| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 01:24 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 01:28 | |
| *** tdasilva has quit IRC | 01:42 | |
| *** ricolin has joined #openstack-tc | 02:30 | |
| gmann | dhellmann: replied on PTL email for QA. i got delivery failure reply for few address (i think i did reply-all). let me know if you received the email otherwise i can resend. | 03:14 |
|---|---|---|
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 03:26 | |
| *** saneax has joined #openstack-tc | 05:50 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 08:25 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 08:30 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 09:00 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 09:43 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 10:17 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 10:23 | |
| *** ricolin has quit IRC | 10:25 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 10:32 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:36 | |
| *** evrardjp_ has joined #openstack-tc | 10:51 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 10:53 | |
| openstackgerrit | Omer Anson proposed openstack/governance master: Remove Dragonflow from the official projects list https://review.openstack.org/613856 | 11:09 |
| openstackgerrit | Thierry Carrez proposed openstack/governance master: Remove Dragonflow from the official projects list https://review.openstack.org/613856 | 11:23 |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-tc | 11:35 | |
| *** zaneb has joined #openstack-tc | 12:47 | |
| *** zaneb has quit IRC | 12:48 | |
| *** zaneb has joined #openstack-tc | 12:48 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 12:55 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 13:28 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 13:40 | |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-tc | 13:48 | |
| dhellmann | tc-members: we're meeting in ~10 minutes at the top of the hour | 13:51 |
| * dhellmann goes to prep more tea | 13:51 | |
| ttx | woah 14 utc indeed (/me is in the DST Bermuda Triangle of meetings, when EU switched but the US has not) | 13:54 |
| *** saneax has quit IRC | 13:55 | |
| * TheJulia heats up the espresso machine | 13:58 | |
| * fungi checks agenda | 14:00 | |
| dhellmann | #startmeeting tc | 14:01 |
| dhellmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-October/136146.html agenda for this meeting | 14:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Nov 1 14:01:04 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dhellmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:01 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 14:01 |
| ttx | oh, it's happening on this channel | 14:01 |
| lbragstad | o/ | 14:01 |
| smcginnis | o/ | 14:01 |
| dhellmann | #topic roll call | 14:01 |
| ttx | o/ | 14:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "roll call (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:01 | |
| dhellmann | tc-members, please indicate if you are present for the logs | 14:01 |
| dims_ | o/ | 14:01 |
| mnaser | o/ | 14:01 |
| gmann | o/ | 14:01 |
| fungi | present and accounted for | 14:01 |
| zaneb | o/ | 14:01 |
| TheJulia | o/ | 14:01 |
| dhellmann | o/ | 14:02 |
| dhellmann | I count 9, so we have quorum | 14:02 |
| dhellmann | #topic meeting procedures | 14:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "meeting procedures (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:02 | |
| dhellmann | as many of you have expressed concern that we not spend a lot of time talking about issues that should be saved for the mailing list, I've tried to set up the agenda with some internal things that we need to move to the next step on, and status updates | 14:03 |
| TheJulia | That seems reasonable | 14:03 |
| dhellmann | this is our first meeting, so I expect we'll adjust as we go along | 14:04 |
| ttx | yes lovnig the agenda | 14:04 |
| zaneb | yeah, let's see how this goes and adjust course if necessary | 14:04 |
| dhellmann | in the future I hope to be able to send out the agenda on the monday of the week we meet | 14:04 |
| gmann | +1 | 14:04 |
| dhellmann | I wasn't quite fast enough to catch up after my time off last week, so that slipped this time | 14:04 |
| dhellmann | I intend to use the wiki for collecting agenda suggestions, but the email is the official agenda notice. I do reserve the right to add topics, but I'll try not to abuse that. | 14:05 |
| dhellmann | I mostly see that as useful for announcements, especially since we're not going to be having long discussions | 14:05 |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 14:06 | |
| dhellmann | does anyone have concerns with that plan? | 14:06 |
| ttx | nope | 14:06 |
| smcginnis | Works for me. | 14:06 |
| fungi | fine by me | 14:06 |
| TheJulia | I am good with that | 14:06 |
| dhellmann | right then, moving on to some of those things we do need to have a bit of discussion about | 14:07 |
| gmann | looks good to me | 14:07 |
| dhellmann | #topic joint leadership meeting at Summit in Berlin | 14:07 |
| dhellmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/12Nov2018BoardMeeting | 14:07 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "joint leadership meeting at Summit in Berlin (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:07 | |
| dhellmann | #info Alan mentioned that the meeting is open but the room may be a bit crowded, so observers may prefer to dial in to the webex presentation. | 14:07 |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-tc | 14:07 | |
| dhellmann | We need to discuss the topics that we want to include in our presentation. | 14:07 |
| dhellmann | We have about 30 minutes, and I think we probably want to save some time for questions or discussion, so I wouldn't want to talk for more than 25 minutes. | 14:07 |
| dhellmann | I have started an etherpad with a list of potential topics, including input from PTLs about their main initiatives for this cycle. | 14:07 |
| dhellmann | #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tc-topics-jlm-stein-berlin | 14:07 |
| ttx | hmm according to that page we have ~60min ? | 14:08 |
| dhellmann | there's a lot of good content there already, and I will start making slides on friday afternoon or monday | 14:08 |
| * dhellmann looks again | 14:08 | |
| dhellmann | perhaps I misread that | 14:08 |
| ttx | 13:15-14:15 OpenStack TC | 14:08 |
| dhellmann | well, good, we can expand the discussion | 14:09 |
| *** e0ne_ has joined #openstack-tc | 14:09 | |
| dhellmann | I think that means we definitely have some time for zaneb to talk about the technical vision details, for example | 14:09 |
| dhellmann | what other topics do folks think we should prioritize? | 14:09 |
| TheJulia | I think we should be cautious about expecting that discussion will be limited to five minutes | 14:09 |
| ttx | I mean probably good to only plan for 45min of content to leave time for Board questions | 14:09 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 14:10 | |
| dhellmann | ttx, yeah, I agree | 14:10 |
| TheJulia | ++ | 14:10 |
| dims_ | ++ | 14:10 |
| ttx | that said, they never really had general questions in the past, which I regret | 14:10 |
| mnaser | also: while I think the technical vision is interesting, i feel lke it might be diving too deep in technicalities for a board meeting? | 14:10 |
| ttx | more reactions to our scheduled topics than open questions | 14:10 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : I think the idea was to describe the fact that we're doing it, what aspects it covers generally, and explain why it's important | 14:11 |
| ttx | mnaser: I think we should stick to describing the process | 14:11 |
| mnaser | i noticed that there was interest in the last call about "What does the TC do" "how often they meet" etc | 14:11 |
| mnaser | but yes, okay, I agree on describing the process | 14:11 |
| fungi | i guess our session will be after the board members vote for/against the proposed bylaws changes? so no real point in bringing that up i guess | 14:11 |
| mnaser | that might probe them to ask "why?" and get some discussion going | 14:11 |
| ttx | ack | 14:11 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yeah, I assume we'll have some opportunity to talk about that prior to the vote | 14:12 |
| ttx | I think it's an important work and the Board needs to know it's hapening | 14:12 |
| zaneb | I assume most folks here are planning on showing up at 9 and not waiting until the joint meeting starts at 1? | 14:12 |
| ttx | not necessarily deep dive into the details | 14:12 |
| lbragstad | zaneb yeah - that's what i was going to do | 14:12 |
| smcginnis | There isn't a closed portion to this board meeting, right? | 14:12 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : I will be | 14:12 |
| fungi | i generally get there in the morning before the board meeting starts | 14:12 |
| ttx | I fear I have to be there at 9 | 14:12 |
| TheJulia | zaneb: That is my plan | 14:12 |
| smcginnis | I plan on being there the whole time. | 14:12 |
| lbragstad | don't threaten me with a good time ;) | 14:13 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : I don't see one on the agenda, but that's still in flux. Usually they only do that when they need to talk about new member companies or other sensitive topics | 14:13 |
| mnaser | ttx: can probably get us a quick foundation answer on that | 14:13 |
| dhellmann | so, what topics should we be talking about | 14:13 |
| mnaser | or fungi | 14:13 |
| dhellmann | we have time outside of the meeting to coordinate this other stuff, let's try to stick to the agenda | 14:14 |
| smcginnis | ++ | 14:14 |
| dhellmann | please :-) | 14:14 |
| ttx | I don't see mention of an executive session -- although it's within Alan's prerogatives to call one | 14:14 |
| fungi | AlanClark can likely tell us if that's expected, when he's around | 14:14 |
| mnaser | anyways: things to talk about (throwing ideas) -- new release, progress of some projects that we gathered, tc changes in governance since last board meeting | 14:15 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : how long do you think you would need to explain the vision process and its status? | 14:15 |
| ttx | new faces | 14:15 |
| dhellmann | yes, there's a separate section of the meeting to introduce new members | 14:15 |
| ttx | ah right | 14:16 |
| dhellmann | frame this as the TC reporting to the board about the openstack project. What do they need to know? | 14:16 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: I can make it as long or as quick as you want :) 10 mins should be sufficient I think? | 14:16 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : is that including time for questions? | 14:16 |
| ttx | dhellmann: from that framing, I think some numbers of contributions / size of community should be communicated | 14:16 |
| dhellmann | ttx: that's usually something the foundation staff does, isn't it? do you have that sort of info at hand? | 14:17 |
| ttx | I can help compiling some data and we can see how to communicate them | 14:17 |
| gmann | yeah that is important and specially projects are in risk due to non-active contributors | 14:17 |
| ttx | dhellmann: I feel like it should be communicated by the TC -- in the past I've been doing it with mt TC hat on rather than staff hat | 14:18 |
| dhellmann | I'm going to reiterate that, based on the feedback from Alan in Denver, I'm going to be focusing on positive messages for this presentation. I think we have plenty of good stuff to talk about to fill the time we have. | 14:18 |
| ttx | ++ | 14:18 |
| TheJulia | ++ | 14:18 |
| mnaser | i agree | 14:18 |
| dhellmann | ttx: ok, how much time should we carve out for that? | 14:18 |
| fungi | yes, let's not heap concerns and fears over dwindling contributor activity on the board members. it's up to us to solve those problems (if they're actually problems and not opportunities) | 14:19 |
| ttx | "70,000 commits over the past year... you know... like that little project called the Linux kernel" | 14:19 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: hmm, hard to estimate how much time we'll need for questions :/ | 14:19 |
| ttx | dhellmann: can go fast as part of the intro presentation / Rocky update slides | 14:20 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : yeah, I agree | 14:20 |
| mnaser | i dont think the board needs more than 3-5 minute of information about the vision thing | 14:20 |
| mnaser | because honestly: we haven't even nailed it down yet | 14:20 |
| fungi | we likely need to be flexible with the list of things we want to present, front-load with the items of greatest importance/impact and expect to take questions throughout | 14:20 |
| ttx | I would give stats as part of a presentation, not as the start of a discussion | 14:20 |
| dhellmann | fungi : ++ | 14:20 |
| dhellmann | I'm starting to order the presentations on line 13 of the etherpad | 14:20 |
| ttx | The pilot projects that go after us will be very much in presentation format | 14:21 |
| dhellmann | do we need to do a "rocky" update? | 14:21 |
| ttx | I think we need to give some amount of "state of the union" information | 14:21 |
| TheJulia | it would be good to highlight, kind of like ttx is suggesting | 14:21 |
| ttx | not sure that is a "Rocky" update | 14:21 |
| zaneb | mnaser: it seems to be getting close in terms of what we're going to get out of the technical community, so we do need to open it up to other stakeholders like the board ~now | 14:21 |
| ttx | More of a Nov 2018 state of the union | 14:22 |
| TheJulia | agreed | 14:22 |
| mnaser | zaneb: i think we can discuss the details of that outside the meeting | 14:22 |
| mnaser | but we have only a single TC +1 on it so IMHO.. early | 14:22 |
| zaneb | mnaser: yeah, but we need to get it on their radar | 14:22 |
| dhellmann | who wants to give the rocky update presentation? | 14:23 |
| mnaser | can we maybe come up with a list of highlights of things merged in governance repo? | 14:23 |
| zaneb | mnaser: well I wouldn't expect a TC vote on it until after we've talked to people outside the technical community to make sure we're on the right track | 14:23 |
| ttx | More of "this is what's happening in the TC and OpenStack", and less of "Oh, here is the bunch of issues we are facing, in case you can help" | 14:23 |
| TheJulia | I want to caution us against information overload. | 14:24 |
| TheJulia | We need clear, concise, easy to gain context of items | 14:24 |
| mnaser | let's just stick to one subject: dhellmann asked first, rocky update presentation | 14:24 |
| mnaser | any volunteers? | 14:24 |
| ttx | yes, keep it VERY simple and high level | 14:24 |
| ttx | and under slide format | 14:24 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I had a lot of feedback from several of you that having multiple conversations during meetings was hard to follow and distracting | 14:24 |
| fungi | i agree it doesn't need to be a rocky-specific update, but mentioning things which happened during the rocky dev cycle or appeared in the rocky release could still be topical | 14:25 |
| dhellmann | so let's try to be more formal here, and stick to 1 thing at a time | 14:25 |
| dhellmann | right now I have it set up with a rocky update, stein update, and tc update | 14:25 |
| TheJulia | I think this needs to be more state of the union as well, Which plays into the project health tracking as well, so we need to likely condense that information down, and make that conveyable clearly and concisely along with things like contriutor counts, etc. | 14:25 |
| smcginnis | I can collect some things for a Rocky update unless someone else wants to do it. | 14:26 |
| dhellmann | who want to do the rocky update? | 14:26 |
| dhellmann | ok, thanks smcginnis | 14:26 |
| mnaser | maybe we should pair people up on that too dhellmann | 14:26 |
| smcginnis | Input on content definitely welcome. | 14:26 |
| mnaser | maybe one person can present but the other can help gathering and building slides | 14:26 |
| dhellmann | I'll leave it up to each presenter to pick a pair | 14:26 |
| ttx | For the "look at the past" segment I can help with stats | 14:26 |
| dhellmann | thanks, ttx | 14:26 |
| ttx | (a.k.a Rocky) | 14:26 |
| fungi | aside from stats and mentioning that the release was on-time and under-budget, what else are we wanting to mention? feature highlights or something? | 14:27 |
| dhellmann | ok, I was going to talk about the stein stuff and the tc structural changes. zane is signed up for the vision | 14:27 |
| ttx | "look at the future" (a.k.a. Stein) should include mention of work on TC vision | 14:27 |
| dhellmann | do we need to cover anything else as a TC initiative? | 14:27 |
| ttx | Goals? | 14:27 |
| dhellmann | fungi : at this point I think the feature highlights for rocky are old news, aren't they? | 14:27 |
| ttx | (part of "the future" as well) | 14:28 |
| dhellmann | ttx: line 20 of the etherpad | 14:28 |
| mnaser | the board probably heard it a few times now in their callls i guess | 14:28 |
| fungi | this is why i'm curious why we want to give a rocky update | 14:28 |
| mnaser | regarding rocky update | 14:28 |
| dhellmann | fungi : I'm thinking a very very short "everything went great" update | 14:28 |
| smcginnis | fungi: I was thinking more along the lines of covering the overall state, not necessarily development highlight. | 14:28 |
| fungi | ahh, okay. let's say that. we can move on | 14:28 |
| dhellmann | setting the pattern for these presentations for the future | 14:29 |
| dhellmann | past release, current plans, tc-specific stuff | 14:29 |
| smcginnis | dhellmann: ++ | 14:29 |
| ttx | yes | 14:29 |
| TheJulia | I would like to point out that we are approaching the bottom of the hour | 14:29 |
| dhellmann | thanks, TheJulia | 14:29 |
| fungi | so less of a rocky update and more of a look back at rocky | 14:29 |
| dhellmann | yes, let's keep working on this out of the meeting, but I think we have a good structure and we have speakers assigned | 14:29 |
| ttx | On "current plans..." shoudl we cover the PTL election & project status ? Or should that be our internal sausage factory ? | 14:30 |
| zaneb | TheJulia: is it worth talking about your code review culture initiative as something the TC has done since the last summit? | 14:30 |
| ttx | zaneb: I like that | 14:30 |
| dhellmann | ttx: do you mean the fact that we had to appoint some PTLs? | 14:30 |
| gmann | ttx may be just changes in leadership etc | 14:30 |
| dhellmann | zaneb , TheJulia : ++ | 14:30 |
| * smcginnis notes we are half way through the meeting and we're not too far in the agenda | 14:30 | |
| TheJulia | zaneb: I think we're starting to get off topic, I think we have some evidence if we look at specific projects. The trend seems to be less revisions are occuring, at least at the projects I've looked at | 14:31 |
| ttx | dhellmann: yes, as mentioned on the pad | 14:31 |
| TheJulia | I'm unsure of how I would do aggregate number collection, ttx likely has some scripts that could help? | 14:31 |
| ttx | TheJulia: hmm... not so much... I can see if I find anything | 14:31 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : I think it's sufficient for you to say "we're working on making this change, for this reason. It seems to be working but it's early." | 14:32 |
| TheJulia | That is also a very true statement dhellmann | 14:32 |
| ttx | yeah, maybe not make it a KPI | 14:32 |
| zaneb | TheJulia: just telling them that we did it is a useful thing, even if we don't have numbers to back it up | 14:32 |
| TheJulia | ++ | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | remember, in the future we're going to be giving these presentations right at the start of the cycle, so almost nothing new will be done enough to measure yet | 14:32 |
| smcginnis | I think we're getting into details we don't need to sort out in the meeting. | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | ++ | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | moving on | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | #topic completing TC liaison assignments | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | Has everyone had a chance to sign up for liaisons? | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_health_tracker#Project_Teams | 14:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "completing TC liaison assignments (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:32 | |
| gmann | we are not going to talk about "Current Challenges" which i feel important to highlight(not asking for solution though) | 14:32 |
| TheJulia | I thought we were going to do random programatic assignments? | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | I haven't done that yet, but was waiting to go last | 14:33 |
| gmann | ok, let's move to next | 14:33 |
| dhellmann | gmann : right, we're going to pass on that this time around | 14:33 |
| gmann | k | 14:33 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : some folks wanted a chance to sign up, so I was leaving some time for that. | 14:33 |
| TheJulia | gah | 14:33 |
| smcginnis | I've done a few updates. I need to ping Freezer again. | 14:33 |
| dhellmann | if we're ready, I will do the random assignments | 14:33 |
| dhellmann | this is me asking if we're ready :-) | 14:33 |
| ttx | do it | 14:33 |
| lbragstad | ++ | 14:33 |
| dims_ | ++ | 14:34 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: please do random assignments. I for one have too much on my plate to have even picked up on doing assignments the same was as last time | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | #action dhellmann complete liaison assignments using the random generator | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | ok, now we're moving into the status update portion of the meeting | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | #topic documenting chair responsibilities | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tc-chair-responsibilities | 14:34 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "documenting chair responsibilities (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:34 | |
| TheJulia | As a side note, I did put one in for ironic, since I'm in a position to do so... Please feel free to sanity check. | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | I am working on writing down the things I'm having to do as chair. | 14:34 |
| dhellmann | I don't know yet where that will live when it's closer to complete | 14:35 |
| dhellmann | perhaps just a text file in the governance repo | 14:35 |
| dhellmann | suggestions welcome on that, after the meeting | 14:35 |
| smcginnis | Looks like a great start. | 14:35 |
| dhellmann | and of course comments on the content are also welcome | 14:35 |
| TheJulia | Seems like it is a living document, but maybe one not needing a full committee approval to update | 14:35 |
| dhellmann | yeah, approval would probably fall under the "documentation change" rules | 14:36 |
| zaneb | traditionally that kind of thing was on the wiki, but I guess we're moving away from that | 14:36 |
| dhellmann | that's juust 2 reviewers | 14:36 |
| dhellmann | any questions about that before we move on? | 14:36 |
| mnaser | okay by me :) | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | moving on then | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | #topic reviewing the health-check check list | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_health_tracker#Health_check_list | 14:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "reviewing the health-check check list (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:37 | |
| ttx | I'll review it | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | ttx: thanks | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | we don't need to go into detail on this now, but please spend some time looking over that list and thinking about the contents | 14:38 |
| ttx | re: health check we should focus on teams that did not have any update yet | 14:38 |
| smcginnis | We might want to think about how we process all this data we are collecting. | 14:38 |
| dhellmann | both of those are good thoughts | 14:38 |
| ttx | on the check list itself, some said it was a bit overwhelming | 14:38 |
| ttx | so maybe it should be split between must do and can do | 14:39 |
| fungi | i saw it as less of a checklist and more of a set of possible conversation starters | 14:39 |
| dhellmann | maybe we can get 2 volunteers to work on a minimalist version of that? | 14:39 |
| ttx | I'm fine with considering it all a can do | 14:39 |
| TheJulia | I don't think we need write details about everything, but I think we need to aggregate that down into a few sentences | 14:39 |
| TheJulia | That way we're not creating information overload | 14:39 |
| mnaser | keep in mind: i've had some projects be concerned about what was written there | 14:40 |
| dhellmann | #action tc-members review the chair duties document | 14:40 |
| mnaser | they felt that was what the TC thought of them officially. | 14:40 |
| dhellmann | #action tc-members review the health check-list items | 14:40 |
| gmann | mnaser: this is very imp point. any data or statement should not go in negative direction for projects | 14:40 |
| TheJulia | mnaser: True, that is a risk, but I think we need to make sure that if there is a perception disconnect that we talk it out | 14:40 |
| dhellmann | let's save that discussion for outside of the meeting | 14:41 |
| ttx | mnaser: so... an alternative way of doing it (now that we have meetings) is to have a section at the meeting where health checkers report on their findings | 14:41 |
| TheJulia | ++ | 14:41 |
| mnaser | yep. i just wanted to make sure that we keep that in mind, not discuss it now :) | 14:41 |
| ttx | although monthly meeting might quickly get overloaded | 14:41 |
| * dhellmann checks the clock | 14:41 | |
| dhellmann | moving on | 14:41 |
| dhellmann | #topic deciding next steps on technical vision statement | 14:41 |
| dhellmann | #link https://review.openstack.org/592205 | 14:41 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "deciding next steps on technical vision statement (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:41 | |
| dhellmann | zaneb : what do we need to do next with the vision work? what is the next step? | 14:42 |
| ttx | TC vision is currently getting confronted with current reality | 14:42 |
| smcginnis | We have a Forum session that should be useful. | 14:42 |
| ttx | i.e. do our current projects actually fit | 14:42 |
| zaneb | I think the next step is to talk to the UC and the board | 14:42 |
| ttx | which I think is a very interesting exercise | 14:42 |
| mnaser | as a PTL of deployment project, I've voiced my concern many times with no answer | 14:42 |
| ttx | zaneb: ++ | 14:42 |
| mnaser | it has zero representation care and pretty much says you have no place here in openstack | 14:42 |
| * mnaser shrugs | 14:42 | |
| zaneb | mnaser: and I've repeatedly explained that it says no such thing | 14:43 |
| dhellmann | I do not want to argue about the content of the vision right now. | 14:43 |
| ttx | An openstack deployment project deploys openstack... this defines what is being deployed | 14:43 |
| smcginnis | #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/berlin-2018/summit-schedule/events/22818/vision-for-openstack-clouds-discussion | 14:43 |
| ttx | both are opart of openstack, just at different layers/boxes | 14:43 |
| dhellmann | This is a "project management" update to determine next steps. | 14:43 |
| TheJulia | I think we would have better luck discussing this at the forum | 14:43 |
| ttx | ++ | 14:43 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: fair, we can save that discussion for later. okay, makes sense | 14:43 |
| mnaser | well i guess let's wait till the forum session then, i agree on that | 14:43 |
| dhellmann | it sounds like the 2 discussions at the forum (in the joint leadership meeting and the general forum session) are next | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : will those set the next-next steps, or do you have something in mind already? | 14:44 |
| ttx | next-next should be approval, imho | 14:44 |
| ttx | and then iterate from there | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | that makes sense, I guess | 14:46 |
| lbragstad | #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/berlin-2018/summit-schedule/events/22818/vision-for-openstack-clouds-discussion | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | does anyone have anything else to say about the *process* for that? | 14:46 |
| smcginnis | Guess we can move on. | 14:46 |
| * dhellmann is not enjoying the new role of "focus police" | 14:46 | |
| smcginnis | ;) | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | ok, next up | 14:46 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: perhaps someone else in the meeting can play that role? | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | #topic deciding next steps on python 3 and distro versions for PTI | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | #link https://review.openstack.org/610708 Add optional python3.7 unit test enablement to python3-first | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | #link https://review.openstack.org/611010 Make Python 3 testing requirement less specific | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | #link https://review.openstack.org/611080 Explicitly declare Stein supported runtimes | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | #link https://review.openstack.org/613145 Resolution on keeping up with Python 3 releases | 14:47 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "deciding next steps on python 3 and distro versions for PTI (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:47 | |
| ttx | dhellmann: add it to the chair responsibilities etherpad | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | we clearly have several parts of this in progress right now | 14:47 |
| * ttx remembers it not being funny too | 14:47 | |
| dhellmann | it looks like zaneb and smcginnis are driving it? | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | again, project management hats on everyone | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | what do we need to do next to move this forward? | 14:47 |
| smcginnis | I like zaneb's approach of defining how we want to handle this, then retroactively apply that. | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | so that's focusing on the resolution? the last link? | 14:48 |
| dhellmann | that makes sense to me, do we have agreement there? | 14:48 |
| smcginnis | Yep. Mine can also proceed in parallel and adjust depending on how that goes. | 14:48 |
| dhellmann | #action tc-members review https://review.openstack.org/613145 | 14:48 |
| zaneb | sorry, had to step away for a sec, reading scrollback | 14:49 |
| fungi | as long as we manage to agree on _something_ i've really lost interest in what we agree on there at this point | 14:49 |
| ttx | +1 | 14:49 |
| dims_ | :) | 14:49 |
| mnaser | as long as this stuff runs on distros people run openstack on | 14:49 |
| mnaser | we should just move forward without sinking on too many details | 14:49 |
| smcginnis | I just think it's important to have infra input on it too as far as what's feasible for gate testing. | 14:49 |
| fungi | there are clearly people with some very strong opinions on this matter, and i just want to make sure we decide so we can take action | 14:49 |
| dhellmann | yes, I would like us to set a clear process down | 14:50 |
| zaneb | the four reviews up there are all kind of overlapping | 14:50 |
| smcginnis | Explicit is better than implicit. | 14:50 |
| zaneb | as I said yesterday, I think the best way forward is to decide on the process in general, and *then* go back and apply it to Stein | 14:50 |
| dhellmann | zaneb : yeah, do you think we can focus on working out details in your resolution, and then as you say apply that retroactively (including updating the other changes if needed)? | 14:50 |
| dhellmann | yeah | 14:50 |
| dhellmann | ok, so focus on that resolution and get the details straight there | 14:50 |
| dhellmann | are there objections to that plan? | 14:51 |
| TheJulia | none here | 14:51 |
| zaneb | +1. I'm happy to make adjustments based on comments | 14:51 |
| fungi | the thrust of 611010 was to just rip out the conflicting/redundant information so we can move forward following what we already assert that we do, but people seem to want to debate it ad nauseum that we don't really mean that and we should redefine it first before we act | 14:51 |
| zaneb | dhellmann has suggested some stuff, so it would be good to hear from other people whether they want those changes or other changes | 14:51 |
| smcginnis | Next step is to review https://review.openstack.org/613145 and go from there I think. | 14:52 |
| dhellmann | fungi : I'll take another look at that change, maybe we can go ahead with that, too | 14:52 |
| dhellmann | ok, up next | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | #topic reviews needing attention | 14:53 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "reviews needing attention (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:53 | |
| dhellmann | we have a couple of things that need reviews | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | #link https://review.openstack.org/613268 Indicate relmgt style for each deliverable | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | #link https://review.openstack.org/613856 Remove Dragonflow from the official projects list | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/614597 series to create library for governance data | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | in addition to the items mentioned earlier, of course | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | please add those to your queue | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | did I miss anything? | 14:54 |
| dhellmann | hearing no response... | 14:54 |
| dhellmann | #topic next meeting | 14:54 |
| dhellmann | #info the next TC meeting will be 6 December 1400 UTC in #openstack-tc | 14:54 |
| dhellmann | If you have suggestions for topics for the next meeting, please add them to the wiki at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda_Suggestions | 14:54 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "next meeting (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:54 | |
| dhellmann | and that is the end of the agenda | 14:55 |
| dhellmann | I will save open discussion for outside of the formal meeting | 14:55 |
| dhellmann | Thank you, everyone! | 14:55 |
| smcginnis | Thanks | 14:55 |
| lbragstad | thanks | 14:55 |
| gmann | thanks | 14:55 |
| TheJulia | thanks | 14:55 |
| dims_ | Thanks! | 14:56 |
| dhellmann | #endmeeting | 14:56 |
| *** 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/" | 14:56 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Nov 1 14:56:19 2018 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 14:56 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-11-01-14.01.html | 14:56 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-11-01-14.01.txt | 14:56 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2018/tc.2018-11-01-14.01.log.html | 14:56 |
| ttx | thx dhellmann ! | 14:56 |
| fungi | and we have 3 minutes until office hour, so any community members with questions about that meeting can ask them if they like (or anything else for that matter) | 14:57 |
| mnaser | thank you, dhellmann. | 14:57 |
| smcginnis | Great "TC business" I think. I would like to see us be less verbose in the future, but I think we did pretty good for a first meeting. | 14:57 |
| mnaser | not to take away from office hours time but i found it pretty hard, maybe i just talk a lot :) | 14:58 |
| mnaser | it was hard to just discuss "concepts"/"management" and avoid just getting to the bottom of issues | 14:58 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I think we need to practice staying on focus. I tried to phrase questions very specifically to encourage that. | 14:58 |
| AlanClark | hey TC - At this point there is no executive session planned | 14:58 |
| dhellmann | AlanClark : ok, thanks! | 14:58 |
| smcginnis | Thanks AlanClark | 14:58 |
| mnaser | and it was a lot of material that we covered.. and i feel like we need to follow up on but we won't be able to till another month | 14:58 |
| mnaser | but that's my 2 cents | 14:58 |
| mnaser | i'll keep the rest for a ml thread | 14:58 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : I agree that if we only talk about these things in the meetings, it won't help. But that is not what I have heard anyone say they want to do. | 14:59 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, follow up shouldn't need to wait for the official meeting. We want to avoid that. | 14:59 |
| fungi | follow up should be on the mailing list or in review comments | 14:59 |
| smcginnis | ++ | 14:59 |
| persia | When attending formal meetings, I find it useful to review the agenda beforehand, pre-write one or two lines of comments about each item, and then spend the time during the meeting taking notes about what I want to say later. Generally speaking, not much is actually *done* in formal meetings: it is more about listing the things to be discussed, and identifying people who will bring a result back at the next meeting. | 15:00 |
| dhellmann | I hope that being aggressive about shutting down discussion inside the meeting encourages it to flourish elsewhere | 15:00 |
| mnaser | i still feel like a lot of tc discussion activities happens over IRC and honestly email has been a lot easier now that i've been flooded with a zillion other things | 15:00 |
| persia | In the case of TC meetings, being able to defer all the voting to the review process makes it even easier to get through quickly. | 15:00 |
| smcginnis | persia: I would love to see our meeting follow that pattern. | 15:00 |
| mnaser | email still keeps things async, pinging about a discussion in irc that happens 3 days ago.. doesnt make as much sense | 15:00 |
| persia | smcginnis: Then you should be happy that dhellmann is chair, and does a good job of preventing verbose discussion during the formal meeting :) | 15:01 |
| smcginnis | Yep ;) | 15:01 |
| dims_ | +1 :) | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : is there a particular topic you're thinking of? When I reviewed the logs from when I was out, I saw some discussion but as far as I could tell all of that ended up moving to the ML or reviews | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | maybe I missed something, though | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | I'm hoping next time we don't have as many topics, frankly | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | I'd like these to be 30 minute meetings if we can make that happen | 15:02 |
| mnaser | few examples: discussion about what the board thinks of us earlier, ci/infra stuff regarding resource usage, bionic/trusty migration | 15:04 |
| fungi | ci/infra stuff all went to the mailing list | 15:04 |
| fungi | bionic/trusty migration is happening mostly in code review | 15:04 |
| mnaser | i saw a zuul-discuss thread about like reprioritizing stuff | 15:04 |
| mnaser | but certainly the entire context is not in ML | 15:05 |
| mnaser | there's a handful of messages compared to the much more detailed discussion here | 15:05 |
| fungi | i'm talking about the thread clarkb started on the openstack-dev ml about ci resource consumption and tracking | 15:05 |
| mnaser | bionic/trusty, im talking about the "Who does what" discussion | 15:05 |
| mnaser | (dont wanna come up nitpicking all this stuff but these are things i've just noticed) | 15:06 |
| fungi | there's a distilled set of relevant details on the mailing list, compared to the noisy and overly redundant/circuitous discussion which happened in irc | 15:06 |
| mnaser | also it's office hours, hi community :> | 15:06 |
| smcginnis | The only way someone will get all context is if they are there as part of the discussion and the discussions that lead to the discussion. I'm not concerned about capturing all that, and I certainly don't think a meeting does much to help with that. | 15:07 |
| mnaser | cant possibly do that with all the timezones that we cover, let alone all the things we need to focus on outside tc activites | 15:08 |
| mnaser | but anyways, clearly i'm the minority in thinking that meeting more often and discussing things to get to the bottom of them in a period of time is the better thing so | 15:09 |
| mnaser | i'll just keep complaining :P | 15:09 |
| smcginnis | :) | 15:10 |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 15:18 | |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-tc | 15:19 | |
| dhellmann | smcginnis , TheJulia , zaneb : I added a draft of the agenda we just discussed to https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/12Nov2018BoardMeeting#OpenStack_Leadership_Meeting_Agenda | 15:20 |
| dhellmann | there's a little room to adjust timings | 15:20 |
| dhellmann | we should talk about how to prepare a single slide deck to avoid wasting time switching webex presenters | 15:20 |
| smcginnis | Looks good to me. | 15:21 |
| smcginnis | I was just going to put together a Google Slides deck that someone else already WebEx presenter could pull up, but we could also collaborate on one presentation. | 15:22 |
| *** saneax has joined #openstack-tc | 15:22 | |
| smcginnis | I'll start with my own and we can pull it into one if we want to later. | 15:22 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : I'm starting one now, so I just need google ids to share | 15:23 |
| smcginnis | dhellmann: OK, that sounds good. Do you have my gmail? | 15:23 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I found it | 15:23 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: lgtm, I'll try and see if I can dig up some metrics | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : like I said in the meeting, those would be nice but I think it's perfectly reasonable to talk about it as a WIP | 15:24 |
| TheJulia | agreed, I still think it would be awesome to have a graph or two :) | 15:25 |
| dhellmann | absolutely, I just don't want this to be a source of stress :-) | 15:25 |
| TheJulia | I'm anti-stress today. :) | 15:28 |
| zaneb | mnaser: you make a great point in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/592205/4/reference/new-projects-requirements.rst@20 - it does look to me like the new projects requirements are out of step with our actual practice of including deployment/lifecycle management projects, operations projects, adjacent enablers, and client libs/tools | 15:31 |
| zaneb | mnaser: so maybe we should update those? | 15:32 |
| *** e0ne_ has quit IRC | 15:34 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 15:34 | |
| * dhellmann notes the very quiet office hour following the meeting | 15:44 | |
| smcginnis | Maybe that's good? | 15:44 |
| smcginnis | Some concern was noted about community members being afraid to raise topics during office hours since we were always so busy already talking about other things. | 15:45 |
| dhellmann | perhaps | 15:47 |
| dhellmann | tc-members: during the meeting I asked for 2 volunteers to produce a minimal list of the health-check questionaire, but we didn't stop long enough to register any names. Can I get 2 people to sign up for that? | 15:48 |
| fungi | oh, i thought we said an alternative was to consider the entries there selectively optional, for use as suggested conversation starters | 15:51 |
| fungi | so no minimal version required | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | ah, ok, maybe I misunderstood that outcome | 15:52 |
| openstackgerrit | Zane Bitter proposed openstack/governance master: Clarify scope of new projects https://review.openstack.org/614799 | 16:07 |
| zaneb | mnaser: ^ | 16:07 |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 16:13 | |
| jroll | I don't see it directly said on the wiki, but the nov 12 board/tc meeting is open to all, right? | 16:18 |
| jroll | implied by the webex details, but just to be sure | 16:18 |
| dhellmann | jroll : there's a note under the location details about the room possibly being "full" | 16:19 |
| jroll | dhellmann: right, is that meant as a "don't bother trying"? or does the "many who wish to attend this meeting" mean I might be one of the people they expect to help fill the room? | 16:21 |
| dhellmann | I don't have any more details than what is in the wiki, unfortunately. | 16:22 |
| dhellmann | If I had to guess, I would count you as one of "the many" | 16:22 |
| jroll | ok, thanks | 16:22 |
| fungi | jroll: i take it to mean "be prepared to stand for some hours" | 16:24 |
| jroll | ++ | 16:24 |
| jroll | I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't be turned away because I'm not "leadership" | 16:24 |
| dhellmann | that wouldn't be the policy, no | 16:25 |
| dhellmann | just don't be late | 16:25 |
| persia | Even in cases where there were no extra chairs for one of these meetings, I've not seen anyone turned away. | 16:25 |
| clarkb | ya space is usually limited. In the past I've done my best to get there but if there isn't room taken the opportunity for touristing in that part of town :) | 16:25 |
| clarkb | persia: ya usually its a matter of how uncomfortable you are willing to be | 16:26 |
| persia | Compared to dealing with the travel, the rooms are usually fairly nice, even when there are no chairs, but that might just be me :) | 16:26 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 16:26 | |
| jroll | heh | 16:29 |
| jroll | yeah, I know the usual drill, just making sure nothing has changed :) | 16:29 |
| AlanClark | Hi jroll - you won't be turned away because you are not "leadership". I am cautioning simply because of the number of people who are showing interest in attending may overflow the size of the room. I added a note to the wiki to help everyone know that the intent is to keep the dial-in up and running through the day so that the meeeting is open to everyone to be able to listen in | 16:30 |
| dhellmann | we will be relatively close to the museumsinsel, so if there's no room I volunteer to give up my chair and go look at art instead | 16:30 |
| jroll | AlanClark: ++ thanks! | 16:30 |
| jroll | dhellmann: I get in around 11am and hotel is nearby so my backup plan is more sleep :) | 16:30 |
| dhellmann | jroll : +2a | 16:31 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 16:35 | |
| fungi | also i'm reminded that the board/leadership meeting is some ~30 minutes by car from the conference venue | 16:58 |
| fungi | so just because your hotel is near to one, don't assume it's near the other | 16:59 |
| fungi | and the meeting is in a deutsche telekom office building which will apparently be registering and checking in meeting attendees at the security desk. i'm trying to get some details on how that will work for community members showing up | 17:00 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 17:04 | |
| fungi | https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=52.50012%2C13.27079%3B52.51492%2C13.39180#map=13/52.5076/13.3265 | 17:06 |
| fungi | looks like osm says you can walk it in ~2 hours | 17:07 |
| AlanClark | We will be supplying DT with a list of 'known' attendees prior to the meeting date to help speed up the check in process. | 17:07 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 17:07 | |
| fungi | thanks AlanClark! ashlee is checking with frank at dt too so we can find out what the process will be for non-known attendees | 17:08 |
| AlanClark | that will be great to get clarification - particularly if some ID is needed. | 17:09 |
| fungi | yeah, i'm hoping we can get the meeting details amended with notes for whatever process community member attendees need to follow for this one | 17:13 |
| fungi | since it's not just at a conference space or hotel | 17:13 |
| dhellmann | I haven't looked yet, does Lyft operate in Berlin? | 17:14 |
| persia | Also, if there is a way that one can preconfirm one's intention of being a 'known' attendee, that would be grand. | 17:14 |
| dhellmann | oh, apparently lyft is still NA only | 17:16 |
| fungi | dhellmann: there were some rumors Ć¼ber had been outlawed in berlin, but i've also heard that's old and it's in use there now | 17:16 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 17:16 | |
| dhellmann | I was planning on taking the train anyway, since my hotel is close to a stop | 17:16 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 17:17 | |
| zaneb | fungi: plenty of U-Bahn access in that area. it won't be hard to get there | 17:19 |
| fungi | yeah, i find public transit in germany quite easy to navigate | 17:21 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 17:22 | |
| dhellmann | this is my first trip there; it looks like I will want to get one of the WelcomeCard passes to get the week-long transit ticket. It's not quite clear the best way to purchase one of those, though. | 17:23 |
| dhellmann | do we have the usual city guide stuff in the wiki? | 17:24 |
| clarkb | dhellmann: not yet, I'm told we will have one shortly though | 17:27 |
| dhellmann | cool | 17:27 |
| jroll | dhellmann: I asked dtantsur|afk about the week-long transit tickets, he seemed to think they could be purchased at the airport | 17:28 |
| jroll | you can also do them by mail, but probably a bit late for that | 17:28 |
| dhellmann | there's an app, too, it looks like | 17:28 |
| jroll | also, google maps appears to support train navigation in berlin | 17:28 |
| zaneb | dhellmann: I've never been to Tegel but you should be able to get those tickets at the ticket machines for the buses there | 17:28 |
| dhellmann | but yeah, physical tickets at the airport seems good | 17:28 |
| zaneb | one ticket covers all transport in the city, so tickets are available ~everywhere | 17:29 |
| dhellmann | yeah, that was my impression from what I've been reading | 17:29 |
| zaneb | I would recommend getting a 1-week ticket for zone A+B | 17:30 |
| ttx | yes, 30 EUR | 17:30 |
| ttx | The WelcomeCard is interesting if you intend to use the 50% rebates on museums all week | 17:31 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 17:31 | |
| ttx | (max rebate) | 17:31 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I was planning to hit some museums on sat/sun when I arrive | 17:31 |
| dhellmann | if the WelcomeCard doesn't jump you to the front of the line like the Paris pass, it's probably not worth it, though | 17:35 |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 17:38 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 17:42 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 17:47 | |
| openstackgerrit | Zane Bitter proposed openstack/governance master: Clarify scope of new projects https://review.openstack.org/614799 | 17:54 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 17:59 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 17:59 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 18:02 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:05 | |
| openstackgerrit | Matthew Thode proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: Document review policy for OpenStack Proposal Bot https://review.openstack.org/614821 | 18:06 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 18:27 | |
| openstackgerrit | Matthew Thode proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: add review guidelines for the openstack freeze https://review.openstack.org/614826 | 18:28 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack/project-team-guide master: Document review policy for OpenStack Proposal Bot https://review.openstack.org/614821 | 18:34 |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 18:47 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 18:48 | |
| openstackgerrit | Matthew Thode proposed openstack/project-team-guide master: add review guidelines for the openstack freeze https://review.openstack.org/614826 | 18:54 |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 18:57 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 18:59 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 18:59 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 19:31 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 19:33 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 19:43 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 19:58 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has joined #openstack-tc | 19:58 | |
| openstackgerrit | Zane Bitter proposed openstack/governance master: Add a Vision statement for OpenStack clouds https://review.openstack.org/592205 | 19:59 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 20:02 | |
| dhellmann | tc-members: the board is reviewing the latest redlines for the bylaws updates. if you are interested in joining see https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/1Nov2018BoardMeeting for details | 20:05 |
| mnaser | its late :< | 20:06 |
| * mnaser listens in | 20:06 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 20:11 | |
| evrardjp_ | o/ | 20:15 |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has quit IRC | 20:15 | |
| evrardjp_ | sorry for having missed the meeting today -- it's a week-off for me and family time. | 20:15 |
| dhellmann | evrardjp_ : don't apologize for taking time off! :-) | 20:16 |
| evrardjp_ | thanks for the sending the minutes through email. | 20:16 |
| evrardjp_ | more convenient than searching through eavesdrop :D | 20:16 |
| dhellmann | writing it down for the win! | 20:18 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 20:25 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 20:26 | |
| mnaser | it bums me out sometimes how there is such a disconnect sometimes | 20:27 |
| * mnaser can only name a handful of board members that are actually involved *in* openstack and within the community | 20:28 | |
| mnaser | :< | 20:28 |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 20:28 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 20:28 | |
| TheJulia | Well, we do have the board elections | 20:32 |
| TheJulia | That can... at least... partially be fixed. Well more than anything the perception | 20:32 |
| fungi | we get to elect an entire third of them, in fact | 20:32 |
| TheJulia | Indeed | 20:32 |
| dtroyer | do you feel there is coorelation between the directly elected members and the more involved members? | 20:33 |
| mnaser | not really | 20:33 |
| mnaser | there's a big disconnect tbh | 20:33 |
| dhellmann | what level of involvement is expected? | 20:34 |
| fungi | i'm not entirely sure. we sometimes manage to elect some disconnected but popular candidates to the board, and then some member companies appoint some pretty involved folks too | 20:34 |
| dtroyer | agreed I don't see a pattern there, was curious if anyone else did | 20:34 |
| mnaser | the appointed ones are okay. | 20:34 |
| mnaser | not really something we can do | 20:35 |
| mnaser | but being more involved as in, join our tc meetings, know whats going on inside the community | 20:35 |
| dtroyer | attend board meetingsā¦ | 20:35 |
| dhellmann | tc-members: all of this stuff about the bylaws that wendar and Mark are saying is also good advice for *our* resolutions and policies | 20:41 |
| dhellmann | don't hard-wire things; leave room for flexibility; don't overly prescribe details | 20:41 |
| evrardjp_ | dhellmann: agreed | 20:42 |
| *** evrardjp_ is now known as evrardjp | 20:42 | |
| fungi | i concur | 20:42 |
| smcginnis | ++ | 20:42 |
| TheJulia | agree | 20:42 |
| dhellmann | write the rules down in a document managed by the appropriate group, etc. | 20:42 |
| dhellmann | the other take-away I have so far is that MS Word redlines are terrible compared to gerrit :-) | 20:43 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: on a different point: you asked in the meeting today opinion about the content of "tc chair responsibilities" -> I like the content, and I'd prefer seeing it inside the governance repo | 20:43 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: hahah | 20:43 |
| dhellmann | evrardjp : yeah, it will end up there at some point, I'm just not sure precisely where | 20:43 |
| dhellmann | I'll explore that after the forum | 20:43 |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 20:43 | |
| dhellmann | heaven help anyone who says they're elected for live | 20:45 |
| mnaser | bahaha | 20:46 |
| dhellmann | *life | 20:47 |
| mnaser | tsc š¤ | 20:47 |
| dhellmann | he means TC | 20:47 |
| smcginnis | What was that about about being disconnected? | 20:48 |
| dhellmann | yeah | 20:49 |
| mnaser | smcginnis: baha :> | 20:50 |
| dhellmann | jbryce : I wonder if this concern is coming from recent changes in the CNCF groups? | 20:50 |
| *** saneax has quit IRC | 20:50 | |
| dhellmann | (apparently my comments in the webex chat aren't going through) | 20:50 |
| dhellmann | for those not on the call, Kandan is raising a concern about having the TC limited to no more than 2 people from any affiliation. | 20:51 |
| dhellmann | the current limit is 50% | 20:51 |
| jbryce | dhellmann: I have trouble seeing things while doing the screen share | 20:52 |
| dhellmann | jbryce : ah, yeah, I hadn't thought of that issue | 20:52 |
| jbryce | I'm not sure what's driving the concern, so I'm mostly just trying to get more info | 20:52 |
| dhellmann | the CNCF TOC (I think) just applied that rule | 20:53 |
| jbryce | 2 member limit? | 20:53 |
| dhellmann | since he's mentioning "other open source projects" I assume it's that | 20:53 |
| dhellmann | yes | 20:53 |
| dhellmann | I'm fuzzy on their governance structure, so it might be applied to a different group | 20:53 |
| dhellmann | dims_ : do you know? ^^ | 20:53 |
| jbryce | Ok. Might be worth discussing proactively with the technical committee since we know it will come up | 20:54 |
| dhellmann | indeed | 20:54 |
| dhellmann | our structure has be set up to ignore corporate affiliations at the TC level in a way that the CNCF hasn't, so while I understand his concern I definitely don't share it | 20:55 |
| mnaser | 1 vmware, 3 huawei, 3 redhat, 1 nec, 1 verizon, 1 suse, 2 osf, 1 vexxhost | 20:55 |
| mnaser | i'd say it's a very good representation | 20:55 |
| dhellmann | there was a time in the past where we bumped right up against the 50% | 20:55 |
| dhellmann | when a bunch of us were at HPE | 20:56 |
| mnaser | it's a good concern, but i think we're fine right now afaik | 20:56 |
| dhellmann | I think dictating that limit would be an artificial constraint that would make it hard for us to have a TC that worked well | 20:56 |
| zaneb | jbryce: Allison is right about that last sentence though. the math doesn't work | 20:57 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: agreed | 20:57 |
| jbryce | zaneb: how so? | 20:57 |
| mnaser | there's two elections in a year | 20:57 |
| zaneb | you can't change the cycle length | 20:58 |
| jbryce | We've always had two elections per year which is what this is built around | 20:58 |
| mnaser | and you cant be there more than 16 months | 20:58 |
| dhellmann | the point of all of this change was to try to make it so if our dev cycles weren't exactly 6 months we weren't violating the bylaws by not having elections | 20:58 |
| zaneb | e.g. if there is a 6 month and then a 7 month cycle, suddenly there's a problem again | 20:58 |
| jbryce | You can change the cycle length | 20:58 |
| mnaser | this doesnt fix a "every 6 months" | 20:58 |
| fungi | this is a terrible explanation :/ | 20:58 |
| dhellmann | jbryce : I agree with wendar | 20:59 |
| evrardjp | I don't see a reason to put the elections in the bylaws, except that it's "expected to rotate" | 21:00 |
| dhellmann | this is all stuff I would expect other groups to not put in the bylaws | 21:00 |
| dtroyer | ++ we have it in the charter | 21:00 |
| fungi | can we form a new foundation and burn the old one down? that way we don't have to change the bylaws ;) | 21:01 |
| mnaser | zing | 21:01 |
| TheJulia | heh | 21:01 |
| evrardjp | fungi: ready to switch employers I see? :p | 21:01 |
| mnaser | the stackopen foundation | 21:01 |
| mnaser | the stack foundation of open | 21:02 |
| evrardjp | 4! possibilities | 21:03 |
| TheJulia | What if we start using encryption? | 21:04 |
| TheJulia | although I'll -1 if it is just rot13 | 21:04 |
| * evrardjp smiles | 21:05 | |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : if it *is* or if it *isn't*? | 21:05 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: is :) | 21:06 |
| TheJulia | ROT26 is valid ;) | 21:06 |
| dhellmann | stalemate, then | 21:06 |
| TheJulia | oh no, we state that we applied an algorithm | 21:06 |
| TheJulia | wow | 21:06 |
| evrardjp | mnaser: also to be accurate, diversity will change. new company will appear soon (more blue) in said list and another (red) will disappear :p (catching up the things of my days-off is interesting!) | 21:07 |
| dhellmann | it might be easier to get the members to approve these changes than the board | 21:07 |
| smcginnis | No kidding. | 21:07 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: Yeeeaahhhhhh | 21:07 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: haha | 21:07 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: you chose the easiest path! | 21:08 |
| dhellmann | we need both, unfortunately | 21:08 |
| jbryce | would y'all be fine with removing that last sentence around the election timing per mark r's most recent suggestion? | 21:10 |
| TheJulia | I feel like that would be agreeable | 21:10 |
| TheJulia | tc-members ^^^ | 21:10 |
| smcginnis | Yeah, that seems fine. | 21:11 |
| zaneb | +1 | 21:11 |
| evrardjp | I think that's fine in concept, but general wording will matter. | 21:11 |
| dhellmann | jbryce : I think so | 21:12 |
| evrardjp | jbryce: good summary, thanks :) | 21:12 |
| mnaser | jbryce: yeah it seemed to make general sense.. and also, we can "fix" it easily later once we approve these bylaws regarding making the changes simpler for the future | 21:13 |
| mnaser | i feel like if we stressed more the fact that we can easily make any changes down the line, it would have been easier.. | 21:13 |
| evrardjp | mnaser: it was said though. And I agree with you. | 21:13 |
| dhellmann | I think part of the problem is the board doesn't have another set of clear documentation of their resolutions that they're used to using in the way that we use our governance repo, so if this is the document they're voting on the idea that there would be other changes somewhere else at a later time is out of their normal practice | 21:14 |
| fungi | jbryce: yes, removal of that last sentence seems like the best way forward (sorry, was paying attention in #openstack-board and not watching #openstack-tc quite as closely) | 21:14 |
| mnaser | it's gonna be an interesting leadership meeting that's fo rsure, ha :p | 21:14 |
| dhellmann | fungi : heh, I always forget about that channel | 21:15 |
| mnaser | also about the 50% thing, i've honestly never felt anyone in the tc has ever acted "in their employers best interest" | 21:15 |
| fungi | the idea is that we use it for additional communication during board of directors meetings | 21:15 |
| * mnaser hopes we actually don't use it at all during the in person meetings though | 21:16 | |
| * mnaser prepares +m modes during leadership meetings | 21:16 | |
| mnaser | :P | 21:16 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : in fact, we have a principle written down that says we expect people to do otherwise | 21:16 |
| dhellmann | that is not something I've seen other projects do | 21:16 |
| fungi | mnaser: i try to use it during in-person board meetings to funnel information/stats to board members as well, since only the board members (or others on the agenda) get to speak | 21:17 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:19 | |
| mnaser | fungi: i like that | 21:20 |
| mnaser | one way only | 21:20 |
| mnaser | (as much as possible at least) | 21:20 |
| smcginnis | I was a bit surprised that board members need to run this all through their respective corporate legal council. I didn't realize that. | 21:25 |
| smcginnis | Seems... excessive. | 21:25 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:27 | |
| mnaser | smcginnis: i was concerned that some individual members wanted those copies too | 21:28 |
| jroll | need to make sure it isn't a hostile takeover :P | 21:29 |
| mnaser | i'm hoping that they're certainly running this with the community and not their respective councils too.. | 21:29 |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has joined #openstack-tc | 21:48 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:52 | |
| jbryce | new question about the wording....what about an option like this: After January 1, 2019, the elections for the Technical Committee shall be held in two phases: the first election being for at least half of the members of the Technical Committee and the second election being for the remaining members of Technical Committee. | 21:56 |
| smcginnis | jbryce: What is the current wording? | 21:59 |
| smcginnis | So the two "phases" would be the cycle of whatever indeterminate amount of time it takes where theoretically the whole TC could be new members? | 22:01 |
| jbryce | yes | 22:01 |
| smcginnis | If the goal with that is to get away from explicitly stating a time period, I think it's great. | 22:02 |
| jbryce | ok. thanks! | 22:02 |
| smcginnis | That would cover the case if we ever went to year long release cycles or something. Not that I expect that to actually happen. | 22:03 |
| smcginnis | But it gives us enough leeway should we need it. | 22:03 |
| smcginnis | Without picking randomly long timeframes to try to cover variations. | 22:03 |
| persia | jbryce: I worry that the suggested option may complicate election processing and reporting. In practice, we've had essentially two electoral groups, with overlapping terms, that together comprise the technical committee. With your suggested wording, I wonder a) about the status of members of the committee elected during the second election phase after the first phase completes in the next term, b) whether we need to explicitly distinguish | 22:17 |
| persia | between "first" and "second" phases in election reporting, and c) if there may be any confusion about the set of folk selected to participate in the first phase of elections (defined as at least half, but not specifically related to those previously elected in the first phase of the last electoral cycle). No worries if all of these can be resolved in supplementary documentation. | 22:17 |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 22:19 | |
| *** evrardjp has quit IRC | 22:19 | |
| *** evrardjp has joined #openstack-tc | 22:22 | |
| *** mriedem has quit IRC | 22:23 | |
| jbryce | persia: i think the supplementary documentation is the answer | 22:26 |
| persia | That would be lovely, if it works. I'm just suspicious of wording in documents that are hard to change, and hope any reviewing counsel is aware of our practice (and not imagining something else given the wording). | 22:28 |
| TheJulia | fungi: is the plan still for the new mailing list not to accept messages until ?mid? november? | 22:39 |
| fungi | TheJulia: yes, here's the reminder i sent a few days ago: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-October/136114.html | 22:48 |
| fungi | jbryce: i suppose that works. the next election will be the 7-seat round so it does match up anyway | 22:50 |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has quit IRC | 22:50 | |
| dims_ | dhellmann : cncf charter has the TOC limits - https://www.cncf.io/about/charter/ | 23:17 |
| dims_ | dhellmann : "If more than two TOC members would be from the same group of Related Companies, either at the time of election or from a later job change, they will jointly decide who should step down, or if there is no agreement, random lots shall be drawn." | 23:17 |
| dhellmann | dims_ : thank, I thought that's where I'd seen it, maybe in discussions around the recent elections | 23:17 |
| dhellmann | that's section 6(b) for others following along | 23:18 |
| clarkb | looks like the governing board elects the majority of the individuals on that TOC | 23:18 |
| clarkb | which makes composition rules like that far more importnat | 23:18 |
| dims_ | clarkb : nominates AND elects | 23:18 |
| clarkb | dims_: sure. I'm mostly just pointing out that the openstack TC is entirely elected from the active set of contributors | 23:19 |
| clarkb | which is a strong guard against any one company taking over | 23:19 |
| dims_ | there's some confusion going on with the TOC charter to be honest, it's captured here - https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2573 | 23:20 |
| dims_ | clarkb right, the CNCF TOC members typically are not hands on in the projects | 23:21 |
| dhellmann | I don't think this is anything we need to be overly concerned about, yet, but I think it's good for everyone to be aware of the background in case it does come up again | 23:21 |
| dims_ | right | 23:21 |
| dhellmann | does the TOC use Condorcet voting? | 23:22 |
| dims_ | dhellmann : i don't think so, but will check | 23:22 |
| dims_ | yep, condorcet i was wrong - https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/process/election-schedule.md | 23:23 |
| clarkb | Looks like the GB and TAB and TOC have the freedom to control how its done | 23:23 |
| clarkb | so could change (I think we do similar with openstack where the voting process isn't set in stone) | 23:23 |
| dhellmann | ok | 23:23 |
| TheJulia | fungi: thanks, Way too many emails :( | 23:29 |
| fungi | heh | 23:30 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 23:31 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:35 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!