| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/governance master: Appoint Dmitriy Rabotyagov as Vitrage PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/882139 | 11:12 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/governance master: Clarify expectations on keeping Python versions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/882154 | 14:09 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/governance master: Add py38 as a PTI requirement for libraries https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/882165 | 16:11 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/governance master: Add py38 as a PTI requirement for libraries https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/882165 | 16:13 |
| opendevreview | Dmitriy Rabotyagov proposed openstack/governance master: Clarify expectations on keeping Python versions https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/882154 | 16:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | To be frank I'm quite confused about selected forums for Vancouver. Specifically about the fact that kolla did get user forum while OSA was not approved. I really do wonder how this choice has been made | 16:45 |
| noonedeadpunk | I feel some kind of discrimination here... | 16:47 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: is selection if final? I got TC+PTL interaction forum sessions approval twice but still waiting for RBAC feedback forum sessions which is important I think | 17:23 |
| gmann | I think it is still in progress? aprice do you know about the forum selection end date ^^ ? I think you mentioned it in yesterday board meeting. | 17:24 |
| noonedeadpunk | Well, I got email that it's rejected, so... | 17:24 |
| fungi | the concern raised has been brought to the attention of the foundation staff organizing the forum sessions as well, so hopefully we'll have more info on the rationale soon | 17:25 |
| fungi | though i'm sure part of it is just the limited amount of forum space/time we have for the venue | 17:25 |
| fungi | and hard choices were made | 17:26 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: ohk | 17:26 |
| noonedeadpunk | fungi: well, hard choice would be to reject both in favor of smth else... | 17:27 |
| fungi | it's possible rejecting all forum sessions for deployment projects would have resulted in fairer results | 17:27 |
| dansmith | score another point for virtual meetups :) | 17:27 |
| gmann | noonedeadpunk: its looks strange to me too | 17:27 |
| fungi | or simply candelling the forum sessions altogether in order to avoid making it look like the projects who got forum sessions were given special privilege in some way | 17:27 |
| fungi | s/candelling/cancelling/ | 17:28 |
| * dansmith was googling candelling | 17:28 | |
| fungi | or i suppose we could allot a percentage of the forum sessions to openstack and then let the tc decide which projects get them | 17:28 |
| gmann | if I remember it used to be two representative from TC to select the forum sessions but it is not now | 17:29 |
| gmann | or we can have some filtered category like all operator facing sessions only to be proposed or selected | 17:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | It would be completely understandable that deployment projects jsut don't have space - I can agree there're more important things where time can be invested | 17:31 |
| fungi | apparently spotz was on the forum selection committee, so may also have some insight into the choices that were made | 17:32 |
| fungi | so it's not as if there were no tc members on the selection committee at least, but i would encourage more tc members to volunteer next time | 17:38 |
| gmann | fungi: I think it is ask in ML and first come first serve basis right ? | 17:39 |
| Guest83 | That is correct gmann | 17:40 |
| Guest83 | Ugh. | 17:40 |
| Guest83 | Gotta fix nick. | 17:40 |
| Guest83 | One sec. | 17:40 |
| gmann | so TZ play important role in that who reply first | 17:41 |
| *** Guest83 is now known as diablo_rojo | 17:41 | |
| diablo_rojo | Better. | 17:41 |
| diablo_rojo | My volunteers were Amy, then Tony Breeds then Sylvain Bauzas | 17:42 |
| diablo_rojo | In that order. And Tony was maybe 5 min after Amy. | 17:42 |
| diablo_rojo | I'd have to double check but I don't think Sylvain was long after the two of them. | 17:43 |
| gmann | yeah so it is also who is online that time and does not give other to chance to nominate themselves, may be we need to improve it but anyways concern is user forum are selected for few project and rejected for other even same sessions ^^ | 17:45 |
| fungi | are you arguing for a larger selection committee, or for a larger share of the selection committee members to be openstack representatives, or...? | 17:46 |
| fungi | note that the vast majority of the accepted forum sessions are openstack-specific, so openstack as a whole isn't under-represented in the schedule | 17:46 |
| noonedeadpunk | all forum sessions are openstack to what I see here https://vancouver2023.openinfra.dev/a/schedule?_ga=2.163912319.1170072892.1683132162-2024783656.1646814100 | 17:47 |
| gmann | I am not arguing anything I was just replying on the selection things which came up here | 17:47 |
| gmann | it is concern on user forum selected for 1 project and not for other. | 17:48 |
| fungi | in this context, "arguing" is a synonym for "recommending" | 17:48 |
| fungi | i was asking what changes you were trying to suggest | 17:48 |
| diablo_rojo | noonedeadpunk: there are a few that are open infra s opposed to OpenStack. | 17:48 |
| noonedeadpunk | diablo_rojo: Yes, I think it's still Kolla vs OSA forum sessions. One was approved, another rejected | 17:48 |
| gmann | fungi: my recommendation is either 1. I think you suggestion, to allocation space per openinfra project and ask their governance to select OR 2. to open nomination for period of time, let's everyone interested one nominate themselves and then select few as per defined criteria. | 17:50 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann: while true, I have not always sent out the call each forum at the same time, so there is timezone variation. | 17:50 |
| dansmith | 3. virtual meetups | 17:51 |
| dansmith | (okay I'll stop sorry) | 17:52 |
| * bauzas ducks | 17:59 | |
| bauzas | I had some concerns with the Berlin Forum due to some sessions that were actually some kind of Summit presentations... | 18:01 |
| bauzas | but I'll look at the agenda :-) | 18:02 |
| aprice[m] | coming in a bit late, but happy to help get this to a place where folks are comfortable with the programming. | 18:06 |
| aprice[m] | i think it would be valuable to get insight from the folks who picked the sessions on why one was / wasn't chosen. but we still do have options in terms of making sure OSA is represented. This could include operator hours at the PTG or maybe seeing if the kolla folks would like to combine to have a broader deployment based conversation. | 18:07 |
| aprice[m] | We had 23 forum sessions get rejected for a variety of reasons, so I don' think that OSA (or any other project) were necessarily targeted. it just comes down to a decision a group of volunteers needs to be made. | 18:08 |
| aprice[m] | When it comes to the volunteers, even if a quota is hit, those folks should still represent the interest of the broader community. So I would encourage the TC to communicate with their representative to ensure that the right content is selected. | 18:09 |
| noonedeadpunk | I would say not targeted, but internally preffered one over another not based on the content but based on the attitude to the project | 18:10 |
| noonedeadpunk | Which is the problem I actually have | 18:10 |
| aprice[m] | well and that's why we ask the governance bodies to help select, because ideally those folks would make the decisions more fairly | 18:10 |
| aprice[m] | noonedeadpunk: then as a next step, what I would like to propose is that I can reach out to Amy and Tony to get more insight into the decision. But we can also use the reservable PTG room on Thursday (which will have the same setup as the Forum) for the OSA talk. We can't do this for every rejected talk, but I do want it to atleast be fair. | 18:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | Yeah, would be really interesting to hear background, as maybe I'm unfair and too opionated as well :) | 18:14 |
| aprice[m] | to be transparent, that room will be reservable for anyone, so even if you would like to take time to decide, that could still be an option. any PTG team can reserve either of those rooms for Thursday for that use case | 18:14 |
| aprice[m] | well let's focus on a solution then :) | 18:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | aprice[m]: but that won't make to the schedule, so in would need to be somehow internally announced, right? | 18:15 |
| aprice[m] | noonedeadpunk - we can make it to the schedule | 18:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | I think it will work for us then | 18:16 |
| aprice[m] | we are still working on how the PTG will be represented since the PTG bot is a bit more dynamic, but for things like operator hours or specific discussions where teams WANT broader participation, we are more than happy to put it on the schedule | 18:16 |
| aprice[m] | the other PTG meetings benefit from not being on the schedule, imo to avoid folks getting confused | 18:16 |
| aprice[m] | but open to feedback there :) | 18:17 |
| aprice[m] | as a next step, I will be working with diablo_rojo on getting that signup distributed for folks to reserve space. It will likely be next week so we can finalize how many slots we have. I'll make sure to ping you noonedeadpunk when it's live | 18:19 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ awesome, thanks aprice[m]! | 18:19 |
| aprice[m] | np! sorry that i was slow to jump in as I had a few other meetings, but glad we got to a good spot. Thank you for sharing the feedback! | 18:19 |
| gmann | aprice[m]: agree if we can go back to governance representative in selection and it can be handled at project level | 18:20 |
| aprice[m] | +100 | 18:20 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!