| *** tkajinam is now known as Guest1349 | 01:24 | |
| opendevreview | wu.chunyang proposed openstack/election master: Adding chunyang wu candidacy for Trove https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/910488 | 01:25 |
|---|---|---|
| tonyb | JayF,ianychoi: ^^^ this election review doe PTL candidate came through late (by less than 2 hours) but the candidate DID declare their intent in time (https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/message/XMMZBN6WPADKVJMQX3ZZX3AIUBACWQ2T/) I understand that it isn't within the 'letter of the law' for an election but in the spirit of community etc I'm inclined to treat this as an exception and approve it. | 01:41 |
| tonyb | JayF, ianychoi: Thoughts? | 01:41 |
| tonyb | gmann: cc ^^ | 01:41 |
| opendevreview | Ian Y. Choi proposed openstack/election master: Fix minor election tool bugs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/910563 | 03:50 |
| opendevreview | Ian Y. Choi proposed openstack/election master: Election template fix: combined end nominations https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/910564 | 03:53 |
| ianychoi | I agree with tonyb as an exception | 03:58 |
| frickler | I'm sceptical about that exception. if it had been the first time happening, ok, but the candidate has a track record of needing an appointment due to late applications and should have known better before. so I'd vote to follow the rules and have the TC consider this case via a possible appointment again | 06:55 |
| bauzas | timezones don't help here if you want MHO | 08:09 |
| bauzas | midnight UTC means something like 8am for China | 08:09 |
| *** elodilles_pto is now known as elodilles | 08:29 | |
| opendevreview | Artem Goncharov proposed openstack/governance master: Add OpenAPI related projects under the OpenStackSDK https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/910581 | 08:33 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Fix minor election tool bugs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/910563 | 08:57 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/election master: Election template fix: combined end nominations https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/election/+/910564 | 09:59 |
| *** tosky_ is now known as tosky | 11:48 | |
| spotz[m] | Is it an exception if the candidate was on time but we weren't? Most of the time it's because the candidate was late | 13:14 |
| frickler | spotz[m]: well the candidate was late in submitting a patch to the election repo. they did send their candidate statement to the ML a day before (or 2 even, depending on where your day starts/ends?) | 13:26 |
| spotz[m] | Ahh ok, I thought the patch was on time | 13:30 |
| spotz[m] | If there's no other candidate they'll just end up TC appointed | 13:31 |
| frickler | spotz[m]: again. yes, that's what I was arguing for. and if I didn't miss anything, we again have no team with more than one PTL candidate. but 7 for 5 TC seats | 13:37 |
| spotz[m] | Yes so as Ian mailed we are currently in the campaigning stage for the TC election, after the election the TC and PTL candidates will be seated then the TC will appoint the unfilled PTL seats with folks like this one and by asking for volunteers | 13:41 |
| spotz[m] | So what I'm seeing in the repo there's still no election for Trove unless I missed something | 13:52 |
| *** ralonsoh_ is now known as ralonsoh | 13:59 | |
| frickler | tc-members: did you ever consider how bug-tracking for unmaintained branches would look like? like could I simply close https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2052950 as "won't fix" or even invalid? (cc kopecmartin) | 15:49 |
| dansmith | frickler: if it's unmaintained and not eol, I guess I would expect it to still be useful for the (un)maintainers | 15:50 |
| dansmith | where else are they going to do it | 15:50 |
| dansmith | are you pointing out that of the (un)maintainers aren't in the usual bug groups then they won't be able to take action on those? | 15:51 |
| frickler | I'm mainly pointing out that I as a maintainer get mail for such issues when the idea was to relieve project teams from being burdened by unmaintained branches | 15:52 |
| frickler | but also the unmaintainers likely don't plus I haven't seen much action from them yet to fix things | 15:53 |
| dansmith | ack, well, the same goes for gerrit mail if you're subscribed to a whole project I think | 15:53 |
| dansmith | ack | 15:53 |
| frickler | well gerrit at least in theory should allow to filter by branch, launchpad doesn't | 15:54 |
| dansmith | yup true | 15:54 |
| fungi | though also launchpad doesn't make it easy for someone to file a bug against a specific branch (setting what series it impacts is usually limited to bug supervisors) | 15:57 |
| frickler | JayF: in that context, are you still working on the mail regarding gate and unmaintained or did I miss it? | 16:04 |
| JayF | I was chasing c-3 all week, workign with sean on testing for sharding, that has gotten as far as it's going so will point brain at that today | 16:05 |
| JayF | making a reminder so it won't slip | 16:05 |
| frickler | cool, thx | 16:16 |
| JayF | frickler: tonyb: To me, the deciding factor *against* any kind of exception is simple: it won't be this TC that decides who to appoint PTL; so essentially we'd be taking power away from the incoming committee | 17:09 |
| gmann | tonyb: ianychoi JayF: I agree with frickler. it might create confusion and issue because in past we have always declined the members for late candidacy. I think it is no issue in PTL appointment by TC for such late candidacy. | 18:35 |
| gmann | we increased the nomination time from 1 week to two weeks for same reason of decreasing the late candidacy but it seems it helped little bit but we always have some late candidacies | 18:36 |
| gmann | in these cases, it might look ok but imagine if more than one candidate case and later one is late nomination and ask us for exception. that will be unfair for election process. | 18:38 |
| gmann | frickler: on unmaintained branch bug, I think we can just keep them open and expect unmaintained branches maintainers to look into those. I know we as QA team keep checking those but at some point we have to stop. | 18:40 |
| gmann | I kept myself away for setting up the tempest testing on unmaintained branches which is lot of work/testing. if anyone ask help definitely i can help or point to the past EM release changes of 'how it can be done' | 18:41 |
| gmann | frickler: one way can be to tag them as 'unmaintained-release' and if email can be filter with this 'key'. I just did tag that devstack bug as 'unmaintained-release' will see how next email notification looks like and if we can filter email with 'unmaintained-release' key | 18:55 |
| gmann | tc-members: reminder to vote on this version of 2024.2 testing runtime (change from previous version is added notes) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/908862 | 19:01 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Define testing runtime for 2024.2 release https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/908862 | 20:39 |
| dansmith | gmann: yeah I mean I was kinda expecting to see more of a specific callout for 3.12, or that 24.04 will include a python known to break stuff | 21:31 |
| dansmith | what's there now seems like a footnote that's easy to ignore | 21:31 |
| dansmith | that said, I'm sick of arguing over what seems like a minor thing to just highlight an issue, so I'll just stop complaining | 21:31 |
| dansmith | RC+1 with slightly less doomsday tone :) | 21:35 |
| gmann | dansmith: it is at same level of section as Distribution and python runtime. because we can add both distro as well as python versions so i kept it at the end | 21:41 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!