| tonyb | I can't be at the TC meeting because it's at 3am, but I have added a follow-up item re:election to the Agenda. | 00:26 |
|---|---|---|
| fungi | tonyb: the tc isn't meeting this week anyway | 00:26 |
| fungi | cancelled due to likely lack of quorum | 00:27 |
| tonyb | Well next week is soon enough :) | 00:27 |
| fungi | but yeah | 00:27 |
| fungi | there's also time to prod them between now and next week | 00:27 |
| tonyb | That's true. The etherpad doesn't say exactly what we were going to chnage in the charter but I think it was basically extending the "election" by one week and also clarifying which part of the whole needs to happen in that timeframe | 00:29 |
| tonyb | gmann: ^^ | 00:29 |
| gmann | tonyb: yes, I will do it today. | 00:31 |
| gmann | tonyb: btw we are tracking all those PTG things in this tracker, election things are one of it https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2023.1-tracker | 00:32 |
| tonyb | gmann: Okay | 00:33 |
| gmann | tonyb: added both of your patch in etherpad also for updates. let me push charter required change today | 00:35 |
| tonyb | gmann: Thanks | 00:35 |
| tonyb | gmann: I know I'm not on the TC but please poke me when it's up for review | 00:44 |
| gmann | tonyb: sure, do not worry, will add you in review. | 00:45 |
| *** pojadhav|afk is now known as pojadhav | 03:12 | |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Update TC charter to extend election period https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/865367 | 03:38 |
| gmann | tc-members: tonyb ^^ charter change for election nomination/voting period extension | 03:38 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Update TC charter to extend election period https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/865367 | 06:02 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Update TC charter to extend election period https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/865367 | 06:04 |
| *** dasm|off is now known as dasm | 13:59 | |
| rosmaita | gmann: around? | 16:03 |
| gmann | rosmaita: hi | 16:06 |
| rosmaita | gmann: just wondering if you had any comments on the latest version of the weblate proposal | 16:07 |
| gmann | rosmaita: I checked that, it looks good to me. no further comment from my side. | 16:08 |
| rosmaita | ok, i'd feel better if Ian or Seongsoo signed off on it | 16:09 |
| rosmaita | i guess i should just send them an email saying "please indicate approval" instead of asking for general comments | 16:10 |
| gmann | yeah, I hope they are reviewing it as you sent on email. | 16:10 |
| rosmaita | TheJulia: when do you need the final version of the weblate proposal? | 16:11 |
| TheJulia | rosmaita: early next week would be good | 16:12 |
| TheJulia | drop dead will be around thursday | 16:12 |
| gmann | are we sending it to foundation in advance to board/board meeting ? | 16:12 |
| rosmaita | TheJulia: that works, it should be ready by tuesday | 16:13 |
| TheJulia | which part of the foundation? I spoke with the staff, they are good with it being on the meeting | 16:13 |
| gmann | ok, that is fine then to discuss it in meeting directly. | 16:13 |
| fungi | yes, if you mean the foundation staff or foundation officers please be clear on that point | 16:14 |
| gmann | I was thinking if foundation staff wanted to have meeting with weblate in advance to board meeting to know more about contract cost/term etc | 16:14 |
| gmann | but either if fine. just want to check they know about proposal | 16:15 |
| TheJulia | fungi: officers | 16:15 |
| fungi | thanks | 16:16 |
| fungi | just making sure i know who to keep track of ;) | 16:16 |
| TheJulia | heh | 16:17 |
| TheJulia | sorry for not being clear on that | 16:17 |
| fungi | lots of people say "the foundation" and mean completely different groups of people when doing so | 16:17 |
| fungi | so it gets very confusing for me | 16:18 |
| rosmaita | i am guilty of that | 16:19 |
| TheJulia | Yeah, it is super easy since there is the staff, the board, the members classes | 16:20 |
| TheJulia | and individual members | 16:20 |
| fungi | well, individual members are one of the member classes (but so are platinum, gold, silver, associate...) | 16:23 |
| fungi | and all part of the foundation yes | 16:24 |
| TheJulia | yup | 16:25 |
| rosmaita | speaking of member classes, the "Platinum Member Policy" mentions a "Platinum Member Agreement", but I can't find it ... where should I be looking? | 16:28 |
| rosmaita | a google search for "openstack platinum member agreement" takes me back to https://openinfra.dev/legal/platinum-member-policy | 16:28 |
| TheJulia | rosmaita: That is the contract between the foundation and the platinum member | 16:29 |
| TheJulia | the foundation as a legal entity | 16:30 |
| rosmaita | oh, so it's specific to each member? | 16:30 |
| TheJulia | I believe it can be, yes | 16:30 |
| rosmaita | ok | 16:30 |
| gmann | yeah | 16:30 |
| TheJulia | it is not uncommon for additional items/controls to get added to contracts | 16:30 |
| TheJulia | I'm just speaking generally, fwiw. | 16:31 |
| TheJulia | Only the staff officers would be aware and only details of such might come up in executive sessions if the board's oversight or agreement is required. | 16:32 |
| fungi | yeah, i'm asking them, but this is probably a bad week to expect prompt answers | 16:34 |
| fungi | the individual member agreement is published, but i agree i can't find a published generic/template platinum or gold agreement even though the platinum and gold policies refer to it | 16:34 |
| rosmaita | i was just curious, don't need a prompt answer | 16:34 |
| gmann | rosmaita: keystone service spec still not merged, need one more +2. I have been pinging keystone team/PTL on this in channel, meeting etc https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/keystone-specs/+/818616 | 16:48 |
| gmann | I will try it in next keystone meeting also | 16:48 |
| rosmaita | gmann: thanks! | 16:49 |
| TheJulia | fungi: afaik, they have never been posted, and I have gone on a similar hunt before as well :) | 16:53 |
| fungi | i did get confirmation that there are templates which are not published, so sounds like they do vary somewhat by member based on what terms may be negotiated | 16:54 |
| fungi | i can imagine there might be legal concerns with publishing the templates as that might incorrectly imply the members are bound to what's in the templates, but i'm no lawyer (nor do i wish to be) | 16:56 |
| rosmaita | i suspect that you are correct there (and IANAL also) | 16:56 |
| fungi | i'll let you know what else i find out when one of the officers with some background on the reason (if there is one) gets back to me | 16:57 |
| fungi | okay, that was faster than anticipated. jonathan confirmed that's exactly why the templates are not published | 16:57 |
| fungi | and he *is* a lawyer (no idea if he wants to be though, the two can be distinct) | 16:58 |
| rosmaita | :) | 16:58 |
| *** dasm is now known as dasm|off | 23:49 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!