| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 00:23 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 00:28 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 00:31 | |
| tbarron | vkmc isn't here but she would love an opportunity to blame flaper87 ^^^ | 00:32 |
|---|---|---|
| * tbarron crawls back into his hole | 00:33 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 01:02 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 01:05 | |
| *** ricolin_ has joined #openstack-tc | 01:11 | |
| openstackgerrit | Goutham Pacha Ravi proposed openstack/governance master: Fix width of team badges svg https://review.openstack.org/577020 | 01:26 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 01:36 | |
| fungi | gouthamr: looks like all 5 are visible in the draft rendering! http://logs.openstack.org/20/577020/1/check/build-openstack-sphinx-docs/e12d27a/html/badges/manila.svg | 01:38 |
| gouthamr | fungi: yep :) | 01:38 |
| gouthamr | fungi: thanks for the pointer, the find did make my day :D | 01:38 |
| fungi | thanks for the fix! | 01:39 |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 02:06 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 02:10 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 02:37 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 02:42 | |
| *** spsurya has joined #openstack-tc | 02:51 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 02:53 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 02:57 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 02:57 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 03:27 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 03:58 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 04:02 | |
| *** dansmith has quit IRC | 04:29 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 05:13 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 05:14 | |
| *** dansmith has joined #openstack-tc | 05:31 | |
| *** dansmith is now known as Guest88320 | 05:32 | |
| *** alex_xu has quit IRC | 05:57 | |
| *** alex_xu has joined #openstack-tc | 06:03 | |
| *** aprice has quit IRC | 06:45 | |
| *** aprice has joined #openstack-tc | 06:48 | |
| *** aprice has quit IRC | 06:54 | |
| *** aprice has joined #openstack-tc | 06:58 | |
| *** srwilkers has quit IRC | 07:02 | |
| *** srwilkers has joined #openstack-tc | 07:17 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:40 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 07:56 | |
| ttx | yes I blame flaper87. | 08:09 |
| openstackgerrit | Witold Bedyk proposed openstack/governance master: Update WSGI goal status for Monasca https://review.openstack.org/577087 | 08:09 |
| ttx | fungi, dhellmann: Adam Harwell touched on the Castellan vs. Barbican choice at http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-June/131693.html | 08:29 |
| ttx | icymi | 08:30 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 09:01 | |
| *** dtantsur|afk is now known as dtantsur | 09:41 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 09:55 | |
| *** spsurya has quit IRC | 09:58 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 10:00 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:10 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:12 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:16 | |
| flaper87 | ttx: ttx makes total sense to me | 11:27 |
| flaper87 | tbarron: ^ | 11:27 |
| flaper87 | "Works in my brain (TM)" | 11:27 |
| tbarron | flaper87 :D | 11:27 |
| smcginnis | Did we come to a concensus on whether we should be updating past goals? https://review.openstack.org/577087 | 11:30 |
| *** rosmaita has joined #openstack-tc | 11:55 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 11:58 | |
| dims | o/ | 12:08 |
| smcginnis | Morning dims. | 12:16 |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 12:48 | |
| fungi | ttx: thanks, i thought i replied | 12:50 |
| fungi | oh, hah, my reply is still open in the editor | 12:50 |
| ttx | hah | 12:50 |
| fungi | i guess i passed out writing it last night | 12:50 |
| ttx | sticky emails, won't fly | 12:50 |
| fungi | indeed | 12:52 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : I thought the consensus was to update the status for existing deliverables but not add new ones | 12:56 |
| smcginnis | dhellmann: OK, that makes sense to me. | 12:56 |
| dhellmann | that kolla patch from a while back was updated based on that interpretation and then approved; this one is adding another patch to a list so I think it's fine, too | 12:57 |
| dhellmann | ttx, fungi: it sounds like octavia should rely on barbican and barbicanclient | 12:58 |
| fungi | i agree | 12:58 |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 12:58 | |
| fungi | either that, or make the features that would need it optional | 12:58 |
| dhellmann | yes, or that | 12:59 |
| fungi | but given that octavia isn't covered in a trademark program at the moment, adding a dependency on another api service which also isn't covered in a trademark program shouldn't pose any major hurdles because we don't need to communicate that as future direction to the interop wg | 13:00 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/governance master: Fix width of team badges svg https://review.openstack.org/577020 | 13:00 |
| dhellmann | that's true | 13:01 |
| openstackgerrit | Sean McGinnis proposed openstack/governance master: Add note about tracking cycle goals post-cycle https://review.openstack.org/577149 | 13:05 |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-tc | 13:21 | |
| cdent | anybody noodling summit submissions? | 13:22 |
| fungi | i'm lucky if i can plan out what i'm doing next week much less in november | 13:27 |
| cdent | yeah, same | 13:29 |
| jaypipes | cdent: here's a proposed title for you: "I don't always talk about marketing, but when I do, I make sure to mention edge and blockchain." | 13:39 |
| jaypipes | cdent: I'm sure it would go over well in Berlin. | 13:39 |
| * jaypipes goes back into his cave. | 13:40 | |
| cdent | jaypipes: That's a start, but I think what we really want is to talk about some vaporware that we'll be sure to opensource real soon now that uses the blockchain to securely store and describe our deployment intents for our 10,000 edge nodes | 13:40 |
| * cdent waits for the VC funding to roll in | 13:41 | |
| jaypipes | cdent: s/securely store and describe our deployment intents/solve the existential tomato provenance crisis/ | 13:41 |
| * jaypipes sends cdent a giant wad of $latest_coin_IPO_scam | 13:42 | |
| cdent | woot! | 13:42 |
| jaypipes | cdent: you are now officially seeded. | 13:42 |
| *** spsurya has joined #openstack-tc | 13:44 | |
| fungi | i still need to get around to making my suckercoin idea a reality | 13:57 |
| *** zhipeng has joined #openstack-tc | 13:58 | |
| fungi | the great philosopher pt barnum said "there's a sucker born every minute" so instead of mining bits my coins will be mined from suckers. i figure that has much better scalability | 14:15 |
| dhellmann | oh, I thought you were going to say a new coin would be created every minute | 14:15 |
| ttx | ICO-driven collaborative development. Submit a review, mine a coin | 14:21 |
| smcginnis | Bring on the one character code comment spelling fixes. :D | 14:22 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 14:37 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 14:40 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 14:48 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 14:56 | |
| fungi | it'll be like the old days when your typo fix got you free conference admission | 14:57 |
| ttx | o/ | 15:00 |
| fungi | #startmeeting tc | 15:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Jun 21 15:00:21 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is fungi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:00 |
| cdent | tc-members let's assemble | 15:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:00 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 15:00 |
| fungi | #topic Office Hour | 15:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Office Hour (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:00 | |
| fungi | #chair ttx cdent | 15:00 |
| openstack | Current chairs: cdent fungi ttx | 15:00 |
| smcginnis | o/ | 15:00 |
| fungi | #chair smcginnis | 15:00 |
| openstack | Current chairs: cdent fungi smcginnis ttx | 15:00 |
| mnaser | o/ | 15:01 |
| cdent | #chair mnaser | 15:01 |
| openstack | Current chairs: cdent fungi mnaser smcginnis ttx | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | o/ | 15:01 |
| cdent | #chair dhellmann | 15:01 |
| openstack | Current chairs: cdent dhellmann fungi mnaser smcginnis ttx | 15:02 |
| smcginnis | Maybe we need a standard single #chair line we can paste for the whole TC. :D | 15:02 |
| cdent | this is more fun somehow | 15:02 |
| cdent | because of all the pinging | 15:02 |
| smcginnis | ;) | 15:02 |
| fungi | heh | 15:02 |
| cmurphy | o/ | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | we could make it a chain. each person who is chaired has to chair the next in line | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | it's like saying hello :-) | 15:02 |
| cdent | zaneb: you around? Is adjutant a topic we need to hash today? | 15:02 |
| fungi | go for it | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | oh, that's me | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | #chair cmurphy | 15:03 |
| openstack | Current chairs: cdent cmurphy dhellmann fungi mnaser smcginnis ttx | 15:03 |
| fungi | we're up to 7 out of 13, not bad | 15:03 |
| dhellmann | how are folks doing with their liaison outreach? has anyone had trouble reaching a team's PTL? | 15:04 |
| smcginnis | I have not gotten there yet. :/ | 15:04 |
| * cmurphy hasn't started yet | 15:04 | |
| mnaser | i need to follow up on mine but i'm starting to feel a weird possible conflict of interest on projects im directly involved in | 15:04 |
| smcginnis | Should be able to do that today. Or at least get started on it. | 15:04 |
| fungi | anybody who wants to weigh in on the castellan base service addition thread revival from yesterday, please do | 15:04 |
| mnaser | feeling like i might be biased in my opinion in a way | 15:04 |
| smcginnis | mnaser: On the other hand, you have a really good feel for the state of the project. | 15:05 |
| mnaser | my plan is to hash it out with who i'm paired with to say "this is what i see, if you see it different, please let me know" | 15:05 |
| ttx | Did two, went well and was appreciated i think | 15:05 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : that's a good insight, and it's part of why I wanted 2 people on each project. | 15:05 |
| ttx | dhellmann: any opinion on my traffic lights icons ? | 15:05 |
| johnsom | Are there more questions about Octavia's support of both Barbican and Castellan? | 15:05 |
| dhellmann | ttx: I like those. I mean to ask if you were thinking of putting them in the table, or just in the summaries? | 15:05 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 15:06 | |
| ttx | I was thinking just in summaries, as a business summary | 15:06 |
| dhellmann | wfm | 15:06 |
| ttx | I don't want it to turn into yet another badge | 15:06 |
| dhellmann | yeah, good point | 15:06 |
| ttx | and I feel like a table at the top would... facilitate that | 15:06 |
| dims | o/ | 15:06 |
| *** guvnah has joined #openstack-tc | 15:07 | |
| mnaser | #chair dims | 15:07 |
| openstack | Current chairs: cdent cmurphy dhellmann dims fungi mnaser smcginnis ttx | 15:07 |
| *** zhipeng has quit IRC | 15:07 | |
| mnaser | yeah i feel health being a tag would be problematic for the growth of the project and general morale | 15:07 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I was wondering what would be the color of Requirements after your check | 15:07 |
| smcginnis | Agree | 15:07 |
| ttx | needing urgent action (red) or just a warning (orange) ? | 15:07 |
| mnaser | it's already hard enough going through a rough time in a project, even worse for morale if you have a red "this team is a problem" | 15:08 |
| ttx | To be fair, I don't see red as a satin, could be that we need to add it to the help list | 15:08 |
| ttx | stain* | 15:08 |
| dhellmann | ttx: very dark orange? :-) | 15:08 |
| smcginnis | Burnt umber | 15:08 |
| mnaser | i love that we work in the open but sometimes i feel if that health tracker page was private to tc, it might avoid teams feeling like they are "the problem" | 15:08 |
| ttx | Basically if the team requires further work from eth TC, I'd put red | 15:08 |
| mnaser | (recalling nova team discussion) | 15:08 |
| ttx | like if you create a storyboard entry about it, then red | 15:09 |
| ttx | orange is like... we need to pay some attention | 15:09 |
| mnaser | *only* if the team asks for it too imho (im assuming thats what you mean) | 15:09 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : yeah, I've been trying to focus on identifying areas where we can help, rather than looking at it as anything (or anyone) failing | 15:09 |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 15:09 | |
| dhellmann | ttx: that seems like a good way to draw the distinction | 15:09 |
| ttx | mnaser: yeah, we had a discussion about it with cdent... Hard to balance | 15:09 |
| fungi | i worry that the traffic lights, like many things we do, will be seen as implying something more and some teams will either object to getting a red/yellow light or pressure to get a green purely for reasons of perception | 15:09 |
| ttx | fungi: I'm happy retiring them once they start being a bit too... public | 15:10 |
| ttx | It's just a convenient shortcut | 15:10 |
| fungi | but yeah, it's too early to know for sure how any of them will take it | 15:11 |
| * ttx adds a "concern" | 15:11 | |
| mnaser | the OSA team overall is going through a really hard time right now | 15:11 |
| mnaser | PTL changed employer, isnt as involved with openstack as he can, many of current cores are not directly employed to do OSA work, it's just a small part of what they do so contributions+reviews are down | 15:12 |
| mnaser | but there is a huge user base and more and more people wanting/needing to use it | 15:12 |
| * mnaser feels this is a very common issue with deployment projects | 15:12 | |
| dhellmann | that feels like exactly the sort of thing we need to know about, for exactly the reason that there are so many users | 15:12 |
| mnaser | i've been doing a lot of work trying to unbreak gates and improve testing but struggles have been just getting enough reviews to merge code, it comes in bursts or so, as cores have free time here and tehre | 15:13 |
| mnaser | meeting participation is significantly down too, so yeah, it's a bit rough on that side of things. but i hope i'm not just taking all the attention on one project :) | 15:15 |
| cdent | I would expect most of that is common to a lot of projects, especially deployment-related ones, as you say, but also plenty of others. telemetry is a bit like that | 15:15 |
| dhellmann | yes, I suspect that's going to be something we see for several teaems | 15:16 |
| dhellmann | the requirements team is in the same state | 15:16 |
| mnaser | it seems to me that the projects that help the underlying infrastructure to support the ecosystem struggle usually | 15:17 |
| dhellmann | murano, to some degree as well | 15:17 |
| mnaser | requirements, deployment projects | 15:17 |
| fungi | it's not just a problem for deployment projects in openstack either. the configuration management and orchestration landscape is constantly changing, and there have been and will be some that die a slow death of attrition (not saying that's happening to ansible right now) | 15:17 |
| mnaser | fungi: right, but ansible is (in my opinion) the 'hotness' and it's struggling | 15:18 |
| fungi | but as much as we need to help shore up projects which are struggling to get contributors, i think there will be times when we also have to let things die | 15:18 |
| dhellmann | that observation came up in one of the upgrade sessions at the forum, too, when we were talking about the split between using home-grown tools and community-provided tools | 15:18 |
| fungi | mnaser: i agree, ansible lacking a groundswell of support in openstack seems anomalous | 15:18 |
| mnaser | i totally agree, we have to let go of somethings at some point | 15:18 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: what i am seeing (from a 'commercial' pov) is a lot of users who built on home grown tools wanting to migrate on community provided tools | 15:19 |
| mnaser | which is super super cool and hopefully brings more contributions | 15:19 |
| smcginnis | mnaser: I've seen that as well. | 15:19 |
| dhellmann | yes, that will work out well, if it includes the collaboration aspect of open source and doesn't focus so much on the "someone else is doing it for me for free" aspect | 15:20 |
| mnaser | i personally love the gerrit workflow but sometimes i really do wonder if that's a barrier to submitting code and pushing changes up. | 15:20 |
| mnaser | we see a lot of bug reports in OSA that say "this is what i changed and it fixed it" but no patch | 15:20 |
| fungi | tag with low-hanging-fruit | 15:20 |
| mnaser | right, but in the bigger picture, i really do wonder if our choice of tooling makes it harder for new contributors | 15:21 |
| mnaser | for example, i've never submitted a linux kernel patch, because i am terrified and super confused on how to do the whole process... and i've done dev work for a while. | 15:21 |
| cdent | It's definitely a worthwhile topic. Our workflow is a learning curve, and learning curves are not friendly to casual-ness | 15:22 |
| mnaser | and maybe we're no longer in a position where we can be picky and say 'you have to play by our rules to develop with us' | 15:22 |
| mnaser | it could work when we were the hot thing but as things slow down a little bit, it becomes much more of a hassle rather than anything | 15:23 |
| dhellmann | do you have some specific alternatives in mind? | 15:23 |
| dhellmann | I'm reluctant to optimize the entire toolchain for casual contributors, but improving the casual contributor workflow does seem like something we should pursue | 15:23 |
| mnaser | i hate to say it, i don't like their workflow, i don't like that it's a business/commercial type of offering, but github seems to be a solid place that contains a large base of existing developers that might help gather new users | 15:24 |
| fungi | part of the "problem" there is that code review is also not friendly to casual-ness, regardless of the tooling | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : is the problem "git" or "gerrit"? | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yeah, that's true | 15:24 |
| cmurphy | mnaser: the way you frame that makes it sound like our workflow was an arbitrary choice, and it's not | 15:24 |
| fungi | i think the problem is having standards and holding code submissions to those standards | 15:24 |
| mnaser | i think gerrit. it's too specific and tied into our own little ecosystem | 15:25 |
| fungi | depending on how you want to define "problem" | 15:25 |
| mnaser | maybe we should find a way to allow users to login via github and automatically import their keys to gerrit? | 15:25 |
| smcginnis | Please no github PRs. | 15:25 |
| mnaser | at least it's just a login and git review .. | 15:25 |
| * fungi objects to use of "little" and would similarly characterize github users as "small-minded" | 15:25 | |
| dhellmann | mnaser : that sounds interesting. I also had the idea a while back to have the bot that closes github PRs turn them into gerrit requests instead. | 15:25 |
| smcginnis | dhellmann: Was just thinking that through. | 15:26 |
| mnaser | rather than go, setup a launchpad account (potentially that you never used before), login to gerrit, go manually add your keys, install git-review, commit, `git review` | 15:26 |
| ttx | Unrelated news: to establish a baseline mnaser and I did an org diversity analysis and posted it at https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/rocky-2-org-diversity | 15:26 |
| smcginnis | The trick would be creating gerrit accounts automatically for the github users. | 15:26 |
| * jroll points out http://gerrithub.io/ | 15:26 | |
| mnaser | MAYBE if you can login to gerrit via github directly, and have your keys automatically import, it would make things a lot simpler? | 15:26 |
| jroll | notably "Keep in touch with external users synchronizing pull requests with reviews." | 15:26 |
| clarkb | gerrithub is terrible imo | 15:26 |
| jroll | I haven't used it, fwiw | 15:26 |
| clarkb | they completely nuked jenkins a few years back | 15:26 |
| ttx | In bold are the ones that should have their diversity tags changed, if we don't change anything | 15:26 |
| clarkb | and jenkins had to get github to restore from backup | 15:26 |
| mnaser | lol ^ | 15:27 |
| fungi | there's not much of a technical hurdle in turning github prs into gerrit changes. the disconnect is an entirely human one. the patch submitters aren't going to find or follow up on feedback (and i'd argue that even if we worked entirely on github the problem would be similar) | 15:27 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 15:27 | |
| dtroyer | [jumping in a bit late] having just helped a bunch of new folk get set up to contribute via Gerrit, I was reminded of how much of a process it is. But it wasn't as much of a problem as I feared. I think part of that was there were groups of co-located people who could help each other get it done | 15:27 |
| ttx | They are roughly ordered in levels of diversity, the idea being to track evolution rather than binary tags | 15:27 |
| mnaser | what about: login via github to gerrit and ssh keys automatically get imported? that's probably a whole bunch of extra work done | 15:27 |
| fungi | and then there's the legal hurdle. we can't force submissions on github to come from people who have agreed to the icla, nor can we sync them up to foundation accounts for tracking ccla addendums once we switch to enforcing the dco | 15:28 |
| dhellmann | dtroyer : having a group going through the process together certainly helped me, back in the day | 15:28 |
| mnaser | fungi: yes, that is awful and super horrible ux unfortunately | 15:28 |
| mnaser | i had to on-board someone and i was confused for a while why 'git review' would keep rejecting commits | 15:28 |
| mnaser | until i ran it with -vvv and i got the icla warning | 15:28 |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 15:28 | |
| dhellmann | ttx: thanks for preparing that info | 15:28 |
| mnaser | LF projects complain in the git review message about 'missing signed-off-by' .. maybe we can at least look into adding that to the error message that appears without having to make it show up when you do -vvv | 15:29 |
| smcginnis | Hmm, stackalytics appears to be broken. | 15:29 |
| clarkb | mnaser: aiui you get a message if using current git review | 15:29 |
| clarkb | mnaser: it actually comes from gerrit | 15:29 |
| fungi | mnaser: also, looking through your list of things to do to set up your gerrit account, i'm reminded of having to do precisely the same sorts of steps to be able to push things to github, and to bitbucket, and to other communities various communities' code submission systems (phabricator, et cetera) | 15:29 |
| ttx | smcginnis: indeed, I wanted to refine the stats this morning to prepare for this and failed | 15:29 |
| clarkb | (we can test that and confirm) | 15:29 |
| mnaser | brew install git; brew install git-review .. just yesterday, it was flat out 'refusing it' | 15:30 |
| mnaser | but could be different versions | 15:30 |
| * ttx need to jump off in 10 min | 15:30 | |
| clarkb | mnaser: what version does brew install? | 15:30 |
| dhellmann | fungi , mnaser : getting everyone onto storyboard would let us drop launchpad, which would mean 1 less account to configure | 15:30 |
| mnaser | clarkb: git-review: stable 1.26.0 (bottled) | 15:30 |
| smcginnis | mnaser: pip install git-review may be more up to date. | 15:30 |
| clarkb | mnaser: ok its possible gerrit update broke that passthrough of error messages | 15:30 |
| zaneb | o/ | 15:31 |
| mnaser | #chair zaneb | 15:31 |
| openstack | Current chairs: cdent cmurphy dhellmann dims fungi mnaser smcginnis ttx zaneb | 15:31 |
| mnaser | clarkb: yeah maybe someone should look into that, it certainly confused me | 15:31 |
| mnaser | ttx, smcginnis: maybe infra can try taking over hosting of stackalytics? | 15:31 |
| cdent | fungi your argument about things you have to do sign up to other places doesn't really work in my brain: If I'm doing open source dev of any kind I'm probably alrady signed up to those things | 15:31 |
| mnaser | i think it's still at mirantis and very much out of our control and things happen to it all the time? | 15:31 |
| cdent | github and openstack are not in the same category of thing | 15:32 |
| dhellmann | ttx: are the comments like "50.25% top core review %" the reason for a team not having the diversity tag? | 15:32 |
| clarkb | cdent: but from a difficulty perspective they ar ethe same | 15:32 |
| clarkb | its not more difficult you just have to do it again | 15:32 |
| ttx | dhellmann: yes, or worst 'stat' | 15:32 |
| fungi | cdent: sure, one is a proprietary cesspool and the other is a software community built on free principles | 15:32 |
| clarkb | there is value in not having to do it again | 15:32 |
| clarkb | but it isn't more difficult imo | 15:32 |
| dhellmann | ttx: ok | 15:32 |
| ttx | dhellmann: trying to expose the subjectiveness of the exercise | 15:32 |
| cdent | fungi: I'm not disputing _that_. I agree with you on that, but we do need to think in terms of what casual contributors want, which is not the same as "us" | 15:32 |
| ttx | dhellmann: given the limited quality of input data :) | 15:33 |
| mnaser | fungi: while i 100% stand by the free principles idea, i just worry that it's *might* be affecting our growth | 15:33 |
| ttx | mnaser: depends what you call growth :) | 15:33 |
| fungi | cdent: i spent years contributing to free software projects, and never had a github account until i needed one to submit fixes to some openstack dependencies. it was somewhere between annoying and nightmarish | 15:33 |
| cdent | fungi: you're special right, you realize that, yeah? | 15:33 |
| mnaser | ttx: i guess attracting new contributors and making it easier for casual ones to push things up | 15:33 |
| cdent | I'm not defending github | 15:34 |
| cdent | But nor am I willing to defend how openstack does things. | 15:34 |
| fungi | also i think unbounded growth is a big part of the problem. in biology it would be akin to a cancer | 15:34 |
| cdent | we've dealt with the growth, now we need to avoid death | 15:34 |
| fungi | i'm much in favor of shrinking | 15:34 |
| mnaser | i guess for me it feels like we're missing out on a big audience of developers that might want to contribute but feel like it's a lot of work to do something in openstack | 15:35 |
| cdent | mnaser++ | 15:35 |
| cdent | all of my non-openstack tech-friends tell me that all the time | 15:35 |
| fungi | i'm not sure why we're looking for an audience. that in itself sounds like failure | 15:35 |
| cdent | they feel like you have to join a club and learn the secret handshakes | 15:35 |
| cdent | fungi: because we keep saying we need and want casual contributors | 15:36 |
| cdent | if we don't, cool. | 15:36 |
| mnaser | we're looking for an audience because some projects that can attract a lot of non openstack people (say, i think of openstack-ansible as an example) that can attract a lot of easy and casual contributions for bug fixes | 15:36 |
| ttx | contributing to any decently-sized project is complicated, GitHub or not | 15:36 |
| fungi | looking for an audience isn't necessarily the same thing as improving our tools and workflows | 15:36 |
| ttx | You have things like CLAs | 15:37 |
| ttx | a process, rules | 15:37 |
| ttx | I'm not sure most of our pain comes from choice of tools | 15:37 |
| fungi | i want to make things easier for the people who want to contribute to openstack, not go and try to convince people who have never heard of it that it's some cool new thing they should be working on. that was the hype bubble i'm glad to see finally behind us | 15:37 |
| ttx | vs. the learning curve of shared understandings | 15:37 |
| ttx | or the CLA signing | 15:37 |
| zaneb | as an aside, I really hate it when we talk about casual contributors as if there's a random pool of people out there looking for a project who might contribute to OpenStack as a hobby | 15:38 |
| zaneb | IMO what we want is for *people who use OpenStack* to also contribute back | 15:38 |
| mnaser | zaneb: i agere | 15:38 |
| mnaser | that's what i feel it is | 15:38 |
| zaneb | even if it is not their full-time job | 15:38 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : that's not what I mean when I say that. I mean people for whom writing software is not their first job, and who are likely users of openstack now. | 15:38 |
| cdent | zaneb: that's not what _I_ mean by casual. I mean people who are not magical unicorn openstack devs (like most of us). I mean users of openstack. | 15:38 |
| fungi | zaneb: "casual contributors" to me is people deploying openstack in their organization who see a problem and want to fix it | 15:38 |
| dhellmann | so contributing a patch is not anywhere close to the top of their priority list | 15:38 |
| ttx | I'm all for removing steps in getting involved, but it feels like if we had everything under openstackID and no CLA that would already go a long way | 15:38 |
| mnaser | does openstackid also allow you to login via third party things like 'login with google' or 'login with github' | 15:39 |
| clarkb | mnaser: no | 15:39 |
| mnaser | ok | 15:39 |
| clarkb | it is the third party thing you login with | 15:40 |
| mnaser | oh i see | 15:40 |
| dhellmann | what tools are we using today that are tied to using launchpadid? | 15:40 |
| clarkb | so login to gerrit with openstackid | 15:40 |
| mnaser | so it is like "login with google" | 15:40 |
| fungi | i also think that with the new pilot projects under the osf we have an opportunity to maybe push on even the sso/ccla concerns. for example, kata uses the dco and github. there's no tie-in for ccla tracking (nor even a ccla at all, i'd warrant) | 15:40 |
| ttx | dhellmann: launchpad, gerrit | 15:40 |
| dhellmann | could we change gerrit to use the openstackid service? | 15:40 |
| clarkb | mnaser: but it will be more transparent if we continue to sso it | 15:40 |
| dhellmann | and storyboard? | 15:40 |
| clarkb | mnaser: I guess thats the difference I'm failing to articulate | 15:40 |
| dhellmann | we're close to in a state where using launchpad is optional, aren't we? | 15:40 |
| fungi | and the wiki | 15:40 |
| dhellmann | and the wiki | 15:41 |
| clarkb | storyboard | 15:41 |
| zaneb | could we change gerrit to use *any* openID provider? | 15:41 |
| fungi | zaneb: we _could_ yes | 15:41 |
| * ttx needs to run | 15:41 | |
| dhellmann | fungi , clarkb : right, what is holding us back from changing off of launchpad today? | 15:41 |
| fungi | right now the reason we can't is entirely a legal one | 15:41 |
| clarkb | dhellmann: cla | 15:41 |
| dhellmann | clarkb : I don't understand that answer, can you give me more details? | 15:41 |
| mnaser | fungi: sorry, can you please explain the legal reason we cant? (i'm sorry if this was discussed often in the past) | 15:42 |
| clarkb | there are other concerns I hvae with making a switch to any openid provider as well. The biggest one having 10 accounts because you have 10 openids and never remember which you used last | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | I don't want to switch to any provider, I want to switch to the one the foundation runs | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | what prevents us from switching from launchpad to openstackid as the provider? | 15:42 |
| fungi | mnaser: if we want to drop the icla yet in favor of the dco, the board (on behalf of legal counsel from a number of member companies many of whom i thnik aren't involved any longer) decided that we needed to provide an alternate means of tracking contributors which would allow them to match them up against contributor lists on their respective cclas | 15:43 |
| zaneb | clarkb: can't they all tie back to one email? | 15:44 |
| fungi | and the solution they agreed to was moving them to an authentication system controlled by the osf so that it would integrate directly with ccla tracking mechanisms the osf web dev team have put together | 15:44 |
| zaneb | ah, ok | 15:44 |
| clarkb | dhellmann: for a direct move I don't think there are legal concerns it just requires that we figure out how to migrate everyone and do the database updates and delete the auth cache | 15:44 |
| clarkb | zaneb: I've not seen an consumer of openid implement it that way. Typically an openid (which is a url) maps to an account and then the other data like name and email is largely arbitrary | 15:45 |
| mnaser | fungi: thank you for that summary, all makes sense now | 15:45 |
| fungi | right, there's a fair amount of overlap, but wedon't have a perfect 1:1 mapping of login.ubuntu.com to openstackid.org accounts | 15:45 |
| dhellmann | clarkb : ok. that feels like something we could go ahead and do, then? (modulo having someone to do the work, of course) | 15:45 |
| clarkb | zaneb: so if you login with a new openid that is a new account | 15:45 |
| fungi | partly because launchpad makes keeping your e-mail address private a default behavior | 15:45 |
| fungi | we can build up a mapping by comparing openids on the systems we have to e-mail addresses tracked by some of those systems and then try to get a more exact match (though it still won't be 100% because not everyone using our lp-authenticated systems has signed up for an openstack.org account) | 15:47 |
| fungi | so whatever solution we settle on will need to involve ways for people to link up their "old" accounts with new ids manually | 15:48 |
| *** dklyle has quit IRC | 15:48 | |
| *** ianychoi has joined #openstack-tc | 15:48 | |
| dhellmann | could we do that by having folks login to a special page on openstack.org using the launchpad provider? | 15:48 |
| fungi | yes, that's one of the solutions we've talked about, though that just gets us the mapping. we still need to have some way of updating the ids in the respective systems once that's done | 15:49 |
| dhellmann | like, login to your openstack account and go to the profile page and click the "link my launchpad id" button? | 15:49 |
| dhellmann | sure | 15:49 |
| fungi | for people we can map in advance we can make it fairly seamless. for the rest, we'd either need some dangerous automated process performing database updates on gerrit, mediawiki, storyboard, et cetera or we need to manually batch those | 15:50 |
| cdent | Just to reset this conversation a bit, I think we all need to check our privilege a bit: When we have evidence from people not in power (ie not us) that they are experiencing barriers the correct response is "I didn't realize that, we'd like to do better". I don't feel like we're doing that. | 15:50 |
| dhellmann | I wonder where the cut-off is for people who actually need to have the mapping done vs. just creating a new account | 15:50 |
| mnaser | not that i want to complicate things more but not sure how that all falls into the 'winterscale' initiative | 15:51 |
| mnaser | is openstackid still going to be a thing.. is it going to be winterscaleid if we're hosting other things, i dont know the answers but something to keep in mind | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | cdent : what should we be talking about then? | 15:51 |
| clarkb | cdent: I think we've also largely dealt in hypotheticals, a specific "this is what I find difficult" may be helpful if we want to talk about not realizing problems and going from there to make things better | 15:51 |
| clarkb | and I don't just mean "gerrit" what specifically about gerrit is difficult | 15:52 |
| cdent | We should be more strongly recognizing the proble and analysing it before going straight to detailed technical solutions. There's little evidence that we've ack'd the problem | 15:52 |
| cdent | clarkb: right, more analysis required | 15:52 |
| dhellmann | cdent : one problem presented was having to sign up for multiple accounts. Removing launchpad means removing 1 account. | 15:52 |
| cdent | dhellmann: sure, but I think going to details on that is premature | 15:53 |
| dhellmann | we have to have the openstack account to track affiliations and CLA anyway, so that one can't go away | 15:53 |
| cdent | it could easily be wasted energy | 15:53 |
| cdent | there may be other things which are more relevant | 15:53 |
| *** ricolin_ has quit IRC | 15:54 | |
| dhellmann | the question I posed was "what stops us from moving from launchpad to openstackid" for authenticating to the things we want to be our default services. the answer was technical because there is not a legal concern (which is what I was really worried about). I don't see a problem with that. | 15:54 |
| cdent | do we know that moving from launchpad to openstackid will have any impact on so-called casual contribution? Or do we just think so? | 15:55 |
| dhellmann | "could" and "may" -- do you think there are? | 15:55 |
| dhellmann | I don't *know* anything. I'm trying to explore options. | 15:56 |
| mnaser | i might argue it makes things worse because now you go from POSSIBLY having a launchpad account already to now having to create "this openstack account" | 15:56 |
| cdent | Well, from the people I've spoken with, needing to get on the island in the first place is the main barrier, but conversation here seems to indicate that is an insurmountable change. If that's the case, I don't think logins makes much difference. | 15:56 |
| dhellmann | fungi : can you remind me what prevents us from allowing individuals to use the DCO instead of CLA? | 15:56 |
| dhellmann | cdent : I don't know what your island metaphor means. | 15:57 |
| clarkb | cdent: the specific concern you've heard then is simply that we aren't github? | 15:57 |
| clarkb | dhellmann: I think it basically means we don't use the tools they are already using | 15:57 |
| clarkb | dhellmann: whcih for many is github | 15:57 |
| cdent | clarkb, dhellmann : it's certainly one of the issues people report. And, like I said above, I'm not saying "unless we switch to github we are screwed". I'm saying there are factors out there we look at. | 15:58 |
| dhellmann | ok, well, we also talked about the technical, social, and legal barriers to having github prs imported into gerrit | 15:59 |
| cdent | But perhaps fungi has a point: maybe, because we don't have enough cores, we don't actually want more contributions? | 15:59 |
| *** Guest88320 is now known as dansmith | 15:59 | |
| fungi | dhellmann: providing a means for interested legal representatives of various openstack member companies to map contributions to employees who are or aren't tracked in their respective cclas | 15:59 |
| dhellmann | so I feel like we're actually talking about many things, not solely focusing on any 1 thing | 15:59 |
| fungi | dhellmann: basically the board said we could drop the icla and do this dco thing _if_ we made it easier for them to cover everyone under cclas | 15:59 |
| jroll | this seems like one of those topics where we are unable to agree on the problems without immediately diving into the technical details of solutions and why they won't work :( | 15:59 |
| fungi | a big part of it is that they don't believe we actually have "individual contributors" (or at least that those people aren't enough of a legal threat to care about) | 16:00 |
| dhellmann | jroll : there's a lot of history to some of these topics, and we can't ignore it | 16:00 |
| mnaser | i think the issue here that i brought up was that we operate our infrastructure in a silo | 16:00 |
| dhellmann | what I'm hearing is that | 16:00 |
| mnaser | and i dont know if dco/icla/legal stuff is the reason behind it | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | 1. people don't want to use tools other than github | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | 2. we have some legal issues with contributions from random anyones | 16:01 |
| fungi | mnaser: agreed, i'd like to widen our silo and help people who are interested in software freedom work on projects which eschew non-free tools | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | 3. we have considered many technical solutions to ease the transition | 16:01 |
| fungi | i personally care 0 about people who like to use proprietary tools. they can go make proprietary communities and software for all i care | 16:01 |
| dhellmann | 4. work on that has stalled (perhaps there's a better word) but is not blocked because of any legal decisions | 16:02 |
| dhellmann | is that right? | 16:02 |
| cdent | it appears there's a 5: some people on the tc care 0 | 16:02 |
| cdent | I agree that's a fine position to hold as an individual, but not one that is particular responsible here | 16:03 |
| fungi | i care a lot about making free tools easier to use | 16:03 |
| dhellmann | I think it's more constructive for us to focus on friction in the tools we're using than to continue to rehash an argument about free or non-free tools | 16:03 |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 16:03 | |
| mnaser | dhellmann: agreed. at the end of the day, i think it's about growing the community as a whole | 16:04 |
| jroll | dhellmann: is that history documented somewhere? it seems like every time we discuss these things there's a giant wall of text and 3+ concurrent conversations, which makes it impossible for people without the history in their head to understand it | 16:04 |
| dhellmann | jroll : no, that's why I keep asking these questions today :-/ | 16:04 |
| jroll | right | 16:05 |
| dhellmann | it would be good to get it written down somewhere | 16:05 |
| dhellmann | maybe someone wants to volunteer to summarize today's discussion? | 16:05 |
| jroll | so when I say we haven't agreed on the problems | 16:05 |
| jroll | I don't think we have a full list of barriers for casual contributors | 16:05 |
| jroll | and we *definitely* don't have a list of things like "we can't fix barrier X because legal" | 16:05 |
| jroll | which is a problem that should be considered when we talk about fixing the "barrier" problem | 16:05 |
| clarkb | re silo of tools, basically the entire LF but cncf use Gerrit too. As does golang, android and its ecosystem, chromium (basically the big google open source projects). Eclipse, mediawiki, libreoffice, and others all gerrit as well. I don't think its fair to paint a picture we are the only gerrit weirdos out there | 16:06 |
| cmurphy | ++ | 16:06 |
| mnaser | i knew about LF but i didnt know about all those other users like eclipse and mediawiki etc | 16:06 |
| cmurphy | we've been cultivating this workflow for years because we know it works really quite well for collaboration across huge communities, it is not an arbitrary NIH decision | 16:07 |
| * dhellmann notes the lack of volunteers to summarize this discussion | 16:07 | |
| mnaser | :( | 16:07 |
| jroll | I'm having trouble summarizing it for myself, let alone a general audience | 16:07 |
| zaneb | cmurphy ++ | 16:07 |
| fungi | also worth noting, many (though not all) of those communities use gerrit now because we showed them it was a better alternative | 16:07 |
| fungi | and led by example | 16:08 |
| zaneb | github is terrible because pull requests are the wrong model | 16:08 |
| fungi | dhellmann: if i knew what needed summarizing i'd volunteer gladly | 16:08 |
| mnaser | oh i think github workflow is terrible :p | 16:08 |
| mnaser | but i'm trying to see it in the view of potentially those who like it | 16:08 |
| mnaser | which, given the valuation they recently were bought out as, there's a few people who use it... | 16:09 |
| jroll | I believe github is perceived as awesome for people that haven't used better code review tools (many people). I also believe it takes weeks or months of using gerrit to understand why it is better. | 16:09 |
| mnaser | jroll: agreed | 16:09 |
| cmurphy | as a side note, a lot of people on my team internally has familiarity primarily with gerrit and very little experience with github and find github very unapproachable | 16:09 |
| dhellmann | fungi : we've talked about known issues with onboarding; blockers for streamlining logins; the requirements we have around CLA and DCO | 16:09 |
| cdent | Just to be clear: I'm not suggesting we bail and stop using gerrit or switch over to github. Rather that people who express that not using it is a problem have useful input. | 16:09 |
| fungi | i don't personally know people who "like" github, except in comparison to other even worse tools they've used in the past. most people i know who use it do so because they're not aware of alternatives | 16:09 |
| jroll | also of note: a huge amount of people new to software development are encouraged to contribute to OSS for their resume. a huge number of OSS projects (especially ones small enough for noobies to understand) are on github. so a large number of college grads come out knowing github and nothing else | 16:10 |
| clarkb | fungi: I think a history of how we ended up on gerrit (from bzr/lp), and how the CLA affects tooling choices due to legal concerns. Then summary of what we've said here about how it relates to today is what dhellmann and jroll are looking for | 16:10 |
| jroll | I know tons of people who like github | 16:10 |
| dhellmann | clarkb : yeah, that would be good | 16:10 |
| jroll | clarkb: ++ | 16:11 |
| fungi | clarkb: dhellmann: oof, while i can wax nearly endlessly on those topics, coming up with appropriate citations from the annals of openstack history will take a lot of time. but i'm willing to prioritize it if that will keep this conversation from repeatedly coming up | 16:11 |
| clarkb | fungi: maybe don't cite it and just say "this is fungis historical perspective" ) | 16:11 |
| dhellmann | fungi : even without citations it would be useful. we can work on the citations seprately | 16:11 |
| fungi | jroll: heh, sounds like the historical reasons for the rise and fall of java | 16:12 |
| clarkb | then we can work backward from that if necessary | 16:12 |
| jroll | yep, I'm fine without citations | 16:12 |
| zaneb | cdent: so... yes... but it's not actionable. the tradeoff is between a bad tool that lots of people have already learned how to use and possibly have an account on, and a less bad tool that only some (very large) isolated communities use | 16:12 |
| zaneb | cdent: that tradeoff isn't going away. there's no way to split the difference | 16:12 |
| jroll | fungi: heh | 16:12 |
| clarkb | worth noting that gitub is why we gerrit today iirc :) | 16:12 |
| cdent | zaneb: it is actionable. we find some of those people, and talk to them and find out some things we can tune, doing that doing without making assumptions about the problems | 16:12 |
| cdent | s/that doing/that tuning/ | 16:12 |
| clarkb | we went to them asking for a couple features to make github work with openstack and they told as to go away | 16:12 |
| jroll | clarkb: just making a guess at the problems, but funny enough I believe they are solved now | 16:13 |
| clarkb | fungi: ^ you can put that in your history uncited :P monty can probably give better background on that though | 16:13 |
| cdent | zaneb: that's all I'm really pushing for here: the usual: let's speculate less and engage with peopple. | 16:13 |
| jroll | mandatory reviews, protected branches, CLA things, etc | 16:13 |
| cmurphy | a ton of people have asked them for features that go unsolved https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues | 16:13 |
| fungi | yeah, there was that brief "we need to move off bzr" period where we didn't know what git service we should collaborate in | 16:13 |
| fungi | cmurphy: in fairness, the feature request wishlist for gerrit is miles long too and as we learned running a fork of it gets painful real fast | 16:14 |
| * dhellmann looks at the feature backlog of openstack | 16:14 | |
| cmurphy | fungi: but at least it's open source and someone could theoretically submit a patch | 16:15 |
| cmurphy | no go with github | 16:15 |
| fungi | dhellmann: best you just don't even open the lid on that one ;) | 16:15 |
| dims | LOL | 16:15 |
| cdent | gitlab :) | 16:15 |
| clarkb | jroll: ya in the last 9-12 months they've improved a lot of it but it took them what, 7 years? | 16:15 |
| jroll | clarkb: yeah, just thought it was interesting that they eventually did what we needed | 16:15 |
| fungi | having used gitlab i find it not entirely terrible, but it's copied a lot of pain from github for the sake of feature parity. also it's more open-core than gerrit (but gerrit is almost open-core too) | 16:16 |
| dhellmann | I am not interested in optimizing our developer experience for individuals who write 1 patch a year. I *am* interested in *improving* their experience. | 16:16 |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 16:16 | |
| cdent | dhellmann: that's a good way to put it | 16:16 |
| zaneb | ++ | 16:17 |
| fungi | i'm starting to think that our thursday office hour is just going to be a double-hour most weeks | 16:17 |
| cdent | seems like it | 16:17 |
| jroll | cmurphy | as a side note, a lot of people on my team internally has familiarity primarily with gerrit and very little experience with github and find github very unapproachable <- missed this until now, but have seen the same. people are going to like what they're familiar with, for any type of tool | 16:17 |
| dhellmann | we do call it "office hours" right? :-) | 16:17 |
| mnaser | fungi: making up for all the other ones :) | 16:17 |
| * jroll would love to see those two hours spread across the week more | 16:17 | |
| fungi | mnaser: yeah, wednesday was a total bust this week | 16:17 |
| mnaser | i personally struggle with github, but then it's probably cause i don't use it often enough | 16:18 |
| mnaser | i guess people feel the same about gerrit.. | 16:18 |
| fungi | jroll: if only we could figure out how to make cdent and ttx not need sleep | 16:18 |
| jroll | "cram it all into an hour or two" makes things super unapproachable, I had a meeting overlap which made it hard to comment on some things I wanted to comment on | 16:18 |
| clarkb | mnaser: that is some of it but some things are just objectively bad. Highest on my list is not preserving review history | 16:18 |
| clarkb | mnaser: they recnetly improved this by keeping diffs and comments around but that is it, you can't fetch real commits | 16:18 |
| jroll | fungi: there are options but their coherency might taper off :P | 16:18 |
| dhellmann | jroll : I've given that some thought, and I wonder how much the "clumping" of conversation has to do with the fact that people are usually busy doing many things, so having a dedicated time makes it easy to leave topics until we know others are going to be around. | 16:19 |
| mnaser | i think for github users trying/using gerrit is the idea of a 'single commit' | 16:19 |
| fungi | also my coherency tapers off before the 01:00 utc office hour starts most weeks | 16:19 |
| mnaser | and amending onto your commit and pushing that up, probably not a concept they are used to | 16:19 |
| mnaser | (for revisions) | 16:19 |
| jroll | dhellmann: yeah, I suspect that's part of it. I wonder if folks would still dedicate time to have discussions here if we didn't have scheduled time, or if we would just talk less | 16:19 |
| fungi | mnaser: in contrast, it's pretty easy for people coming from the lkml to wrap their heads around | 16:20 |
| dhellmann | clarkb : having some of that detail in fungi's write up about why we prefer gerrit would be good | 16:20 |
| fungi | yeah, i plan on rereading this entire log | 16:20 |
| dhellmann | jroll : I'm worried we would talk even less :-/ | 16:20 |
| mnaser | fungi: oh of course :) | 16:20 |
| jroll | me too | 16:20 |
| fungi | before i even start to attempt to summarize | 16:20 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 16:21 | |
| fungi | mnaser: i have a feeling it's not coincidental that the largest free software project (before openstack at least according to some people) use a very similar patch review workflow as we do, even if we use a different toolset and approval structure | 16:21 |
| dims | folks, fyi, i'll be out next week (vacation) | 16:23 |
| mnaser | fungi: i think we happen to have one of the best tooling and i enjoy using it. | 16:23 |
| fungi | dims: thanks for the heads up | 16:23 |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 16:23 | |
| smcginnis | GitHub does not really scale well to large communities, at least in my opinion. Without a lot of custom tooling to handle it. | 16:23 |
| mnaser | i think we all agree gerrit is great, but i guess i'm just trying to think about the people who aren't in this conversation.. | 16:23 |
| cdent | mnaser++ | 16:24 |
| mnaser | maybe they might think gerrit is great too, none of us can answer this except them :) | 16:24 |
| fungi | c.f., the kubernetes and ansible communities struggling with it now | 16:24 |
| zaneb | fungi: right, GitHub copied the wrong part of the kernel workflow, and have been unwilling or unable to acknowledge that ever since | 16:24 |
| zaneb | pull requests are great for a branch *in which all of the patches have already been reviewed* | 16:24 |
| zaneb | they're terrible for code review | 16:24 |
| fungi | yup | 16:24 |
| * mnaser has to run and setup for a 12:30 call, dropping off. | 16:25 | |
| dhellmann | mnaser : so let's start by writing down why we think it's good, and then we can get people to tell us where their opinions differ | 16:25 |
| * jroll just makes single-commit pull requests in a chain when using github | 16:25 | |
| mnaser | fwiw github added a 'squash changes and merge' feature or something | 16:25 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: i think that's good, i dont know if i currently have time to write that up though, sorry | 16:26 |
| jroll | should probably make a little github PR chain management tool | 16:26 |
| * mnaser actually has to go now :p | 16:26 | |
| fungi | thanks mnaser! | 16:26 |
| dhellmann | jroll : I think jd__ has done some work on that, you should check with him | 16:26 |
| jroll | neat, thanks :) | 16:26 |
| clarkb | dhellmann: they've made it a paid srvice even | 16:26 |
| fungi | yeah, gnocchi needed something to make working with github tolerable | 16:26 |
| fungi | after they were used to developing in gerrit | 16:27 |
| cdent | yeah, jd_ has done quite a bit of github tooling, including starting a company about it | 16:27 |
| clarkb | https://mergify.io/ | 16:27 |
| cdent | jinx | 16:27 |
| *** spsurya has quit IRC | 16:28 | |
| fungi | looks sort of like a zuul scheduler | 16:29 |
| fungi | but without the ci and speculative execution | 16:29 |
| clarkb | fungi: its more like the prolog in gerrit I Think | 16:29 |
| fungi | true | 16:29 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:30 | |
| clarkb | prolog as a service | 16:30 |
| dtroyer | Anyone know if the day for the PTG-located board meeting been set yet? | 16:32 |
| smcginnis | dtroyer: I was wondering the same thing. Haven't seen anything yet. | 16:32 |
| fungi | it sounded like that might not be happening after all | 16:33 |
| fungi | i'll double-check | 16:33 |
| fungi | yeah, erin just confirmed it for me | 16:34 |
| fungi | smcginnis: dtroyer: ^ no board of directors meeting at the ptg this time | 16:34 |
| * cdent sighs | 16:35 | |
| smcginnis | fungi: Oh... is there going to be a different opportunity for real time communication between the groups? | 16:35 |
| fungi | probably berlin? i want to say we'd talked about scaling it back to two joint leadership meetings a year? | 16:35 |
| smcginnis | :/ | 16:36 |
| dtroyer | heh, ok, thanks fungi. that'll be interesting for the things being deferred until that specific meeting… :) | 16:36 |
| fungi | the argument for two was that we seem to mostly spend the time just rehashing the same things, if memory serves | 16:36 |
| cdent | dtroyer++ | 16:37 |
| mugsie | I do not think that woulkd have been a problem this time | 16:37 |
| smcginnis | And that couldn't possibly be because folks need to be reminded what those things were. | 16:37 |
| fungi | i want to say that came up at the joint meeting at the last ptg | 16:37 |
| mugsie | and it was only some people pushing for two | 16:37 |
| persia | As an observer, I generally see progress on about half the things brought up at each joint meetings, with deferment to the next for the other half. Given my general experience with repeating governance meetings, I think that is fairly normal, regardless of cadence. | 16:37 |
| fungi | persia: i tend to agree | 16:38 |
| mugsie | it does highlight the board <> TC communication issues quite succinctly though | 16:39 |
| fungi | actually, i guess there wasn't one. must have been sydney? | 16:39 |
| dtroyer | the things I am thinking about are not things deferred from a prior meeting, but "until the next f2f" that also happen to fall within a 1-year window that expires approx at the next f2f in Berlin | 16:39 |
| fungi | we're already on the semi-annual cadence looks like | 16:39 |
| * mugsie goes back to driving a fire truck | 16:39 | |
| fungi | we met in sydney in november, then vancouver in may, and will probably meet again in berlin in november | 16:39 |
| fungi | right, the board met in person in dublin but there was no joint leadership meeting because it overlapped with the first day of the ptg | 16:40 |
| * cdent gives mugsie a nice hat | 16:40 | |
| persia | Several members of the TC attended various topics at the board meeting at the PTG in Dublin, some of which seemed very openstack-the-project specific (vs. general foundation). I am surprised that it was not formally a joint meeting. | 16:41 |
| smcginnis | At least in Dublin there was an opportunity to sit in if you could juggle your schedule. | 16:41 |
| mugsie | persia: some members of the board pushed for a meeting during the PTG, which hosed that plan | 16:42 |
| cdent | I think we're going to need to be pretty concerted and attentive in our efforts to insure that communications between tc, uc, board and other "top-level projects" is good. | 16:47 |
| * cdent states the obvious | 16:47 | |
| smcginnis | ++ | 16:47 |
| smcginnis | Should we end the "meeting"? | 16:47 |
| cdent | yeah, we've tailed off | 16:48 |
| cdent | #endmeeting | 16:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Technical Committee office hours: Tuesdays at 09:00 UTC, Wednesdays at 01:00 UTC, and Thursdays at 15:00 UTC | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/ | channel logs http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/" | 16:48 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Jun 21 16:48:09 2018 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:48 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-06-21-15.00.html | 16:48 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-06-21-15.00.txt | 16:48 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-06-21-15.00.log.html | 16:48 |
| cdent | I think we should stop those | 16:48 |
| smcginnis | Still not really liking the meeting format. | 16:48 |
| fungi | it was in response to feedback/request at the forum. we should find out from rocky and others who supported the idea if it's actually been useful for them | 16:51 |
| fungi | i (and i think many of us) were unconvinced it would actually be useful, but we agreed to give it a shot | 16:51 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 16:52 | |
| *** dtantsur is now known as dtantsur|afk | 16:52 | |
| * dhellmann looks into rebooking his flight and hotel since he guessed the wrong way on the joint meeting this time | 16:52 | |
| fungi | what, you don't want to be stuck hanging the warehouse district by the old denver airport a day early? but it's such a scenic area ;) | 16:53 |
| smcginnis | Plenty of "recreational" things to do in Denver. :D | 16:54 |
| dims | with trains! :) | 16:54 |
| fungi | hop a train with the hobos | 16:54 |
| dhellmann | tc-members: since there isn't a joint leadership meeting at the ptg, do we want to use sunday as a tc day? | 16:54 |
| * dhellmann asks in a transparent attempt to avoid rebooking his flight | 16:54 | |
| smcginnis | I think we could use that. | 16:54 |
| dhellmann | in addition to the friday? | 16:55 |
| smcginnis | If we can get a room at the hotel or something, I'm sure we could hash out some things while we're there. | 16:55 |
| cmurphy | i'd prefer using a sunday instead of the friday | 16:55 |
| smcginnis | And could ease the conflicts during the week if we can get some things out of the way. | 16:55 |
| smcginnis | cmurphy: ++ | 16:55 |
| fungi | that's sunday september 9? | 16:55 |
| dhellmann | we've traditionally kept some time at the end of the week in case topics come up during the week, but we could try not doing that | 16:56 |
| smcginnis | fungi: That appears correct. | 16:56 |
| dhellmann | have people already booked hotel and flights? | 16:56 |
| pabelanger | I believe I'm travelling into PTG on the monday this day, so sunday is a miss for me. I can likely do remote | 16:56 |
| fungi | i haven't | 16:56 |
| cmurphy | i haven't | 16:56 |
| pabelanger | s/this day/this time | 16:56 |
| smcginnis | We could still keep some time reserved on Friday for follow up. | 16:56 |
| smcginnis | I have reserved hotel starting Saturday but have not booked flight yet. | 16:57 |
| fungi | we'd need to figure out _where_ we could meet i think, as i doubt the foundation meeting coordinators have booked any of the venue for sunday | 16:57 |
| cdent | I like sunday and friday | 16:57 |
| dhellmann | sure. I figured before I went that far I would make sure people were actually available | 16:57 |
| dhellmann | we don't need much, just a conference room | 16:57 |
| smcginnis | There's that nice patio area at the brewery around the corner. | 16:57 |
| dhellmann | haha, or that | 16:58 |
| dhellmann | the irish pub down the street wasn't terrible, either | 16:58 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 16:58 | |
| dhellmann | I'll start a mailing list thread to get more input | 16:59 |
| smcginnis | ++ thanks dhellmann | 17:00 |
| dhellmann | fungi : was there no board meeting at all? or no *joint* meeting? | 17:01 |
| zaneb | I am ready to book my flight and I would really like a definitive answer before I do | 17:04 |
| dhellmann | yeah | 17:04 |
| zaneb | not like Vancouver where somebody was like 'oh, we'll move the TC/Board dinner to Saturday' about 30 minutes after I booked my flight in on late Saturday | 17:05 |
| fungi | dhellmann: for denver ptg in september, no in-person board meeting | 17:08 |
| dhellmann | I've emailed the tc-members list and erin to ask about facilities | 17:08 |
| dhellmann | fungi : thanks | 17:08 |
| fungi | https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation#OpenStack_Board_of_Director_Meetings has a placeholder for "Date TBA, Board F2F (PTG), 9am - 5pm" between the July 17 call and November 12 F2F | 17:09 |
| fungi | but i gather they're not planning to exercise that | 17:10 |
| dhellmann | yes, well, that's what I get for making assumptions I suppose | 17:10 |
| fungi | i think it was a fairly recent decision | 17:11 |
| fungi | like in the past week or two maybe (last week was the first i'd heard anyway) | 17:11 |
| cdent | is it fair to ask "why weren't we consulted?". I'm never too sure about that. | 17:12 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I'll ask Alan about that | 17:12 |
| zaneb | yeah, I mean, we have our very own mailing list and everything. why are we still guessing *after* we've booked flights what events we're expected to be at | 17:15 |
| dims | ugh. right zaneb | 17:16 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 17:30 | |
| dhellmann | zaneb : metal tubes aren't enough for you, you need an escape room, too? | 17:42 |
| zaneb | there's no escape from a metal tube | 17:43 |
| dhellmann | that's so depressing | 17:43 |
| jroll | oh, there's an escape, it's just risky | 17:45 |
| mnaser | i have no idea why | 17:45 |
| cdent | I was wondering who was going to be the pedant this time, jroll | 17:45 |
| mnaser | but i booked my flight to arrive at 9:36 am in denver | 17:45 |
| mnaser | on sunday | 17:45 |
| mnaser | i'm questioning my decisionmaking why i picked this flight | 17:46 |
| mnaser | but i guess it works out nicely if we do sunday | 17:46 |
| jroll | cdent: :D | 17:46 |
| zaneb | jroll: that's just the kind of comment that will get you on a watchlist | 17:46 |
| jroll | couldn't resist | 17:46 |
| cdent | somebody has to do it | 17:46 |
| zaneb | fungi: I think you might be living in a bubble as far as travel expense budgets go | 18:06 |
| fungi | perhaps. but 5 nights vs 4 doesn't seem like a huge difference when it's already a week-long meeting | 18:07 |
| cdent | thank you zaneb, I was thinking about that too | 18:07 |
| zaneb | it's a $250 per-night hotel, plus per-diem expenses | 18:07 |
| zaneb | fungi: this is the first time I haven't had to ask for permission just to get to the PTG | 18:08 |
| fungi | comparing this to having the tc meet somewhere separate from the ptg or forum, how would you compare the ability of others in the community to join? | 18:08 |
| smcginnis | zaneb: Actually, the PTG hotel rate is $149. | 18:08 |
| fungi | smcginnis: well, probably not for sunday since it's unlikely to be covered by our negotiated rate | 18:09 |
| zaneb | fungi: we're not comparing to that though, we're comparing to meeting on the Friday like we did in Dublin | 18:09 |
| fungi | zaneb: sure, i still think we need to meet on friday, but adding sunday would be preferable to meeting somewhere else as a separate trip | 18:09 |
| zaneb | smcginnis: ah, whoops. relying too much on memory. (if memory serves we get the same rate on Sat night though) | 18:10 |
| smcginnis | Looks like the negotiated rate is available from the 5th to the 17th. | 18:10 |
| fungi | i probably conflated my points. i think that if we meet on sunday we need to remind members of the community at large that they're welcome to join us | 18:10 |
| fungi | independent of whether we meet on friday | 18:10 |
| fungi | and that i don't think the number of interested people who can swing that is 0 | 18:10 |
| zaneb | fungi: the thing I said I was not a fan of was "1. Meet together Sunday only" | 18:11 |
| fungi | you also said you didn't think anyone who wanted to join us on sunday outside the tc would be able to do so | 18:11 |
| zaneb | I do of course agree that any meeting we have on Sunday should be open to anyone in the community | 18:11 |
| cdent | not "anyone". "some people" because their travel constraints are different than fungi's | 18:12 |
| fungi | yes, that's what i was trying to express, apparently not very well | 18:12 |
| zaneb | right, yes, I think that very few would be able to. for example there is no way I would be able to if I were not on the TC | 18:12 |
| fungi | i find that unfortunate, but believable | 18:13 |
| zaneb | this is our 3rd of 4 events this year. many of our developers don't get to go to the PTG at all, and every extra expense incurred by those who do go increases the number of people who can't go | 18:13 |
| fungi | i have a feeling that for organizations where openstack is the only software project they have staff contributing upstream, it may be easier to see as a normal expense than for organizations involved in lots of software projects whose staff want to attend all the things and they have to set some limits out of concern that their travel expense policies will be abused | 18:14 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 18:14 | |
| fungi | when i worked at a service provider, i pushed by management to attended week-long trainings out of town several times a year whether i wanted to go or not | 18:16 |
| fungi | er, i was pushed | 18:16 |
| cdent | that's a lot different from what many of us experience | 18:16 |
| fungi | well, it was icky stuff like cisco or vmware product training | 18:16 |
| zaneb | nobody is suggesting that travel budgets will be abused. the travel budget is fixed and every 'normal' expense pushes somebody else over the cap, and it works like that in basically every organisation that is not the OSF | 18:17 |
| zaneb | because it's easy to justify travel budget for your own event | 18:18 |
| fungi | well, sunday wouldn't be, most likely | 18:19 |
| fungi | i agree i probably don't have a formal travel budget either way, which is why i relate things like this to when i was an operator at a for-profit service provider | 18:20 |
| dtroyer | even well-funded headline sponsors with purchased keynotes still count heads and nights for events… | 18:21 |
| fungi | yup. part of the mistake with the ptg was promoting it as an "event" rather than a "meeting" | 18:22 |
| cdent | same issues applied back in the days of the midcycles | 18:22 |
| zaneb | dtroyer: yep, because marketing budget and travel budget are separate, and never the twain shall meet | 18:22 |
| fungi | but when you have marketing department and event coordinator hammers, every meeting looks like an conference nail | 18:23 |
| zaneb | fungi: that is absolutely not the problem. marketing budget is 10x easier to get than developer travel budget | 18:24 |
| dtroyer | I haven't had to do this at my current employer, but in the past have cast meetups as conferences to tap into that sweet, sweet marketing lucre | 18:24 |
| fungi | zaneb: i'm saying the osf is used to putting on big flashy events, so when you ask them for some meeting space that's what they hand you | 18:24 |
| zaneb | fungi: that I agree with | 18:25 |
| fungi | some of us keep asking why we can't do things like, say, debconf does. share dorm rooms at a university during break week and pay next to nothing for some empty classrooms | 18:26 |
| dhellmann | am I sensing that folks now don't want to meet on sunday? | 18:26 |
| cdent | dhellmann: if you're getting that sense from the chat here in IRC, that's not the read I would make. What's being discussed is if fungi is in a travel budget bubble. | 18:26 |
| dhellmann | ok | 18:27 |
| dhellmann | fwiw, I've only asked for a room big enough for the 13 tc members. | 18:27 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: apart from pabelanger, no. this discussion is more about *only* meeting on sunday | 18:27 |
| cdent | it appears no one wants that | 18:27 |
| fungi | fwiw, my "travel budget" is that i'd rather stay home and not go anywhere, but i accepted a job which requires me to travel (more and more every year, it seems) so my view of travel expenses is probably quite skewed as a result | 18:27 |
| fungi | er, travel bubble | 18:28 |
| pabelanger | I usually would travel on a sunday, just this time around I have a family event on friday, and leaving buffer to recover | 18:29 |
| fungi | i skipped mid-cycles back when that was an option | 18:29 |
| pabelanger | travel for a sunday* | 18:29 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 18:30 | |
| * cdent needs dessert or something | 18:33 | |
| fungi | zaneb: anyway, the reason i was saying sunday was a friendly option for community participation was as compared to what we'd discussed previously (last week?) about trying to find options to meet up separate from forum/ptg | 18:33 |
| fungi | maybe the number of people in the community who can justify an extra night around the ptg is just as zero as those who could justify joining the tc members at some other separate venue another time entirely. my perspective is apparently rarefied | 18:34 |
| zaneb | fungi: ok, I understand your point better now | 18:36 |
| fungi | it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that i have more of a travel quota than a travel budget, but unfortunately that's been the case for me at previous jobs going back decades | 18:37 |
| jroll | if we only have a room big enough for the TC, others not being able to join sunday isn't much of a problem, right? | 18:37 |
| fungi | and probably plays to the fact that i hate to travel | 18:37 |
| zaneb | I think it depends on the agenda | 18:37 |
| dhellmann | right now we don't have a room at all, but I had intended for it to be a time for us to talk amongst ourselves, with a summary to come later | 18:38 |
| zaneb | it's essential that we set aside time during the actual PTG to have discussions in public and give other members of the community the opportunity to raise issues | 18:38 |
| dhellmann | yeah, that's why I kept friday on the list | 18:38 |
| dhellmann | we do have things that we, as a team, need to discuss or work on or at least make progress on | 18:38 |
| zaneb | if in addition to that we want to meet to work on stuff as a group, then we should do that | 18:38 |
| zaneb | and unfortunately that in inevitably going to exclude most of the rest of the community | 18:39 |
| zaneb | but that's probably mostly unavoidable | 18:39 |
| fungi | i think that we should have time to collaborate on things at the ptg, but i don't see that as being tc-specific time. it's time for topics of general interest to the community in which the tc members should definitely be involved | 18:39 |
| zaneb | although I agree with fungi that to the extent we can get it done in 1 day, doing it adjacent to the PTG would at least give folks the best chance | 18:40 |
| fungi | honestly, if we're as tc members spending time collaborating on things which aren't of general interest to the community, i worry we're maybe focusing on the wrong things | 18:41 |
| dhellmann | if we think we're going to need a huge space, we should probably not bother. because if the foundation can't get us a room then we're going to be at a restaurant or something where we would have even more limited options. | 18:43 |
| smcginnis | I think we can be open to the community without necessarily making accomodations for a large part of the community to be physically present. | 18:48 |
| smcginnis | Etherpad notes or even live streaming if someone really wants to be present. | 18:48 |
| dhellmann | we could also write up what we discuss after the fact | 18:50 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, a recap the ML seems like it would be a good thing regardless. | 18:50 |
| zaneb | I think if the TC has work products we need to produce as a team, then it makes sense to get together and produce them even in isolation, and collect the feedback after the fact | 19:13 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 19:17 | |
| fungi | agreed, doing needed work in isolation and communicating after is certainly better than not doing it at all | 19:17 |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 19:30 | |
| *** mfedosin has quit IRC | 19:32 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 19:34 | |
| *** mfedosin has joined #openstack-tc | 19:44 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 20:06 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 20:07 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| *** kumarmn_ has joined #openstack-tc | 20:10 | |
| mnaser | while i think we should do all of our work in the open, there should be times where the team needs to work together | 20:17 |
| mnaser | i think the two times works nicely because we can maybe have some things to keep in mind throughout the PTG | 20:18 |
| mnaser | so we can recap and say "well, we thought X but apparently Y" | 20:18 |
| *** kumarmn_ has quit IRC | 20:26 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 20:29 | |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 20:36 | |
| clarkb | re running a stackalytics in infra, we tried at one time but the software is not really easy to run. There were/are issues with how it reads and caches its data | 20:44 |
| clarkb | The last time there was a major push on it was around the Boston summit. We talked about turning it off entirely and someone from red hat (I don't remember who it was) was adamant they needed it and volunteered to do the work then nothing ever happened aiui | 20:45 |
| fungi | mrmartin proposed some patches to fix its data storage model and make it more stateful, but it also seems that there's nobody actively maintaining the software | 20:47 |
| clarkb | finding people to work on it may be particularly difficult given its reputation | 20:50 |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| smcginnis | I think if we got Mirantis to shut off the current instance (or just not fix whatever the current problem is) we would probably have a few vendors stepping up to get a replacement in place. | 20:54 |
| clarkb | I'm not sur ewe want it to be vendor managed, thats like 99% of the problem today | 20:55 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 20:56 | |
| smcginnis | Oh, I mean we would probably see some vendors willing to provide resources to get a replacement running. | 21:00 |
| smcginnis | Cuz $diety forbid we can't get metrics. | 21:00 |
| *** rosmaita has quit IRC | 21:11 | |
| fungi | there's a delicate balance to strike though. can't damage the pride of the current sponsoring organization by making it look like they couldn't hack it and a competitor had to step in and take it over | 21:21 |
| smcginnis | If it's community hosted I would hope that wouldn't be a problem. | 21:21 |
| fungi | well, the bigger issue with it right now (in my opinion) is convincing the current maintainers | 21:22 |
| smcginnis | Otherwise I think we would be fine with us working with them to "announce" they are no longer going to do it before we pick it up so that it's clear they chose not to do it anymore rather than were unable to. | 21:22 |
| smcginnis | True | 21:22 |
| fungi | we had that same discussion in the past | 21:22 |
| fungi | between the infra team and the stackalytics maintainers | 21:24 |
| fungi | when we were trying to run a copy of it at stackalytics.openstack.org | 21:24 |
| fungi | pabelanger also has some history on this topic he might be willing to share when around | 21:38 |
| fungi | as he was basically leading the effort at the time | 21:39 |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 21:40 | |
| *** annabelleB has quit IRC | 21:45 | |
| pabelanger | Yah, stackalytics.o.o was running in parallel for almost 2 years, but we never flipped the switch. Some of it was related to general ops tasks (eg: weekly reboots) and others are what clarkb mentioned. It wasn't really friendly to stop / start because it stored all the data in memcached. I did have it loading from a snapshot on boot, but still took a long time (1.5 days) to prime its data if lost. | 21:46 |
| pabelanger | we have puppet-stackalytics now, so if we want to bring it back online, it shouldn't be too hard. Just need people to care and help maintain it | 21:47 |
| *** annabelleB has joined #openstack-tc | 21:53 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| fungi | and as mentioned, mrmartin has patches proposed to use redis or something to store its state so it doesn't have to redo all its historical analysis on restart | 21:57 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 22:04 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 22:14 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 22:18 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 22:20 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 22:24 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 22:26 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 22:35 | |
| *** edmondsw has joined #openstack-tc | 22:35 | |
| *** edmondsw has quit IRC | 22:40 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 23:06 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 23:23 | |
| *** kumarmn has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
| *** kumarmn has joined #openstack-tc | 23:58 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!
