| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:02 | |
| *** hongbin has quit IRC | 00:17 | |
| *** flwang has quit IRC | 00:45 | |
| *** flwang has joined #openstack-tc | 00:45 | |
| *** zhouyaguo has joined #openstack-tc | 01:22 | |
| *** liujiong has joined #openstack-tc | 01:35 | |
| *** liujiong has quit IRC | 02:16 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 02:23 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 03:46 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 03:52 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 04:04 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 04:34 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 05:31 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 05:35 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 06:32 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 06:36 | |
| *** mtreinish has quit IRC | 08:29 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 08:33 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 08:38 | |
| *** mtreinish has joined #openstack-tc | 08:46 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 09:07 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 09:12 | |
| *** zhouyaguo has quit IRC | 09:32 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 09:34 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 09:39 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 10:16 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 10:44 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 11:36 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 11:41 | |
| openstackgerrit | Dai Dang Van proposed openstack/governance master: Mark Searchlight policy in code as done https://review.openstack.org/520286 | 11:52 |
|---|---|---|
| cdent | flaper87, EmilienM I have a local surf lesson tomorrow. By the time Dublin rolls around I will be ready to host you here. | 11:59 |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 12:19 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 12:27 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 12:28 | |
| openstackgerrit | Thierry Carrez proposed openstack/governance master: Update team corporate diversity tags https://review.openstack.org/522536 | 12:31 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 12:31 | |
| *** dmsimard|afk is now known as dmsimard | 12:55 | |
| flaper87 | cmurphy: w000h00000! | 12:59 |
| flaper87 | ops, cdent ^ | 12:59 |
| cmurphy | :P | 13:00 |
| * cmurphy will learn to surf some day | 13:00 | |
| openstackgerrit | Thierry Carrez proposed openstack/governance master: Add openstack/governance-sigs repo under Meta SIG https://review.openstack.org/522544 | 13:07 |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 13:28 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 13:32 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 13:54 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 14:28 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 14:29 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 14:33 | |
| EmilienM | cdent: oh wow | 14:38 |
| EmilienM | cdent: how big are waves? | 14:39 |
| cdent | depends on the weather, right now they are big and messy: https://magicseaweed.com/Mawgan-Porth-Surf-Report/744/ | 14:39 |
| EmilienM | wow you have webcam so I can watch you surfing | 14:41 |
| ttx | o/ | 15:00 |
| ttx | tc-members assemble | 15:00 |
| EmilienM | o/ | 15:00 |
| ttx | (whoever is around) | 15:01 |
| ttx | I had two quick topics for y'all | 15:01 |
| flaper87 | o/ | 15:01 |
| ttx | First is the idea of a tech blog that was raised in a couple of forum sessions | 15:01 |
| pabelanger | o/ | 15:02 |
| ttx | we could set up something like a static blog from a git repo, with minimal vetting of articles | 15:02 |
| ttx | Is anyone interested in pushing that? | 15:02 |
| flaper87 | ttx: I think we said we would talk with harlowa and see if he was interested | 15:03 |
| flaper87 | IIRC | 15:03 |
| pabelanger | have we figured out version of software? | 15:03 |
| ttx | pelican works well | 15:03 |
| flaper87 | pabelanger: jeez, you just started the bikeshed | 15:03 |
| ttx | (in pythonland) | 15:03 |
| flaper87 | pelican works well | 15:03 |
| * flaper87 uses it | 15:03 | |
| flaper87 | I can help, fwiw | 15:03 |
| * ttx uses it | 15:03 | |
| flaper87 | it's simple to set up | 15:03 |
| pabelanger | Yah, I think I have tried pelican before | 15:04 |
| cmurphy | o/ | 15:04 |
| ttx | personally I'd let whoever sets it up to pick the tool | 15:04 |
| ttx | If I end up doing it, I'll likely use pelican | 15:04 |
| * flaper87 will use pelican | 15:04 | |
| ttx | One question is the publication domain | 15:04 |
| ttx | I'd say something under openstack.org would be good | 15:05 |
| ttx | with the idea that it's where progress report / status repots shall be posted | 15:05 |
| flaper87 | dev.openstack.org | 15:05 |
| flaper87 | or dev-blog.o.o | 15:05 |
| ttx | flaper87: what would be ontopic and offtopic ? Do we want random tech exploration there ? Or just development-related stuff | 15:06 |
| pabelanger | I can help on the infra side with getting it working on a server, that isn't an issue. I am terrible at making HTML things look good, so likely be default theme to start | 15:06 |
| pabelanger | possible we can drive a lot of this from a zuulv3 post job now too | 15:06 |
| flaper87 | default theme for sure | 15:06 |
| ttx | Like a dive into the code of a specific project would be on-topic while description of a userfacing feature would not? | 15:06 |
| flaper87 | ttx: mmh, I'd say just dev/community-related | 15:07 |
| ttx | How would that be different from Planet? | 15:07 |
| ttx | (devil's advocate question) | 15:07 |
| mugsie | It would be more curated, right? | 15:07 |
| pabelanger | I was just going to ask that | 15:07 |
| mugsie | Planet is anyone who wants to add a feed | 15:08 |
| ttx | mugsie: sure, my original question is what would be on topic and off topic | 15:08 |
| mugsie | While this might be more selective per article | 15:08 |
| ttx | We need clear rules for reviewers to follow | 15:08 |
| ttx | Personally I'd like to see content targeted to developers, helping them keep up | 15:08 |
| mugsie | Yeah, that ties into a discussion on twitter today / yesterday | 15:09 |
| cdent | When harlowja mentioned the idea one of the things he wanted to achieve was a way of showing that “cool stuff _does_ happen in openstack" | 15:09 |
| cdent | a sort of technical/dev-oriented marketing | 15:09 |
| ttx | solving the "it's hard to keep up" issue, as well as "weekly meetings suck" issue | 15:09 |
| flaper87 | off topic would be company promotions | 15:09 |
| flaper87 | for example | 15:09 |
| flaper87 | like, I don't think we would see mirantis, rh, or any other company product related posts there | 15:10 |
| flaper87 | but rather: "HEre's how you deploy openstack with kolla/tripleo" | 15:10 |
| ttx | hmm | 15:10 |
| flaper87 | and it's not an aggregator | 15:10 |
| flaper87 | but actually written things | 15:10 |
| flaper87 | for that blog | 15:10 |
| flaper87 | or: "Here's how you do reviews" | 15:10 |
| pabelanger | more tech guides then? | 15:10 |
| flaper87 | "Things to look/help with" | 15:10 |
| flaper87 | pabelanger: not necessarily | 15:10 |
| pabelanger | or here is shiny new feature? | 15:11 |
| flaper87 | just ideas popping up my head | 15:11 |
| flaper87 | pabelanger: yeah | 15:11 |
| cdent | I think we should avoid trying to make it a substitute for things that would otherwise go on the mailing list (activity reports and the like) | 15:11 |
| ttx | The key question is whether tech articles about shiny user-facing feature is on-topic. Is it a tech blog or a dev blog | 15:11 |
| flaper87 | cdent: ++ | 15:11 |
| cdent | It should try to reach a little further than the mailing list | 15:11 |
| ttx | Personally I'd keep it dev-oriented, facilitating upstream development | 15:11 |
| ttx | so new functions in a oslo lib would be on-topic | 15:12 |
| ttx | A new feature in Nova ? Not sure | 15:12 |
| ttx | unless developers are suppsoed to integrate with it | 15:12 |
| ttx | "My awesome dev setup" vs. "How we scaled past 2000 nodes" | 15:12 |
| pabelanger | important updates to doc job building for exmaple? eg: removal of tox | 15:12 |
| EmilienM | /joke we should set a words limit for flaper87 though - he writes too much :P | 15:13 |
| ttx | pabelanger: ontopic | 15:13 |
| cmurphy | but as developers our goal is to make things for users, i don't see how user facing things are off topic | 15:13 |
| flaper87 | EmilienM: ROFL | 15:13 |
| pabelanger | ttx: ++ | 15:13 |
| EmilienM | +1 for pelican and the ideas presented here | 15:13 |
| ttx | cmurphy: it's a question of noise and overlap with superuser | 15:13 |
| ttx | If we encourage ops to follow that blog, that means progress reports are a bit noisy | 15:13 |
| flaper87 | ttx: butm if a kolla developer writes a blog post on how to use kolla-build ? | 15:14 |
| ttx | I'd rather keep those articles on superuser | 15:14 |
| flaper87 | ok | 15:14 |
| mugsie | Yeah, the example that was used was before was the k8s blog, which is more of a "cool end user feature" than upstream Dev blog | 15:14 |
| EmilienM | ttx: re: "How would that be different from Planet?" - not everyone can afford to host a blog when a third party tool isn't an option | 15:14 |
| ttx | flaper87: kolla-build could be on-topic | 15:14 |
| EmilienM | ttx: so I think it's a great idea | 15:14 |
| ttx | depends who the audience is | 15:14 |
| flaper87 | ttx: ok, I guess we'll need a commeettee to review these things | 15:15 |
| pabelanger | wouldn't we point people to planet.o.o if they want everything? And superuser, <new blog>, etc for specific content | 15:15 |
| ttx | mugsie: if what we want to do is a "cool new features in openstack" blog, I think we already have an outlet for that | 15:15 |
| ttx | and it has a lot of subscribers | 15:15 |
| ttx | (superuser) | 15:15 |
| ttx | If what we want is " facilitate dev lives by having a place to post progress reports and other dev-related important info" that's a different idea | 15:16 |
| ttx | more of a dev journal | 15:17 |
| cdent | ttx there’s also the third idea (harlowja’s idea I reiterated above) | 15:17 |
| ttx | something to replace the news you get out of the weekly meetings, more async | 15:17 |
| cdent | I think those news things should go on the mailing list still | 15:17 |
| cdent | otheriwse we are allowing/encouraging people to not use the list, and that will move even more chat to irc and irc is … horrible | 15:18 |
| mugsie | ttx: looking at the posts on the first page of each of those blogs, they are very different | 15:18 |
| ttx | cdent: the feedback I got from that session was that a dev blog would help with status reports, and make another step in more async / less weekly meetings | 15:18 |
| ttx | you think we could just use the ML for that ? | 15:19 |
| ttx | Just with a specific prefix or something like that ? | 15:19 |
| cdent | I’m not certain. I do, however, think that the originating idea for the tech blog was for it to be a _tech_ blog, not a dev news thing. Perhaps there’s room for both? | 15:20 |
| * ttx doesn't really have a horse in that race, just wondering what to do if anything :) | 15:20 | |
| cdent | the thing I like about the dev-news being on the list is that it is more natural for replies, conversation and we lack that in some areas | 15:20 |
| cdent | in a blog situation it’s much more one-sided | 15:20 |
| ttx | cdent: it came from two different directions. One is harlowja's "let's brag about tech achievenments" | 15:20 |
| flaper87 | cdent: ttx what about we just start a mailing list thread and ask what kind of contents ppl would like to see there? or a poll? | 15:20 |
| cdent | flaper87++ | 15:21 |
| flaper87 | I mean, between tech and/or dev-news | 15:21 |
| flaper87 | and some other topics | 15:21 |
| ttx | the other came from "how to make openstack more palatable to part-time contributors" | 15:21 |
| * cdent nods | 15:21 | |
| flaper87 | ok, what topics have we mentioned so far | 15:21 |
| ttx | and I think that's two different ideas | 15:21 |
| flaper87 | dev news, tech, tools | 15:21 |
| ttx | both could be solved with the same technical solution, just not necessarily the same instance of it | 15:22 |
| ttx | it feels like the dev journal could be the next evolution of the dev digest | 15:22 |
| cdent | ttx, yes, and they’re both good ideas, but it is easy for the latter to make the former fade into the background and I think that would be unfortunate, as “lack of cool” is one of the reasons that casual contributors are not inclined to stick around. If a “cool stuff” blog made the cool things more evident... | 15:22 |
| cdent | yes | 15:22 |
| ttx | it is however quite different from a achievements showcase | 15:23 |
| ttx | it would present as much problems than solutions | 15:23 |
| * cdent assumes harlowja is preparing a turkery or other suitable thanksgiving vittles. His input woul be welcome now. | 15:23 | |
| ttx | yeah, as flaper87 said, the best is probably a thread at this point | 15:24 |
| ttx | I was under the impression that there was a lot more alignment on what we want, but that was probably a down-under illusion | 15:24 |
| flaper87 | I'm happy to start it | 15:24 |
| ttx | flaper87: ++ | 15:24 |
| ttx | my concern is to avoid too much overlap between our various publishing venues | 15:25 |
| ttx | I guess the tech blog would just be aggregated to the planet | 15:25 |
| ttx | (or the dev blog) | 15:25 |
| cdent | On another topic, in the last 24 hours or so on twitter there’s been some interesting back forth with regard to several summit feedback postings. One of them led to an idea that might be worth thinking about as it addresses several of the topics that have come up : https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ptl-meeting | 15:26 |
| * smcginnis stops by for a quick look around | 15:26 | |
| flaper87 | mmh, I missed this back and forth | 15:26 |
| cdent | and with regard to alignment on what we want and down under illusion, I think some of the things I’ve said in https://anticdent.org/openstack-forum-view.html may be relevant | 15:26 |
| ttx | PTL meeting strikes me as an exclusion mechanism as the Earth is round | 15:28 |
| ttx | a step back from our need to reinvent collaboration in a global community | 15:28 |
| cdent | also this: https://twitter.com/notmyname/status/933424851456364544 | 15:29 |
| cdent | ttx I think in that case it’s a matter of recognizing the problem that’s trying to solve and looking at that, not looking at the solution | 15:29 |
| mugsie | ttx: yeah, that is a problem, but there does seem to be a need for people to try and keep up | 15:29 |
| ttx | cdent: as an "insider" i don't feel like we weren't discussing those openly before, but maybe that's just me | 15:29 |
| cdent | rob makes it clear that he wishes there was a way to have coherent regular cross-project technicak directiona | 15:29 |
| cdent | I think you’re too inside to know. | 15:30 |
| ttx | I'm the inside of the inside. Doesn't it mean I'm on the outside ? | 15:30 |
| cdent | Could be | 15:30 |
| smcginnis | We used to have a cross-project meeting. But it suffered from lack of interest by some, and the issue of having a set time that doesn't work for everyone. | 15:30 |
| cdent | I suffered from the project not participating | 15:31 |
| cdent | the real issues that rob is talking about is that project leaders don’t behave in a sufficiently cross project fashion, often enough, even if they have good intent | 15:31 |
| ttx | also some want more coordination and some want less | 15:32 |
| mugsie | And the cross project meeting didn't do what Rob outlined - it focused on cross project issues, not what projects are doing | 15:32 |
| ttx | robcresswell and notmyname have different views on how much central direction is needed | 15:32 |
| mugsie | Even knowing what others are working on would help. It is very difficult to distil that from the list | 15:33 |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 15:33 | |
| smcginnis | It seems to me better communication is needed, but having a common time for everyone would be an issue. | 15:33 |
| smcginnis | What about another bot like the success bot? | 15:33 |
| smcginnis | Something like #crossprojectinfo Cinder has feature X in mv 3.14, should get prioritized for horizon. | 15:33 |
| cdent | smcginnis: I don’t think that the status report idea that rob presents in that etherpad is sufficient | 15:33 |
| ttx | or (gasp) an IRC channel | 15:33 |
| mugsie | smcginnis: just decide that all OpenStack work is done in UTC working hours :) | 15:33 |
| cdent | the requirement is _dialog_ | 15:33 |
| smcginnis | mugsie: :) | 15:34 |
| ttx | Frankly, pensatck-dev has always been around and PTLs can use it to coordinate and discuss | 15:34 |
| ttx | and yet they don't | 15:34 |
| cdent | right | 15:34 |
| cdent | that’s the problem | 15:34 |
| cdent | that’s what rob is really complaining about | 15:34 |
| mugsie | ttx: there had not been a culture of doing that | 15:34 |
| ttx | mugsie: there was | 15:34 |
| smcginnis | The thing I would like about a status report is it gives awareness of what may need to be discussed. | 15:35 |
| ttx | it doed when people started setting up project-specific channels | 15:35 |
| ttx | died* | 15:35 |
| mugsie | Oh, ok. | 15:35 |
| ttx | (which happened unofficially) | 15:35 |
| mugsie | Long before I became a ptl, and when PTLs were the TC? | 15:35 |
| ttx | heh, even when there was no TC | 15:36 |
| cdent | what was the pre-tc thing called? I can’t remember | 15:36 |
| ttx | ppb | 15:36 |
| ttx | poc | 15:36 |
| ttx | ab | 15:36 |
| ttx | see https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/introduction.html#a-quick-history-of-openstack-governance | 15:37 |
| cdent | ppb was the acronym i was trying for but I kept getting prb in my head, and that wa a bad thing to search on | 15:37 |
| ttx | Maybe PTL office hours in penstack-dev would go a long way | 15:37 |
| smcginnis | That could work. | 15:38 |
| cdent | that’s a good idea | 15:38 |
| mugsie | Yeah, that might be a good step forward | 15:38 |
| ttx | I just don't want to add too much on teh PTL's plate, so something best effort would be better | 15:38 |
| ttx | office hours are just a way to designate peak hours for discussions | 15:38 |
| ttx | and we found here that they trigger some life between office hours too | 15:38 |
| smcginnis | Worth floating the idea with PTLs and see if it would work for them. | 15:39 |
| ttx | back when the project was all US-based (except me) there was a "project meeting" where everyone joined :) | 15:39 |
| cdent | I think if/when we bring up the idea, it needs to be couched pretty heavily in the reasons why, because just saying “let’s do it” without being really clear about the gap it is trying to fill... | 15:39 |
| mugsie | Yeah, I think updating the etherpad above and posting it to the list would be good | 15:40 |
| smcginnis | ++ | 15:40 |
| ttx | cdent: also I'd be careful about framing it as a "PTL" thing | 15:40 |
| * cdent nods | 15:40 | |
| cmurphy | that does sound very exclusionary, plus puts more responsibility on PTLs when we should be encouraging them to delegate more | 15:41 |
| ttx | if anythign we need to reduce the weight on PTL's plates, and encourage others to participate and step up | 15:41 |
| mugsie | I think there is value in it being put forward as a meeting of cat herders | 15:41 |
| cdent | I do, however, think that there is a void of authority that some people wish would be filled. Rob’s initial comment was in response to mugsie being worried about the at&t wanting the board to own the roadmap. Rob thought that might be a good thing. | 15:41 |
| ttx | cdent: I'm pretty sure people seeing it as a good thing are a minority though | 15:42 |
| cdent | some way to narrow the focus | 15:42 |
| cdent | yes, that particular iteration of filling the void is a bad thing, but maybe there are other forms? | 15:42 |
| ttx | Most think owning the roadmap doesn't get anything on that roadmap done, it's a recipe for frustration | 15:43 |
| cdent | we talked in denver about the “technical themes that matter” announcements, that probably fits in here somewhere | 15:44 |
| ttx | anyway, my second topic was about brainstorming ways to make the PTG scheduling even more dynamic | 15:44 |
| cdent | I think underlying all of this is that there are people in the commuity who are concerned that sometimes we have bad or at least not on the same page actors, and we have no mechanism for dealing with that. | 15:44 |
| ttx | in particular solve the room-day assignment part | 15:44 |
| ttx | Currently we allocate either 2 days on Monday-Tuesday to a "theme" or 3 days at the end for a "team" | 15:45 |
| ttx | but that still creates its share of conflicts and empty rooms | 15:45 |
| ttx | like the TC had a room for two days but basically decided to skip monday morning | 15:45 |
| smcginnis | Reminds me - please comment on the ops midcycle idea of colocatoin if you have input. | 15:45 |
| ttx | smcginnis: i did comment? | 15:46 |
| smcginnis | ttx: Yes, just stating for general awareness while I thought of it. | 15:46 |
| cdent | ttx: in conversation with someone recently they asked that the TC have a stronger and more structured presence at the TC for active feedback | 15:46 |
| ttx | at the PTG? | 15:46 |
| cdent | yes | 15:47 |
| ttx | Yes, for the TC specifically I think meeting on first two days is a mistake | 15:47 |
| cdent | basically if they knew that a lengthy bitch fest was being encouraged, they would show up for it | 15:47 |
| ttx | but more generally | 15:47 |
| ttx | how do we make more efficient use of space | 15:47 |
| cdent | “bitch fest” in the positive sense of shining lights on problems | 15:47 |
| smcginnis | I think it's a hard problem, because we want both some structure and the flexibility to have some things free form. | 15:48 |
| cdent | maybe we should orchestrate a bit more by topic rather than team? | 15:48 |
| cdent | and require a bit more prepration | 15:48 |
| ttx | So in the venue we should be able to announce Monday, there are plenty of rooms, so there is little pressure to solve the optimization problem | 15:48 |
| ttx | cdent: On eidea I've been toying with is the idea of not only schedule topcis dynamically but also where the topic is being discussed | 15:49 |
| cdent | by dynamically do you mean on the fly during the weak? | 15:49 |
| cdent | week | 15:49 |
| ttx | like give labels to all the spots available, and then say #nova now discussing Blah in $fooobar | 15:49 |
| cdent | I think that’s good for some topics | 15:49 |
| ttx | and drop the assigned rooms altogether | 15:50 |
| ttx | I guess we'd still allocate fixed space for lareg teams that have content for all days | 15:50 |
| cdent | but I think isn’t great for some project, e.g. nova (who would easily use up all five days if given the chance) | 15:50 |
| cdent | I also think if we are doing dynamic, there need to be dynamic signs available, as not everyone will be looking at their phone, computer, etc | 15:51 |
| ttx | basically, if a team says "we only have one day worth of discussion", should we really schedule them on a particular day? | 15:51 |
| pabelanger | cdent: +1 | 15:51 |
| ttx | or let them pick a time and a room where they happen not to be stuck somewhere else | 15:51 |
| cdent | maybe we should just get rid of the emphasis on teams? | 15:51 |
| cdent | focus on topics | 15:51 |
| cdent | It’s not #nova now discussion blah | 15:51 |
| cdent | it’s “now dicussing blah” | 15:52 |
| cdent | wow, my typing is _so_ good | 15:52 |
| mugsie | people do identify with teams, and will look for what the team are doing | 15:52 |
| ttx | also do we need to split themes/teams again | 15:53 |
| ttx | 2+3 days | 15:53 |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 15:53 | |
| ttx | the initial goal there was to encourage people to get out of their silos | 15:53 |
| ttx | and join SIGs/horizontal teams / interesting topics | 15:54 |
| ttx | some of that happened | 15:54 |
| cmurphy | if we deemphesize teams then this stops sounding like a replacement for midcycles | 15:54 |
| ttx | but it did create a bit of conflicts for people doing lots of cross-project work | 15:54 |
| ttx | yeah, not a big fan of deemphasizing teams | 15:54 |
| smcginnis | I do like the split. I've seen some getting more involved with cross-cpncerns because of it. But we would still need dedicated team time. | 15:55 |
| ttx | I think having a few days around themes is enough, and keep the team meetings | 15:55 |
| cmurphy | ++ | 15:55 |
| ttx | Maybe we could try something more dynamic for the first two days | 15:55 |
| cdent | was there ever any consideration for doing the cross project non-team stuff in the middle two days, rather than the front? | 15:56 |
| ttx | i.e. not assign rooms to themes | 15:56 |
| cdent | I’m thinking in terms of trying to b reak up the silos | 15:56 |
| smcginnis | Or AM for cross, PM for teams? Just brainstorming. | 15:56 |
| ttx | cdent: the idea with up-front was: | 15:56 |
| cmurphy | ttx: that sounds chaotic to me, i wouldn't be able to plan where i need to be | 15:56 |
| ttx | board members / ops would likely stay after the board meeting for a couple of days rather than the whole week | 15:57 |
| ttx | so "global" discussions should happen first | 15:57 |
| ttx | and 2/ people that are purely silo members could just come for the last 3 days | 15:57 |
| ttx | BUT people actually all come for 5 days | 15:57 |
| ttx | (mostly) | 15:57 |
| pabelanger | Yah, I've see a few people only come for last 3 days in denver | 15:58 |
| ttx | am/pm would further prevent that | 15:58 |
| cdent | the person I mentioned above wanting more structured/agendized TC time at the PTG used the first two days for bike riding | 15:59 |
| ttx | Also another benefit of the 2+3 is that you roll signage only once :) | 15:59 |
| ttx | I know erin is quite happy with only one room turn | 15:59 |
| ttx | anyway, we'll need to solidify the overall schedule really quick, so if you have ideas please let me know | 16:00 |
| ttx | I'll start a thread early next week to extend the discussion to a wider audience | 16:00 |
| ttx | there isn't so much time to change the format or the tools drastically anyway | 16:01 |
| smcginnis | ttx: Probably worth thinking about some more, but overall I am happy with the current structure. | 16:01 |
| cdent | I don’t think there’s anything particulary wrong with 2 + 3 as its been done. What needs to be better is awareness of what’s happening, and some more planning by room owners of what’s happening so other people can plan | 16:01 |
| smcginnis | PTGbot helped a lot last time. | 16:01 |
| smcginnis | And it's just always going to be a challenge for those of us on TC, cross-project, and project specific things. | 16:02 |
| cdent | yes, and I think it would be even more awesome with indepdent ptgbot displays scattered around | 16:02 |
| cdent | smcginnis++ | 16:02 |
| smcginnis | cdent: ++ | 16:02 |
| * cdent swoons | 16:02 | |
| ttx | yeah and again, Dublin won't have too much room constraints... For the next one we might want to be creative to better make use of the space and reduce our needs | 16:02 |
| cdent | ttx has the venue been chosen? | 16:02 |
| smcginnis | You can tell us, we'll keep it secret. :D | 16:03 |
| ttx | cdent: contract passed legal review and was expected to be signed before end of week | 16:03 |
| ttx | erin hopes to announce Monday | 16:03 |
| cdent | fun | 16:03 |
| ttx | I'll leak that it's a venue with lots of space | 16:03 |
| cdent | you don’t say :) | 16:03 |
| pabelanger | speaking of PTG, did we actually decide not to have TC / board meeting this time round? I know it was discussed a few times before summit | 16:04 |
| ttx | we decided not to have a Board+TC+UC meeting | 16:04 |
| pabelanger | ty | 16:04 |
| ttx | The Board will still meet. Likely on the Monday | 16:04 |
| cdent | That reminds me: several board members asked me after the last one “What’s wrong with the TC people, why don’t they speak?” | 16:05 |
| ttx | i speak a lot. Monty speaks a lot. | 16:05 |
| ttx | I think others are just conscious that everyone can't speak in a 30-people meeting? | 16:05 |
| mugsie | If it is the venue I think it is, there is *a lot* of space | 16:05 |
| cdent | which is a) concering and interesting, b) further reminds me that I think not having the joint meeting is a shame | 16:05 |
| cmurphy | some of us are shy :P | 16:06 |
| smcginnis | Hard to chime in with a room full of 50 people and 25 mics. | 16:06 |
| cdent | was monty at the most recent one? | 16:06 |
| mugsie | I didn't see him, I don't think | 16:06 |
| mugsie | I was very jet lagged though | 16:06 |
| ttx | cdent: no, he was no longer on the tC nor the board | 16:06 |
| cdent | I’m now saying would should all talk, but it is interesting that more than one board member expected us to say “more” in resonse to the foundation expansion and were disappointed by the lack of input | 16:06 |
| cdent | s/now/not/ | 16:07 |
| ttx | ah, you mean, TC people with objections did not speak their minds? | 16:07 |
| cdent | presumably providing input and feedback is why we’re there | 16:07 |
| ttx | I guess when your boss is in the room that reduces your options too | 16:07 |
| cdent | they don’t know, because not many people spoke on the topic. I did, jeremy did. | 16:07 |
| smcginnis | cdent: As far as that topic goes, that's an interesting comment since the change would specifically not impact the TC. | 16:08 |
| ttx | I think it's good that we have topics to present. I think it's not practical to expect everyone to speak on everything. The board meetings used to be that way, was pretty painful | 16:08 |
| cdent | Was it painful or merely active? | 16:10 |
| ttx | painful, the meetings would cover two topics and rants would go on for 30 minutes as people were trying to show how smart they were and how much you should but their startups | 16:11 |
| ttx | buy* | 16:11 |
| ttx | (no names) | 16:12 |
| mugsie | Vs nearly an hour over a single sentence for a board motion? | 16:12 |
| smcginnis | :) | 16:12 |
| ttx | mugsie: imagnie that, but all the time | 16:12 |
| cdent | that does sound fairly painful, but it would be a shame if we didn’t come back to some middle ground where there is some active debate | 16:13 |
| ttx | anyway, that joint meeting was artificially created as there was a perceived gap in communication between the board the TC and the UC. I think that's mostly solved and now it turned into a "leadership" meeting with no clear goals | 16:14 |
| cdent | how has it been solved? the only time I communicate with the board and the uc is at those meetings? | 16:14 |
| ttx | I mean, there aren't so many things to communicate about. We are mostly aligned on strategic issues | 16:15 |
| mugsie | And I would prefer things like that at&t proposal happen with TC people in the room, rather than just board members | 16:15 |
| ttx | For example, the TC vision was nearly point by point the same as what the joint meeting came up with | 16:15 |
| smcginnis | But is that because we've been meeting? | 16:15 |
| ttx | smcginnis: yes. Means meeting sometimes is useful. Doesn't mean we should meet 4 times per year | 16:16 |
| ttx | or that everyone needs to come every time | 16:17 |
| smcginnis | During PTG, I think it's probably good if we have a "this is what the BoD discussed at the meeting" update during the TC sessions. | 16:17 |
| ttx | smcginnis: the board rarely discusses / decides something that affects the TC, though? | 16:18 |
| ttx | (by design under the bylaws) | 16:18 |
| smcginnis | Yes, but still nice to get that "bigger picture" I think. | 16:18 |
| ttx | smcginnis: that assumes there is one and they have it | 16:18 |
| cdent | I think many people keep saying “we need to work on the big picture” and “the way to work on the big picture is by communicating, together" | 16:19 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, just saying if there is one at the PTG that the TC is not a part of, then at a minimum I think it would be good to get an update on it. | 16:19 |
| ttx | personally I feel like the "joint" meeting could be something like 3 people from each governance body, rather than 30 people with half of them sleeping | 16:19 |
| cdent | “half of them sleeping” is highly relevant (to me) signal :) | 16:20 |
| ttx | remove the need to participate and replace with the will to participate | 16:20 |
| cdent | how about if you don’t have the will to participate you can’t be on the board? | 16:20 |
| smcginnis | :) | 16:20 |
| * smcginnis needs to go mash yams or something | 16:21 | |
| cdent | yeah, I’m supposed to make cornbread, but lack some key ingredients | 16:21 |
| * ttx stops brainstorming aloud | 16:21 | |
| pabelanger | I was mostly just listening at TC/Board meeting, absorbing everything. But I did nod along when I agreed :) | 16:23 |
| cdent | ttx brainstorming aloud is _exactly_ what I think we need more of | 16:24 |
| cdent | but yeah | 16:24 |
| * cdent heads to the kitchen | 16:24 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 17:07 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 17:19 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 17:28 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 17:36 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 17:44 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 18:10 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:10 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 18:14 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 18:17 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 18:46 | |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 19:20 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 19:20 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 19:46 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 19:51 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 20:27 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 20:45 | |
| *** hongbin has joined #openstack-tc | 21:16 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 21:35 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 22:01 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 22:22 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: Zuul has been restarted due to an unexpected issue. We're able to re-enqueue changes from check and gate pipelines, please check http://zuulv3.openstack.org/ for more information. | 22:55 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 23:56 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!