| *** tkajinam has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** tkajinam has joined #openstack-tc | 00:02 | |
| *** timburke has quit IRC | 00:12 | |
| *** timburke_ has joined #openstack-tc | 00:12 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 00:20 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 00:33 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Reduce office hours to one per week https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/788618 | 00:45 |
|---|---|---|
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Add meeting info along with office hour in main page https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/788619 | 00:48 |
| *** timburke_ has quit IRC | 01:52 | |
| *** redrobot has quit IRC | 01:52 | |
| *** smcginnis has quit IRC | 01:52 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 01:52 | |
| *** tristanC has quit IRC | 01:52 | |
| *** pojadhav|away has quit IRC | 01:52 | |
| *** andreaf has quit IRC | 01:52 | |
| *** corvus has quit IRC | 01:53 | |
| *** timburke_ has joined #openstack-tc | 01:54 | |
| *** redrobot has joined #openstack-tc | 01:54 | |
| *** smcginnis has joined #openstack-tc | 01:54 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 01:54 | |
| *** tristanC has joined #openstack-tc | 01:54 | |
| *** pojadhav|away has joined #openstack-tc | 01:54 | |
| *** andreaf has joined #openstack-tc | 01:54 | |
| *** corvus has joined #openstack-tc | 01:54 | |
| *** ildikov has quit IRC | 01:55 | |
| *** ildikov has joined #openstack-tc | 01:56 | |
| *** pojadhav|away is now known as pojadhav|rover | 02:07 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 02:33 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 02:33 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 03:31 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:45 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 03:46 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:51 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 04:16 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 04:49 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 05:03 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 05:09 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 05:21 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 05:28 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 05:43 | |
| *** vishalmanchanda has joined #openstack-tc | 05:57 | |
| *** slaweq has joined #openstack-tc | 06:15 | |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 06:18 | |
| *** ralonsoh has joined #openstack-tc | 06:31 | |
| *** andrewbonney has joined #openstack-tc | 07:13 | |
| *** rpittau|afk is now known as rpittau | 07:14 | |
| *** belmoreira has joined #openstack-tc | 07:14 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 07:43 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 07:47 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 07:59 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 08:14 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 08:14 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 08:16 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-tc | 08:46 | |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/project-team-guide master: Update EOL branch delete description https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/789932 | 08:46 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 08:47 | |
| *** pojadhav|rover is now known as pojadhav|lunch | 08:48 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 09:02 | |
| *** pojadhav|lunch is now known as pojadhav|rover | 09:44 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 10:04 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 12:06 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 12:06 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 13:41 | |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-tc | 13:43 | |
| *** akahat is now known as akahat|ruck | 14:07 | |
| *** thiago__ has quit IRC | 14:13 | |
| *** thiago__ has joined #openstack-tc | 14:13 | |
| *** pojadhav|rover is now known as pojadhav|away | 14:52 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 14:56 | |
| *** vishalmanchanda has quit IRC | 14:56 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 14:57 | |
| gmann | tc-members: meeting time. | 15:00 |
| gmann | #startmeeting tc | 15:00 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 15:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu May 6 15:00:10 2021 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:00 | |
| gmann | #topic Roll call | 15:00 |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 15:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 15:00 |
| ricolin | o/ | 15:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Roll call (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:00 | |
| mnaser | o/ | 15:00 |
| jungleboyj | Happy Thursday. | 15:00 |
| gmann | let's start | 15:01 |
| belmoreira | o/ | 15:01 |
| gmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda_Suggestions | 15:01 |
| gmann | today agenda ^^ | 15:01 |
| gmann | #topic Follow up on past action items | 15:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Follow up on past action items (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:01 | |
| dansmith | o/ | 15:01 |
| gmann | gmann drop PTG topic from agenda | 15:02 |
| spotz | o/ | 15:02 |
| gmann | done | 15:02 |
| gmann | gmann to add SIG chair/co-chair info in sig doc site | 15:02 |
| gmann | I have not done this, will push patch today | 15:02 |
| gmann | I will continue this as AI | 15:02 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 15:02 |
| gmann | #action gmann to add SIG chair/co-chair info in sig doc site | 15:02 |
| gmann | gmann to start updates to consume/merge UC responsibility in TC | 15:02 |
| gmann | I have added this in Xena tracker etherpad | 15:02 |
| gmann | so we can track the work there instead of Action | 15:03 |
| gmann | L64 in https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker | 15:03 |
| gmann | Gate performance and heavy job configs (dansmith) | 15:03 |
| dansmith | things have seemed pretty good lately | 15:04 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:04 |
| diablo_rojo | o/ | 15:04 |
| jungleboyj | \o/ | 15:04 |
| spotz | +1 | 15:04 |
| dansmith | I dunno about others, but I've been surprised with how quick things have gone through, how few spurious failures I've seen | 15:04 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: I have noticed that as well. Been better. | 15:04 |
| dansmith | cool | 15:04 |
| gmann | nice | 15:04 |
| yoctozepto | o/ | 15:05 |
| spotz | All the ones I've been following have been pretty fast | 15:05 |
| gmann | anything else on this topic? | 15:06 |
| fungi | opendev's zuul is spending a lot less time at full capacity in recent weeks | 15:07 |
| dansmith | not from me, which is a good sign :) | 15:07 |
| jungleboyj | :-) ++ | 15:07 |
| fungi | not sure if it's a cause or an effect, but it's likely related one way or the other | 15:07 |
| jungleboyj | Either way it is good. | 15:08 |
| gmann | yeah. | 15:08 |
| gmann | let's move next and keep monitoring it | 15:08 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 15:08 |
| gmann | I will rename this topic as 'Gate health check' from next meeting which is what we discussed in PTG | 15:09 |
| gmann | #topic Project Health checks (gmann) | 15:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Project Health checks (gmann) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:09 | |
| * dansmith agrees with the topic name change | 15:09 | |
| gmann | this is continuation of discussion from what we left in PTG | 15:09 |
| gmann | L471 https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-ptg | 15:09 |
| gmann | one open things we have is whether we should continue with TC liaisons mechanism or find new way to check health/reachout the project team | 15:10 |
| gmann | one suggestion from ricolin was to automate the contribution stats check which can give us the health checks for projects | 15:11 |
| gmann | any other suggestion? | 15:12 |
| ricolin | also belmoreira, and I volunteer to take that action | 15:12 |
| ricolin | volunteered | 15:12 |
| gmann | yeah. | 15:12 |
| dansmith | aren't they two different things? | 15:12 |
| ricolin | dansmith, yes, two different indeed | 15:13 |
| dansmith | meaning, whether or not to keep the liaisons is a thing.. not sure they're really helping us monitor health currently, | 15:13 |
| dansmith | and then another is trying to automate some health metric | 15:13 |
| gmann | TC liaisons was started for health checks + reachout to project team | 15:13 |
| dansmith | both seem good to me (dropping liaisons which I think don't really do much) and anyone trying to mine data for any reason :) | 15:13 |
| dansmith | I know it was, but that's not really happening right? | 15:13 |
| gmann | yeah, agree | 15:13 |
| spotz | Also outreach before elections will tell us a bit about health but potentially too late | 15:14 |
| gmann | +1, and if we see patches not merging in projects repos means we can just reachout to team if they are active or need help or so | 15:15 |
| belmoreira | +1 | 15:15 |
| jungleboyj | Yeah, I think adding the data mining is an important first step. | 15:15 |
| gmann | for 1st part health checks, we can wait for automate things | 15:15 |
| gmann | but as TC liaisons which is supposed to reachout to projects team what next we can try ? | 15:16 |
| gmann | main goal here is to engage project team with TC | 15:16 |
| dansmith | have we spent as much time reaching out to projects we're liaison for, as we have maintaining the list of liaisons? | 15:16 |
| dansmith | the latter has happened twice since I showed up, and it's the most liaison-related activity I've seen (obviously I don't see what people are doing, but just guessing) | 15:17 |
| gmann | agree, this is not working so definitely need change | 15:17 |
| gmann | but before we remove the liaison things we should have some other way in place | 15:18 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: You aren't alone. | 15:18 |
| jungleboyj | Thought we did have an activity at some point last year where we had a coordinated effort for liaisons to reach out. | 15:19 |
| dansmith | gmann: I don't think we need a replacement for something that brings no value, but it's also only costing us maintaining the useless list, so if having it makes us feel better, then that's fine too I guess :) | 15:19 |
| gmann | sure, if any new way also goes same way 'no value' then yes I agree with you to not continue that | 15:21 |
| belmoreira | I agree with dansmith | 15:22 |
| belmoreira | also, if we detect that a project is not healthy we can find a TC volunteer to interact with the project | 15:22 |
| gmann | one idea i have is to conduct PTL+TC meeting (audio/video) monthly or once in a 2 month and ask them about their feedback on us or anything they would like to see TC doing | 15:22 |
| jungleboyj | belmoreira: ++ That makes sense. | 15:22 |
| gmann | belmoreira: yeah for project health that works fine/ | 15:22 |
| fungi | at one point it was suggested that the liaisons give teams specific points of contact on the tc they can reach out to, but i'm unconvinced that's any easier than just reaching out to the tc as a whole, or random tc members | 15:22 |
| ricolin | One way we can try is to have liaison for projects on demand, like right now, we might need someone to check with sahara for potential no maintainer left or check with DPL model projects for one cycle to see if they're doing okay. The only down side for this is we can't really find out when a project goes from healthy to unhealthy | 15:22 |
| spotz | It sounds like what ricolin and belmoreira have planned is the first part of a new plan. It's worth a try and there's nothing wrong with just getting rid of something not working | 15:22 |
| gmann | but to engage project teams more with TC we need some reachout mechanism | 15:23 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: ++ | 15:23 |
| dansmith | fungi: finding that list (or even knowing it exists) is probably much harder than coming here and asking something :) | 15:23 |
| fungi | agreed | 15:23 |
| spotz | ++ | 15:23 |
| gmann | yeah. | 15:23 |
| jungleboyj | spotz: I agree. | 15:23 |
| ricolin | gmann, +1 | 15:24 |
| gmann | for unhealthy projects I think we have agreed way of what ricolin and belmoreira is planning to do. | 15:24 |
| gmann | for reachout/engage healthy projects with TC, does PTL+TC meeting idea fine? | 15:25 |
| dansmith | gmann: are you talking about a big meeting where all the PTLs come at once? | 15:25 |
| gmann | I feel once in a 2 month should be enough | 15:25 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:25 |
| gmann | or whoever want to join | 15:25 |
| gmann | I am sure not all will be there at same time but if they do yes | 15:25 |
| spotz | And should we return to imperson go back to having the TC session in the Forum | 15:25 |
| gmann | or we can divide into slots | 15:26 |
| dansmith | IMHO, that adds something to their calendar for a checkin, which is pretty inefficient, and is likely to be ignored by most.. we have these meetings every week that they can join if they have concerns | 15:26 |
| ricolin | gmann, like a mid-cycle meeting? | 15:26 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: Right. Everyone is in meeting burnout as it is. | 15:26 |
| dansmith | right, especially right now | 15:26 |
| dansmith | maybe we could do something like that each time before a PTG in the week leading up to it so we don't compete | 15:27 |
| dansmith | but once every two months seems too often to me for a heavyweight meeting, but that's just MHO | 15:27 |
| dansmith | mostly thinking about how I as a PTL would consider that obligation in my current calendar load | 15:27 |
| dansmith | I feel like I'm being so negative today, my apologies gmann :) | 15:28 |
| ricolin | It make sense to me to at least reach out one month before cycle election | 15:28 |
| gmann | ok, twice in a cycle. like once in the mid of cycle and one during end like before PTG or so | 15:28 |
| gmann | +1, 'reach out one month before cycle election' this can solve our election promotion also | 15:29 |
| dansmith | that periodicity seems better for sure | 15:29 |
| jungleboyj | I think that sounds reasonable. | 15:29 |
| gmann | dansmith: no, its been productive discussion which is what we need otherwise we end up trying no-value-addition things :) | 15:29 |
| spotz | Sounds good | 15:30 |
| gmann | ok, let's try periodic one with slot or so. I will prepare something on time/slot/agenda etc and we can continue discussion in next meeting.. | 15:31 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: ++ | 15:31 |
| ricolin | +1 | 15:31 |
| gmann | #action gmann to prepare the etherpad for draft proposal of PTL+TC periodic meeting | 15:31 |
| gmann | anything else on this? | 15:32 |
| ricolin | should encourage SIG chair to join this meeting if possible:) | 15:32 |
| gmann | yeah, good point. | 15:32 |
| belmoreira | ricolin that's a good idea | 15:32 |
| ricolin | also popup | 15:32 |
| gmann | ack | 15:32 |
| gmann | we should merge the PTL word with PTL+SIG-chair+popup-team-chair | 15:33 |
| jungleboyj | Community leaders | 15:33 |
| * diablo_rojo is failing at doing two meetings at once | 15:33 | |
| gmann | +1, better idea | 15:33 |
| gmann | ok let's move next | 15:34 |
| gmann | #topic TC's context, name, and documenting formal responsibilities (TheJulia) | 15:34 |
| spotz | Yeah | 15:34 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "TC's context, name, and documenting formal responsibilities (TheJulia) (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:34 | |
| gmann | we discussed about it in previous week meeting | 15:34 |
| gmann | and agreed to add the 'Merging/documenting the UC responsibility in TC and docs.' which i added in Xena tracker also | 15:34 |
| gmann | L64 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker | 15:35 |
| diablo_rojo | For the record, I do think renaming is a good idea (particularly with the changes over the last year merging the UC + TC). | 15:35 |
| diablo_rojo | Since I wasn't here last week to voice that opinion. | 15:35 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:35 |
| gmann | yeah that is why i kept this for this week too. in case you missed last week meeting | 15:36 |
| dansmith | I don't, FWIW | 15:36 |
| diablo_rojo | dansmith, even though the TC is not just the TC anymore? | 15:36 |
| dansmith | even though :) | 15:36 |
| yoctozepto | are we aiming for TC still? | 15:36 |
| fungi | i think that came up when i was at an appointment... is the concern that people are confused about the tc being the governance body for the openstack project? | 15:36 |
| yoctozepto | The Committee | 15:36 |
| yoctozepto | :D | 15:37 |
| diablo_rojo | dansmith, I assume you explained why last week and I should read those logs? | 15:37 |
| gmann | sorry i miss read the diablo_rojo ' I do think renaming is a good idea ' | 15:37 |
| gmann | I do not think renaming we need | 15:37 |
| dansmith | diablo_rojo: no I wasn't here either and didn't get to opine, hence doing it here | 15:37 |
| diablo_rojo | Ahhh got it dansmith :) | 15:37 |
| gmann | we still doing same what we used to do + having more user facing members | 15:37 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, yes, but its a mindset change? That would be good to have reflected in the name? | 15:38 |
| jungleboyj | Regardless of name we need to act more like a community leadership group and not just technical leaders. | 15:38 |
| yoctozepto | why not rename though? That makes sense imho | 15:38 |
| gmann | I feel merging the doc which can convey we do user facing discussion + technical things | 15:38 |
| yoctozepto | jungleboyj ++ | 15:38 |
| jungleboyj | diablo_rojo: ++ | 15:38 |
| fungi | the makeup of the tc didn't change when the uc was "folded into" it (for bookkeeping reasons, so the foundation bylaws wouldn't need editing to reflect that the uc is gone) | 15:38 |
| diablo_rojo | If we want to keep user focused members a name change might be good as 'Technical Committee' is a bit narrowly focused. | 15:38 |
| fungi | the tc has always had representatives of openstack users on it | 15:38 |
| jungleboyj | Agreed. | 15:39 |
| gmann | true | 15:39 |
| fungi | so i don't see it as a new situation | 15:39 |
| jungleboyj | Honestly, since joining the TC I haven't found it to be an appropriate name. | 15:39 |
| gmann | that is why my point no structural change now what we used to have | 15:39 |
| ricolin | agree with fungi's point | 15:40 |
| yoctozepto | perhaps then we can rename to fix this old issue | 15:40 |
| fungi | the tc engaged in plenty of "non-technical" activities even long before i was on it, for the record | 15:40 |
| gmann | if TC is not appropriate name that is since starting then not with uc + tc merge | 15:40 |
| fungi | but the name is taken from the foundation bylaws | 15:40 |
| diablo_rojo | Yeah fungi that makes sense. Simultaneously, if we no long have a user focused committee, it might be better to rename and be more inclusive? | 15:40 |
| yoctozepto | ok, so rename for a different reason | 15:40 |
| gmann | but what value a rename will add? | 15:40 |
| fungi | because it was described as such when the bylaws were written | 15:40 |
| gmann | +1 on bylaw point | 15:40 |
| yoctozepto | gmann: sanity :-) | 15:41 |
| dansmith | gmann: right, I don't see what it will add.. our users are technical :) | 15:41 |
| gmann | yoctozepto: it cost a lot just for sanity :) | 15:41 |
| diablo_rojo | I think another part of the idea of doing a rename now was that if other bylaws will be changed with the foundation rename then it might be good to do it all at once to save cost if we decide to do it later? | 15:41 |
| gmann | dansmith: exactly, only developers are not considered as technical :) | 15:41 |
| fungi | from the perspective of the bylaws, there is an openstack technical committee and an openstack user committee (and for simplicity, the "user committee" is merely made up from a selected subset of tc members these days) | 15:41 |
| yoctozepto | well, we are used to paying off TECHNICAL debts :-) | 15:41 |
| *** rpittau is now known as rpittau|afk | 15:42 | |
| dansmith | and honestly, this kind of bikeshedding on naming for inclusiveness is really not a useful activity for us to spend time on, yet we seem to do a lot of this kind of thing.. which I guess means we should rename to "The Naming Committee" | 15:42 |
| yoctozepto | oh come on | 15:42 |
| fungi | yeah, if the idea is to propose an adjustment to the bylaws, then that probably needs to be the topic, "renaming the tc" is really only a small part of it | 15:42 |
| jungleboyj | *sad trombone.wav* | 15:42 |
| dansmith | or maybe "The committee for ensuring proper pigmentation of conveyance storage facilities" :) | 15:42 |
| yoctozepto | the name is important | 15:42 |
| yoctozepto | well, that was rude | 15:42 |
| gmann | and big issue in rename i see "to convey TC is not gone but just rename" | 15:43 |
| spotz | I think a rename would be good and favored it when discussing the merger. Should we maybe figure out what we do as gmann has been working on and then decide on a new name if warranted vs just picking a new name that may not fit when that effort is completed? | 15:43 |
| yoctozepto | spotz ++ | 15:43 |
| gmann | and we might spend lot of time/cost on 'just renaming without any structural change' | 15:44 |
| gmann | if no structural change, i do not see value in spending time on renaming or so | 15:44 |
| dansmith | ++ | 15:44 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: I do agree with that. | 15:44 |
| gmann | not any time is perfect and we can keep changing it | 15:44 |
| diablo_rojo | TBH, I had a fair amount of impostor syndrome about joining the technical committee because I didn't think *I* was technical enough so I can imagine I am not the only one in thinking that particularly when you consider those that might be interested in voicing opinions about user things, but maybe doesn't actively contribute upstream.. | 15:44 |
| diablo_rojo | Perhaps I am projecting. | 15:45 |
| jungleboyj | diablo_rojo: No, you are right. Same here. It is a perception we need to change. | 15:45 |
| dansmith | I think the current TC makeup shows that's not a huge deal, personally, but obviously I'm biased | 15:45 |
| gmann | I wrote previously also. Technical is not just developer but a wider group or people | 15:45 |
| spotz | diablo_rojo: me too | 15:45 |
| dansmith | if we were called "the developer committee" I would agree | 15:46 |
| gmann | treu | 15:46 |
| gmann | true | 15:46 |
| gmann | everyone in TC participate in various technical discussion so that is what technical commitee means | 15:46 |
| yoctozepto | but not only | 15:47 |
| diablo_rojo | I think we should at least consider it since other bylaws updates will be done. | 15:47 |
| gmann | humm, I think foundation renaming bylaws change is different things. | 15:47 |
| belmoreira | I don't have a strong opinion about the name... but we go back to the PTG discussion... we only allow ATCs to vote for the TC | 15:48 |
| gmann | we need to see if there is any structural change or not | 15:48 |
| dansmith | belmoreira: I think we resolved that | 15:48 |
| gmann | belmoreira: good point | 15:48 |
| gmann | we will add AUC as extra ATC | 15:48 |
| jungleboyj | belmoreira: That definitely needs to be fixed I feel. | 15:48 |
| * ricolin remember the same as gmann mentioned | 15:48 | |
| gmann | I think dansmith has that item https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker | 15:48 |
| gmann | L 48 in #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker | 15:49 |
| dansmith | well, | 15:49 |
| gmann | 'Document the process for adding SIG+project contributors, AUC as extra ATC.' | 15:49 |
| diablo_rojo | belmoreira, I think that is a good point. | 15:49 |
| dansmith | I was trying to pick things to help with, but I definitely don't think I can do that on my own, especially given the lack of agreement here | 15:49 |
| dansmith | so I should probably remove my name from that, unless at least one more person is going to join and drive that :) | 15:49 |
| gmann | ? adding AUC as extra-ATC was agreed in PTG | 15:50 |
| yoctozepto | yeah | 15:50 |
| gmann | i do not think any change in that. | 15:50 |
| dansmith | ah, | 15:50 |
| dansmith | I thought this also included the naming bit | 15:50 |
| gmann | no, renaming is separate things | 15:50 |
| dansmith | gotcha | 15:50 |
| yoctozepto | cool | 15:50 |
| dansmith | I think spotz needs to join this effort for the U part of AUC :D | 15:51 |
| gmann | anyways let's keep it separate and clear. how about this plan: | 15:52 |
| gmann | 1. making AUC in extra-ATC | 15:52 |
| spotz | I think you've just claimed the TC is for users s and they're techniical | 15:52 |
| belmoreira | my point is that the TC is now TC + UC, represented by ATC and AUC. Without a name change can be very difficult to reflect this change to the community. | 15:52 |
| gmann | 2. merging UC doc into TC site/doc etc | 15:52 |
| fungi | it's also worth remembering that the foundation bylaws don't define the word "technical" but effectively imply that it's a handle for any governance not relaetd to administration of legal matters, trademarks, et cetera | 15:52 |
| diablo_rojo | belmoreira, +2 | 15:52 |
| gmann | 3. if we need rename that is a separate topic than UC + TC merge so feel free to add in agenda if needed | 15:53 |
| fungi | the scope of the "user committee" defined in the bylaws is much more focused in scope, but also doesn't have any obligations or responsibilities outlined therein | 15:53 |
| dansmith | spotz: to be clear, I meant join (me) in owning the todo item of defining how we get the AUC people included in the voting body of extra-ATCs | 15:53 |
| gmann | belmoreira: we can try to rename ATC term or so as part of 1st which can help to clear the confusion may be | 15:54 |
| spotz | gmann: AC - active contibutor | 15:54 |
| jungleboyj | spotz: ++ | 15:55 |
| gmann | yeah, +1 | 15:55 |
| yoctozepto | spotz ++ | 15:55 |
| jungleboyj | Don't need to specify what type of contributor. | 15:55 |
| gmann | exactly | 15:55 |
| yoctozepto | The Contributor | 15:55 |
| gmann | anyways let's find correct name as part of 1st | 15:56 |
| yoctozepto | agreed | 15:56 |
| gmann | I am writing plan again, in case any one disagree | 15:56 |
| diablo_rojo | The ATC status makes sense for what it is, as does the AUC, but I guess I am fine with just making it AC, but i think we will still need to separately define APCs for when there are PTL runoffs | 15:56 |
| gmann | 1. making AUC in extra-ATC + rename ATC in more correct way | 15:56 |
| gmann | 2. merging UC doc into TC site/doc etc | 15:56 |
| diablo_rojo | (switched from TC hat to Election Official hat mid sentence there) | 15:56 |
| gmann | 3. if we need rename TC that is a separate topic than UC + TC merge so feel free to add in next week agenda if needed | 15:57 |
| diablo_rojo | I disagree that its a completely separate topic, but fine, I think it can be a new topic on the agenda for next week. | 15:58 |
| gmann | otherwise we can mixup the many things into it | 15:58 |
| diablo_rojo | I also think we should get opinions from the community on the ML. | 15:58 |
| gmann | and I will remove this from agenda as we have two action item from it. | 15:58 |
| spotz | +1 | 15:58 |
| jungleboyj | diablo_rojo: It would be interesting to see if anyone cares. :-) | 15:58 |
| yoctozepto | it's related but uc merge is not a new thing nowadays | 15:58 |
| gmann | sure, please add in agenda or in ML. that is good way | 15:58 |
| gmann | jungleboyj: exactly :) | 15:59 |
| gmann | IMO, we should spend more time on engaging and some productive work as TC not renaming which many people do not care much | 15:59 |
| gmann | many project/community think as TC we could do much more better which is very valid feedback I think | 16:00 |
| gmann | anyways we are out of time, | 16:00 |
| dansmith | yup | 16:00 |
| gmann | #topic Open Reviews | 16:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open Reviews (Meeting topic: tc)" | 16:00 | |
| diablo_rojo | yoctozepto, I agree they are related. Definitely not completely separate. | 16:00 |
| gmann | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/governance+is:open | 16:00 |
| gmann | we have one open review for Y cycle name. please vote | 16:00 |
| spotz | voted:) | 16:01 |
| gmann | thans | 16:01 |
| * gmann again naming things :( | 16:01 | |
| gmann | thanks | 16:01 |
| diablo_rojo | Before I was on the TC I thought it was a super technical role (based on the name and knowing they approved new projects/repos, etc) and then I joined and realized its mostly *not* technical. | 16:01 |
| dansmith | you joined without knowing what they did, and just went on the name? :) | 16:02 |
| gmann | let's continue discussing in channel and close meeting | 16:02 |
| gmann | thanks all for joining and good discussion. | 16:02 |
| gmann | #endmeeting | 16:02 |
| *** 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/" | 16:02 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu May 6 16:02:25 2021 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:02 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-05-06-15.00.html | 16:02 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-05-06-15.00.txt | 16:02 |
| jungleboyj | Ok. Thanks all. | 16:02 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2021/tc.2021-05-06-15.00.log.html | 16:02 |
| dansmith | diablo_rojo: I'm saying that in jest because I know you were more involved than that ;) | 16:03 |
| gmann | it is not mostly non-technical | 16:03 |
| fungi | it merely *seems* technical to the people writing the foundation bylaws, in contrast to the sort of governance the foundation board of directors engages in | 16:03 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, LOL if its mostly non-technical then WHY should it stay named the technical committee? lol | 16:04 |
| dansmith | diablo_rojo: note the double negative :) | 16:04 |
| spotz | She's not the only one, I've been involved from Grizzly and never thought I was technical enough for the TC until after the merge | 16:04 |
| fungi | my take is that they used "technical" as a differentiation from "legal" rather than, as some of us might be used to, a differentiation from something else like "creative" | 16:04 |
| jungleboyj | gmann: Said not. | 16:04 |
| diablo_rojo | dansmith, of course :) Just like, you joined the TC thinking it would be no extra work or meetings ;) | 16:04 |
| ttx | yeah back then the main concern was that the board would make technical decisions | 16:05 |
| jungleboyj | LOL | 16:05 |
| gmann | it is *not* mostly non-technical | 16:05 |
| jungleboyj | fungi: ++ That makes sense. | 16:05 |
| ttx | Technical decisions are now mostly delegated, so the TC is mostly about governance instead. "Steering" would be appropriate | 16:05 |
| diablo_rojo | fungi, that I can understand | 16:06 |
| diablo_rojo | ttx, yeah I think there are a variety of adjectives that would be better | 16:06 |
| yoctozepto | Steering ++ | 16:06 |
| gmann | we do lot of technical work. our Xena tracker reflect lot of technicalwork we are doing (not just development things but technical )https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-xena-tracker | 16:06 |
| ttx | I remember us considering "Stewarding committee" after that Zingerman training | 16:06 |
| jungleboyj | We had talked about saying 'Steering Committee' since that is understood by communities. | 16:07 |
| yoctozepto | Stewarding cool too | 16:07 |
| ttx | but yes today "Steering committee" is a well-known quantity | 16:07 |
| fungi | or stewardship committee | 16:07 |
| ttx | yes probably more correct English-wise :) | 16:07 |
| gmann | ttx: not all are delegated as i think what we are doing | 16:07 |
| jungleboyj | Yes. | 16:07 |
| yoctozepto | CC Courtship Committee | 16:08 |
| ttx | gmann: yes but when the TC now makes a etchnical decision it's more a technical aspect of governance | 16:08 |
| ricolin | tc-members diablo_rojo and I starts to looking for potential goal materials, so if you have any, feel free to propose in https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/y-series-goals | 16:09 |
| gmann | agree but we do software + user side technical work/discussion too | 16:09 |
| openstackgerrit | Dan Smith proposed openstack/governance master: Replace ATC terminology with AC https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/790092 | 16:09 |
| gmann | ricolin: thanks for starting that, I might add one for RBAC which can be good things to finish as lot of project are doing in this cycle too | 16:09 |
| diablo_rojo | While I haven't reviewed the patch yet, we do need to be careful not to completely eradicate ATC because it is necessary for PTL elections. | 16:11 |
| diablo_rojo | Though, for the purposes of TC elections, I am totally onboard | 16:11 |
| dansmith | diablo_rojo: it wasn't mentioned as such | 16:11 |
| diablo_rojo | dansmith, perfect then :) | 16:11 |
| dansmith | diablo_rojo: APC for PTL elections, ATC was only used in general in one place and for the TC voters | 16:12 |
| gmann | yeah | 16:12 |
| fungi | atc is used in more than one place. as in the charter takes the term from the technical committee member policy in the foundation bylaws | 16:12 |
| fungi | i've provided a link in a review comment | 16:12 |
| spotz | fungi knows the bylaws by heart | 16:13 |
| fungi | not really | 16:13 |
| fungi | i've just had to pay very close attention to these parts of it in the past | 16:13 |
| diablo_rojo | dansmith, nice, sounds perfect :) | 16:14 |
| diablo_rojo | Will add it to the review list. | 16:14 |
| fungi | based on recent amendments to the bylaws the tc can work with the board to update the tcmp without needing a vote of all three foundation member classes as well, but it does still involve engaging the board of directors on any edits | 16:14 |
| jungleboyj | Ok. Then it sounds like we are good there. | 16:14 |
| gmann | cool, thanks fungi for the check | 16:17 |
| *** thiago__ has quit IRC | 16:18 | |
| spotz | dansmith: I'll add some comments for that review | 16:19 |
| *** thiago__ has joined #openstack-tc | 16:20 | |
| *** thiago__ has quit IRC | 16:21 | |
| *** tdasilva_ has joined #openstack-tc | 16:21 | |
| *** ralonsoh has quit IRC | 16:58 | |
| *** thiago__ has joined #openstack-tc | 17:00 | |
| *** thiago__ has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| *** tdasilva_ has quit IRC | 17:03 | |
| *** tdasilva has joined #openstack-tc | 17:05 | |
| *** tdasilva_ has joined #openstack-tc | 17:10 | |
| *** tdasilva has quit IRC | 17:12 | |
| *** andrewbonney has quit IRC | 17:13 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 17:22 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 17:23 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 17:27 | |
| *** vishalmanchanda has joined #openstack-tc | 17:43 | |
| *** belmoreira has quit IRC | 18:01 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 18:17 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 18:37 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 18:37 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 18:42 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 19:24 | |
| *** tdasilva_ has quit IRC | 19:28 | |
| *** tdasilva has joined #openstack-tc | 19:28 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 19:29 | |
| *** tdasilva has quit IRC | 19:35 | |
| *** tdasilva has joined #openstack-tc | 19:35 | |
| *** tdasilva has quit IRC | 19:41 | |
| *** tdasilva has joined #openstack-tc | 19:41 | |
| *** tdasilva has quit IRC | 19:42 | |
| *** tdasilva has joined #openstack-tc | 19:44 | |
| *** tdasilva has quit IRC | 19:44 | |
| *** tdasilva has joined #openstack-tc | 19:44 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:01 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 20:03 | |
| *** dirk has quit IRC | 20:31 | |
| *** slaweq has quit IRC | 20:38 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:42 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 21:00 | |
| *** vishalmanchanda has quit IRC | 21:12 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 23:17 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!