| opendevreview | OpenStack Proposal Bot proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: Imported Translations from Zanata https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/916376 | 03:08 |
|---|---|---|
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-manuals master: Imported Translations from Zanata https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/916376 | 06:28 |
| opendevreview | do3meli proposed openstack/openstack-manuals master: update cirros to latest version in obtain images guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/916611 | 07:06 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/openstack-manuals master: update cirros to latest version in obtain images guide https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/916611 | 07:51 |
| frickler | tc-members: I'm a bit sceptical about https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22zed-unmaintained%22, my take from the ptg was that we would first decide how to handle EOLing existing unmaintained branches? in particular that should continue to happen for inactive projects? cc elodilles_pto | 08:38 |
| frickler | tc-members: also I see no update at all on most of the open governance reviews we talked about last week. should we mark the TC as inactive, too? ;) | 08:39 |
| frickler | jamespage: would it be possible for you to ping freyes about https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914254 ? | 08:47 |
| noonedeadpunk | lol | 10:04 |
| * noonedeadpunk was absent previous week, sorry for not updating meeting page with my absence :( | 10:06 | |
| noonedeadpunk | frickler: sorry, regarding https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914911 I didn't reach Alvaro after the discussion, and was also not around previous week to follow up on this | 10:09 |
| frickler | noonedeadpunk: commented on the review, hoping JayF can also take another look. anyway that's not one of the reviews I had in mind earlier | 10:29 |
| noonedeadpunk | Yeah, I'm looking through some of others as well :) | 10:36 |
| *** hberaud_PTO is now known as hberaud | 12:26 | |
| gmann | frickler: ++ on the open reviews for so long. I see queue is growing. One thing I will suggest (we did in past) to monitor those in meeting and ask every tc-members to vote (if they want to abstain they can comment in review) instead of us going Inactive :) | 17:27 |
| gmann | maybe this can help, i use this simple query to know if I missed any governance change to look https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open+NOT+reviewedby:self | 17:27 |
| gmann | at least this keep reminding me to review those even I cannot review right away or need more time to read them. | 17:28 |
| gmann | for Freezer, I am not sure what is blocking on DPL model where we clearly see noonedeadpunk is volunteering to help/helped a lot already making this project Active. DPL or PTL is hardly matter for me as long as we have people maintaning project | 17:29 |
| gmann | I am worried if we keep these kind of paper works hanging around for a long then it can demotivate volunteers | 17:30 |
| noonedeadpunk | ++ | 17:31 |
| JayF | I am out of the office not feeling well today, but I don't intend on changing my vote on that freezer DPL patch until we have something in place to periodically monitor DPL projects. If a majority of the TC disagrees with me, please merge it over my objection. | 17:34 |
| JayF | I don't know that at this point I would have a hard time finding a plus one vote for moving any project to DPL model | 17:34 |
| JayF | I think I said that reverse colon essentially imo dpl model is broken and should not be used for new projects until it is fixed | 17:35 |
| gmann | JayF: that is in my list, I will propose something to monitor DPL projects regularly. something in evening or tomorrow | 17:35 |
| gmann | it is not broken, TC can always and anytime can check DPL project activeness like we do or detect PTL model project | 17:36 |
| gmann | DPL model project can go to Inactive state anytime we find then inactive, same way as PTL model project | 17:36 |
| fungi | the ongoing concern i have is making sure the dpl liaisons listed are active and not many-years-stale entries listing people who are no longer around | 17:39 |
| gmann | only difference is periodic check where PTL projects are checked automatically via election but DPL model does not. this is something I will propose. but along with that, we still need eyes on projects during development cycle also | 17:39 |
| gmann | yeah, we need some policy around those resetting or checking liaisons active or not | 17:39 |
| JayF | fungi highlighted the reason I called DPL "broken". We've proven that without a forcing function, auditing of project contacts doesn't happen on any reliable cadence | 17:40 |
| gmann | it is same for PTL model also if any project having leaders goes inactive or during development cycle PTL goes inactive. we detect them via some signal from release, vmt team etc | 17:41 |
| JayF | Well, PTL model we have every six months a check for activity in the sense that: you either run for election or show up on our radar as leaderless. I agree that may not be enough given recent situations with inactive PTLs e.g. murano. | 17:42 |
| dansmith | I only think DPL is broken as a model when it is used as a "solution" to inactivity | 17:42 |
| dansmith | nova has considered going DPL as early as next cycle, FWIW and I don't think I'd call that broken nor do I think the TC will have trouble getting people to be responsible for things | 17:43 |
| JayF | dansmith: FWIW when Ironic consdiered the same, we got many TC members telling us DPL was more for less active projects and steering us away from it (this was years ago) | 17:43 |
| dansmith | didn't swift and/or keystone do it? | 17:44 |
| fungi | the following teams are or have been dpl at some point: keystone, mistral, oslo, release management, requirements, tripleo | 17:50 |
| fungi | if memory serves, nova nearly opted to switch to dpl a few cycles back owing to having no known ptl volunteers as the nomination window drew near | 17:52 |
| fungi | but was then struggling to find the necessary liaison volunteers too, at one point had a single person say they'd sign up for every liaison position, at which point the tc said "but then that's just a ptl anyway" | 17:53 |
| fungi | and yeah, back in wallaby when dpl was first added, one of the compelling theories was it would be helpful to "less active" projects who had previously struggled to find a singular ptl volunteer | 17:56 |
| gmann | In think, DPL model is not clearly understood or explained in our doc. Whole idea about DPL model was where single person does not want to take all paper work of projects | 17:56 |
| gmann | not like it is for more active or less active project | 17:56 |
| fungi | yes, the twist is that now instead of one volunteer you need multiple volunteers | 17:57 |
| gmann | having leader in either model is one of the thing in project activeness and not complete things. many project with leader can be inactive and any active project can fail to have leader | 17:58 |
| fungi | not necessarily easier to find, and possibly actually harder for teams with very few regular contributors | 17:58 |
| gmann | I am more of interesting in checking the actual activity of project than who is on which leader model | 18:00 |
| noonedeadpunk | I totally agree here with gmann statements just in case, as PTL model is as broken as DPL is | 18:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | We had also bunch of projects with PTL doing nothing | 18:13 |
| noonedeadpunk | so having PTL not implying healthy state | 18:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | and DPL does not mean things are broken | 18:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | I do see DPL as ability to distribute responsibilities and onboard ppl | 18:14 |
| noonedeadpunk | while not picking all burden | 18:15 |
| noonedeadpunk | and yes, we need to monitor DPLs as well as projects with PTLs | 18:15 |
| * gouthamr hasn't ever experienced a DPL in action.. but, thinks that PTLs must be encouraged the same way: "distribute responsibilities and onboard people".. | 18:21 | |
| noonedeadpunk | hard to argue with that. but also not that easy to do... | 18:22 |
| gouthamr | gmann: +1 on tracking pending reviews with our meetings; i've added a bunch of open items on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting; we could start populating the TC activity tracker, or maintain a running review-focus etherpad | 18:32 |
| * gouthamr will send out the agenda to the ML | 18:33 | |
| gouthamr | think the "inactivity" is because our focus is on PTG and AIs all over the place.. we'll need a bit of spring cleaning temporarily to flush the backlog | 18:34 |
| -opendevstatus- NOTICE: Gerrit will be offline for a short time while we rename a project repo. https://lists.opendev.org/archives/list/service-announce@lists.opendev.org/message/KP6NCOKJEYRGFD5FS26CZPVLEKFSY2ZO/ for more details | 20:02 | |
| spotz[m] | Here's a thought from quickly reading the back log. Our PTL check is the elections, could we do something similar? So at election time the DPL for a project need to submit we are remaining DPL? | 20:28 |
| fungi | that's what's being proposed, aiui | 20:31 |
| fungi | some way for people who are dpl volunteers to assert at ptl/tc election time that they're continuing as liaisons for their projects | 20:32 |
| JayF | Yep and if something like that was passed (or was effectively consensus just waiting for votes to be counted) I'd change my vote on freezer DPL patch | 23:44 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!