mnaser | #topic W cycle goal selection start | 14:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "W cycle goal selection start (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:33 | |
| mnaser | for this, i don't think there's much to discuss give njohnston has struggled to establish comms | 14:33 |
| mnaser | and we have an action item to follow up on this next meeting | 14:34 |
| njohnston | yep | 14:34 |
| mnaser | #topic Completion of retirement cleanup (gmann) | 14:34 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Completion of retirement cleanup (gmann) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:34 | |
| gmann | njohnston: i can help you if you do not find anyone, consider me as default last option :) | 14:34 |
| mnaser | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-retirement-cleanup | 14:34 |
| njohnston | gmann: Thanks! | 14:34 |
| gmann | retired repos cleanup are merged for README.rst consistency. | 14:35 |
| mnaser | #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/745403/ | 14:35 |
| mnaser | yeah it looks like only networking-l2gw is the only one left? | 14:35 |
| gmann | The only project left is networking-l2gw and its tempest plugin which needs to move to other namespace than openstack/. | 14:35 |
| gmann | yeah | 14:35 |
| mnaser | nvm, 2 minutes ago https://review.opendev.org/#/c/749579/ | 14:35 |
| gmann | we are almost close to complete it too. import to the new location is done and now openstack retirement is in progress which are these 3 patches https://review.opendev.org/#/c/749579/ https://review.opendev.org/#/c/749580/ https://review.opendev.org/#/c/738040/ | 14:35 |
| gmann | yeah now last on project config side | 14:36 |
| mnaser | neat. cool, from tc side the governance exception revert should pass | 14:36 |
| gmann | i hope we can complete it today | 14:36 |
| gmann | yeah | 14:36 |
| mnaser | so we can merge that and have super tidy retired repos \o/ | 14:36 |
| gmann | yeah, importing to new location was little more work but it is done now. | 14:36 |
| mnaser | cools | 14:37 |
| mnaser | next-up.. | 14:37 |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 14:37 | |
| mnaser | #topic Audit and clean-up tags (gmann) | 14:37 |
| gmann | all users projects of networking-l2gw are moved to new location also | 14:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Audit and clean-up tags (gmann) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:37 | |
| mnaser | #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/749363/ | 14:37 |
| mnaser | so ttx had some comments this morning about that ^ | 14:37 |
| gmann | ttx: reviewed it today and also chatted in IRC | 14:37 |
| gmann | ttx said to work as follow up on defining the definition of bylaw term "The “OpenStack TC Approved Release” as resolution | 14:39 |
| gmann | ttx: should i remove it from tag page or t is fine to merge it now and fix in follow up if needed ? | 14:39 |
| ttx | fine to merge it as is | 14:40 |
| gmann | ok | 14:40 |
| mnaser | yeah i think its fine too | 14:40 |
| gmann | other thing is to notify to BoD, once it is merged i can notify to projects on openstack-discuss | 14:40 |
| gmann | but should we notify to BoD also? | 14:40 |
| mnaser | i mean, it's probably something that we can give a heads up about | 14:41 |
| *** ralonsoh has quit IRC | 14:41 | |
| mnaser | but it's something we should deal with ourselves, as in, it's our call | 14:41 |
| *** ralonsoh has joined #openstack-tc | 14:42 | |
| gmann | i am ok with either way | 14:42 |
| mnaser | ok well | 14:43 |
| mnaser | that's pretty much it i think | 14:43 |
| mnaser | #topic open discussion | 14:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:43 | |
| mnaser | anything? :) | 14:45 |
| gmann | nothing from me. | 14:45 |
| knikolla | i would appreciate reviews on https://review.opendev.org/722399 | 14:46 |
| diablo_rojo | Nothing from me | 14:46 |
| mnaser | #endmeeting | 14:47 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Technical Committee office hours: Tuesdays at 09:00 UTC, Wednesdays at 01:00 UTC, and Thursdays at 15:00 UTC | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/ | channel logs http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/" | 14:47 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Sep 3 14:47:17 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 14:47 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2020/tc.2020-09-03-14.01.html | 14:47 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2020/tc.2020-09-03-14.01.txt | 14:47 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2020/tc.2020-09-03-14.01.log.html | 14:47 |
| fungi | probably worth a reminder, the bod has tasked the d&i wg to come up with guidelines for replacing oppressive language/terminology in open infrastructure projects. anyone who's interested in that may want to join the upcoming meeting when it gets announced (likely to be monday september 21 at 17:00 utc either on meetpad or the #openstack-diversity channel) | 14:49 |
| smcginnis | ++ | 14:50 |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 14:50 | |
| fungi | we had an initial discussion about it on monday, though there were no significant outcomes it was more just sharing sources and prior art for some of these efforts which can feed into an early draft | 14:55 |
| fungi | rough notes are at https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/osf-diversity-and-inclusion | 14:56 |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 15:00 | |
| njohnston | Regarding the "distributed leadership for projects" (a.k.a. PTL-less projects) change - https://review.opendev.org/#/c/744995/ - the main question is whether there should be a mandated "TC Liaison" role. On that point I think we have a difference of opinion and now are seeking the broader opinion of the TC to resolve the difference. I encourage everyone to read the comments and weigh in, pro or con. | 15:02 |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-tc | 15:03 | |
| gmann | I also do not think TC liaison can end up like PTL, I think that will be very lightweight liaison compare to any other mandatory liaisons. | 15:05 |
| *** iurygregory has quit IRC | 15:24 | |
| *** Luzi has quit IRC | 15:28 | |
| *** e0ne_ has quit IRC | 15:39 | |
| *** iurygregory has joined #openstack-tc | 15:42 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 16:50 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:54 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 16:57 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 18:16 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 18:16 | |
| *** david-lyle is now known as dklyle | 18:16 | |
| *** ralonsoh has quit IRC | 19:30 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 19:45 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:20 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 20:25 | |
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 20:26 | |
| *** zaneb has joined #openstack-tc | 20:44 | |
| *** zbitter has joined #openstack-tc | 20:48 | |
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 20:48 | |
| openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/governance master: Add openstack/osops to Ops Docs and Tooling SIG https://review.opendev.org/749835 | 21:40 |
| *** cloudnull has quit IRC | 23:47 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!