| *** pojadhav- is now known as pojadhav | 05:36 | |
| *** gibi is now known as gibi_pto | 09:38 | |
| ade_lee__ | gmann, I added an update to https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-zed-ptg with my availablilty for fips update | 17:05 |
|---|---|---|
| gmann | ade_lee__: ack, thanks | 17:23 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Release identification and release name https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/829563 | 18:09 |
| *** odyssey4me is now known as odyssey4me|away | 18:16 | |
| *** odyssey4me|away is now known as odyssey4me | 18:16 | |
| gmann | ade_lee__: also, are you planning to move the FIPs goal from 'proposed' to 'selected' and that is something we can also discuss in PTG? https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/#selecting-goals | 18:19 |
| dansmith | I was just looking, but the current goal doesn't mention that the jobs need to be voting, right? | 18:21 |
| dansmith | at the moment, I'm not sure what the path to getting them voting is, but if just being advisory (i.e. periodic or whatever) is good enough then we should be okay | 18:22 |
| gmann | yeah and it is proposed goal only not selected so not sure how projects are reacting on this like less priority or high priority. we should make it clear that it is selected and mentioned timelines are actual target for projects | 18:23 |
| dansmith | right, I'm saying if we select it, we should make sure that non-voting is good enough at the moment | 18:23 |
| gmann | dansmith: yes that should be enough data for taking decision on selecting. | 18:24 |
| gmann | with periodic run also we will have enough runs of those jobs to check stability | 18:25 |
| dansmith | gmann: maybe I'm mincing my words... | 18:25 |
| dansmith | what I'm saying is, I think we can't (currently) have a goal of "require voting fips compliance jobs for the projects" | 18:25 |
| dansmith | because we know the stability doesn't allow for it | 18:25 |
| dansmith | so I'm saying if we go forward and select the goal as something we expect people to adhere to, the goal needs to be "periodic warnings about breaking fips compliance is good enough" | 18:26 |
| dansmith | reading the goal as currently written I don't see anything about *requiring* voting jobs, so I think we're good.. right? | 18:26 |
| gmann | dansmith: ok, hmm I am not sure about that. I think if we select then we should target for voting jobs. and until we are not in the situation of making it voting due to distro stability or our code/test stability I think we should not select it instead continue work on making it stable. | 18:27 |
| gmann | or we can define long duration for goal to complete but it should be as voting job target. | 18:28 |
| dansmith | okay, so at the moment, we can't select this until some things get resolved and have some sort of track record of expecting these jobs to work long-term right? | 18:28 |
| gmann | dansmith: yes, that is my opinion. | 18:29 |
| dansmith | okay, I thought you were encouraging moving this from proposed to selected above.. were you just asking if that's the intent and saying that if so, we should discuss further? | 18:29 |
| gmann | dansmith: that is what we have a usual checklist for goal that things are working on some project as proof or at least working successfully in some cases. where we know things can not be targeted as making/tested as stable even at the end of goal it does not seems like good goal target for me. | 18:31 |
| gmann | dansmith: ah sorry for unclear. yes I mean propose to be selected and then we discuss if it is stable and we can target for voting jobs or not. if not then do not select if yes then select. | 18:31 |
| dansmith | okay cool, that's what I'm trying to suss out, I gotcha now | 18:32 |
| dansmith | I agree the goal needs to be clear and achievable and "voting jobs" is not at the current moment, AFAICT, so I was wondering if "advisory but not necessarily stable jobs" was your suggestion for moving forward | 18:32 |
| dansmith | but sounds like you want to avoid selecting until we can go for voting jobs, which I think makes sense | 18:33 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:33 |
| dansmith | and is what we were trying to do with our first round of converting one of our voting glance jobs to also be fips compliant | 18:33 |
| dansmith | cool coo | 18:33 |
| gmann | +1 | 18:33 |
| gmann | dansmith: I think you remember that goal readiness was one of community feedback to TC in the last TC+PTL sessions that we are too aggressive in selecting the goals even direction/implementation are not clear :) | 18:36 |
| dansmith | yah :) | 18:36 |
| ade_lee__ | gmann, dansmith reading up - yes, I was going to propose that we select the goal, and start to look at time lines. however, I appreciate that this is tricky if the jobs are not stable. | 19:08 |
| ade_lee__ | I suppose it depends to some extent on the time line we adopt | 19:08 |
| dansmith | yeah, I'd have a hard time being pro-selection at the moment, | 19:09 |
| dansmith | but the conversations about potentially mitigating that volume failure I've seen a lot is a good sign that we're working through those things | 19:09 |
| gmann | yeah, we have ~3 weeks to get things in more shape and in PTG we will see how it goes. and as goals are not tied to release cycle now we can re-iterate the discussion any time. | 19:10 |
| ade_lee__ | gmann, +1 -- just what I was going to say | 19:11 |
| gmann | it is not like if we miss the start of cycle then we have to wait for next cycle | 19:11 |
| dansmith | yeah, the goal mentions specific Z milestones | 19:11 |
| ade_lee__ | dmendiza[m], well -- we've missed some of those already | 19:12 |
| dansmith | maybe we should make those less release-specific and more just general "first target, second target" ? | 19:12 |
| ade_lee__ | dansmith, ^^ | 19:12 |
| dansmith | yeah | 19:12 |
| gmann | +1 | 19:12 |
| ade_lee__ | dansmith, but those were always going to subject to change once we had the discussion on selecting the goal | 19:12 |
| gmann | like RABC but obviously not that long :) where we planned for CC release also :) | 19:12 |
| dansmith | ade_lee__: okay | 19:13 |
| ade_lee__ | gmann, dansmith the other thing I hope to have wrapped up by ptg is an initial analysis of what libraries need to be looked at for fips compliance | 19:13 |
| ade_lee__ | (which of course is the next phase for this) | 19:14 |
| dansmith | cool | 19:14 |
| ade_lee__ | dansmith, gmann at the very least, at the ptg, we can talk about what criteria (stability etc.) we want to accept the goals, if things aren't stable enough then | 19:15 |
| dansmith | cha | 19:15 |
| gmann | ade_lee__: +1, indeed. | 19:16 |
| *** odyssey4me is now known as odyssey4me|away | 20:09 | |
| *** odyssey4me|away is now known as odyssey4me | 20:09 | |
| *** odyssey4me is now known as odyssey4me|away | 20:24 | |
| *** odyssey4me|away is now known as odyssey4me | 22:08 | |
| *** odyssey4me is now known as odyssey4me|away | 22:09 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!