| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 00:40 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 00:41 | |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 00:43 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 00:46 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 00:50 | |
| *** dklyle_ has joined #openstack-tc | 01:27 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 01:31 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 01:50 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 01:53 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 02:06 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-tc | 02:12 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has joined #openstack-tc | 02:13 | |
| *** dklyle_ has quit IRC | 02:15 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 02:26 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 02:27 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 02:33 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has quit IRC | 02:54 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 02:59 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:14 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 03:15 | |
| *** adriant has quit IRC | 03:18 | |
| *** adriant has joined #openstack-tc | 03:27 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:53 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 03:53 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:56 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 03:58 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 03:58 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 03:58 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 04:02 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 04:38 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 06:02 | |
| *** adriant has quit IRC | 06:06 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 06:06 | |
| *** adriant has joined #openstack-tc | 06:07 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 06:10 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 06:37 | |
| *** Luzi has joined #openstack-tc | 06:46 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 07:10 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 07:16 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 07:20 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 07:31 | |
| *** dangtrinhnt has quit IRC | 07:41 | |
| *** dangtrinhnt has joined #openstack-tc | 07:52 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 08:03 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 08:07 | |
| *** tosky has joined #openstack-tc | 08:46 | |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-tc | 08:48 | |
| *** zbr|ssbarnea has joined #openstack-tc | 08:50 | |
| *** zbr has joined #openstack-tc | 09:11 | |
| *** zbr|ssbarnea has quit IRC | 09:12 | |
| *** zbr has quit IRC | 09:40 | |
| *** zbr|ssbarnea has joined #openstack-tc | 09:41 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-tc | 10:00 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 10:03 | |
| *** zbr|ssbarnea has quit IRC | 10:04 | |
| ttx | fungi: I agree with you, but I feel like the threat to "open source" is worth putting aside smaller differences and reaffirming their definition | 10:04 |
|---|---|---|
| *** zbr|ssbarnea has joined #openstack-tc | 10:08 | |
| *** Luzi has quit IRC | 10:36 | |
| *** Luzi has joined #openstack-tc | 10:49 | |
| ttx | tc-members: As requested, I added "Help most needed list evolution" and "Formalizing pop-up teams" to https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Technical_Committee_Tracker -- feel free to add yourself as drivers if you're interested in pushing that | 10:55 |
| *** fdegir has quit IRC | 10:57 | |
| *** fdegir has joined #openstack-tc | 10:58 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 11:56 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 11:57 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 12:04 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 12:09 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 13:09 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 13:09 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 13:09 | |
| *** mriedem has joined #openstack-tc | 13:21 | |
| dhellmann | tc-members: reminder that we will be meeting at the top of the hour | 13:37 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 13:37 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 13:38 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 13:43 | |
| TheJulia | o/ | 13:57 |
| mnaser | bonjour | 13:58 |
| cdent | you want one of these weighted blankets TheJulia ? They come in several virtual colors. | 13:58 |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 13:58 | |
| TheJulia | cdent: I have this very soft and warm blue one. It works wonders | 13:58 |
| cdent | excellent. carry on! | 13:59 |
| TheJulia | I actually want to take it with me to conferences... I sleep that well. | 13:59 |
| cdent | Is it size that stops you? | 13:59 |
| TheJulia | weight | 13:59 |
| TheJulia | and resulting size | 13:59 |
| * cdent nods | 14:00 | |
| dhellmann | meeting time | 14:00 |
| cdent | maybe the foundation can provide a blankie rental service | 14:00 |
| dhellmann | #startmeeting tc | 14:00 |
| dhellmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002231.html agenda for this meeting | 14:00 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Feb 7 14:00:23 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dhellmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:00 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:00 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 14:00 |
| lbragstad | o/ | 14:00 |
| dhellmann | #topic roll call | 14:00 |
| dhellmann | tc-members, please indicate if you are present for the logs | 14:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "roll call (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:00 | |
| gmann | o/ | 14:00 |
| TheJulia | o/ | 14:00 |
| mnaser | bonjour o/ | 14:00 |
| evrardjp | o/ | 14:00 |
| dhellmann | zaneb has given the second best reason I've seen so far for missing a meeting: "on an expedition to climb an active volcano" | 14:00 |
| cdent | ahoy | 14:00 |
| ttx | o/ | 14:00 |
| mnaser | the first best reason being? | 14:01 |
| TheJulia | I was just looking at zaneb's reason, and that is epic. | 14:01 |
| dhellmann | call me a romantic, but I think when TheJulia missed for her wedding that was a longer term investment in adventure | 14:01 |
| * TheJulia smiles | 14:02 | |
| mnaser | ++\ | 14:02 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: :) | 14:03 |
| TheJulia | Anyway, seems like time to carry on | 14:03 |
| dhellmann | I count 8, so we have quorum | 14:03 |
| dhellmann | let's start with old business | 14:03 |
| dhellmann | #topic correction to TC member election section of bylaws | 14:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "correction to TC member election section of bylaws (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:03 | |
| evrardjp | TheJulia: don't be so shy :p | 14:03 |
| dhellmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Technical_Committee_Tracker#Correction_to_TC_member_election_section_of_bylaws | 14:03 |
| dhellmann | during the most recent foundation board election the foundation membership also voted on a number of bylaws changes, | 14:03 |
| dhellmann | including the ones fungi had been tracking related to how TC members are elected | 14:03 |
| dhellmann | I think it's now safe to consider that initiative completed, and remove it from the tracker. Do you all agree? | 14:03 |
| evrardjp | yes | 14:03 |
| lbragstad | ++ | 14:03 |
| ttx | +1 | 14:03 |
| mnaser | congrats on the multiyear effort :) | 14:04 |
| gmann | yeah | 14:04 |
| dhellmann | #action dhellmann remove bylaws update from the tracker | 14:04 |
| dhellmann | easy enough | 14:04 |
| dhellmann | #topic project team evaluations based on technical vision | 14:04 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "project team evaluations based on technical vision (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:04 | |
| dhellmann | last month cdent and TheJulia agreed to work on initiative to have teams self-evaluate against the technical vision document | 14:05 |
| dhellmann | what's the status of that effort? | 14:05 |
| TheJulia | I believe 3?? teams have written self evaluations, with fairly positive feedback on each. Truthfully this past month I've been burried in other work and have not had a chance to follow it closely | 14:05 |
| cdent | as far as I can tell the teams that TheJulia and I are associated with did some self-evaluation, which led to a small change to the vision to clarify its orientation but not much more than that. TheJulia ? | 14:05 |
| cdent | Oh, 3? | 14:05 |
| TheJulia | I think cinder, ?manila?, and Ironic | 14:05 |
| fungi | oh, i missed roll call, but i'm here | 14:06 |
| * TheJulia always capitalizes the I | 14:06 | |
| cdent | placement has a vision reflection document in progress, but it hasn't had much review | 14:06 |
| TheJulia | I might be off on my count, but it was not pushed, so for organic I think that is kind of good. | 14:06 |
| dhellmann | shall we carry this over to next month, then? | 14:06 |
| TheJulia | I think so yes, I should be able to find some more time this next month with no travel (i hope..) | 14:07 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: perhaps add #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/001417.html for reference as well ? | 14:07 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : good point | 14:07 |
| cdent | Assuming we think the goal of getting the documents written is still relevant, then yes, we should carry it | 14:07 |
| dhellmann | are there any specific actions for between now and our next meeting? | 14:08 |
| lbragstad | fwiw - we've been going through that exercise in keystone, and it's been helpful (so we see value for sure) | 14:08 |
| TheJulia | I think so, reflection and self evaluation is important | 14:08 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:08 | |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: Off the top of my head no, cdent? | 14:08 |
| dhellmann | do we want to engage with teams to ensure this is something they're thinking about? | 14:09 |
| cdent | Perhaps to republish the idea | 14:09 |
| cdent | yeah that | 14:09 |
| dhellmann | does someone want to volunteer for that by adding an #action? | 14:09 |
| cdent | I'll take it | 14:09 |
| TheJulia | cdent: I was just typing out that I would. I can if you want. | 14:09 |
| * dhellmann pauses for cdent or TheJulia to #action themselves | 14:10 | |
| cdent | since TheJulia did the first one, me seems "fair"? | 14:10 |
| cdent | but if you're eager, please feel free :) | 14:10 |
| TheJulia | okay cdent, let me know how I can assist then | 14:10 |
| TheJulia | other than revise and get the one for ironic merged :) | 14:10 |
| cdent | #action cdent to republish the projects review vision notion | 14:10 |
| dhellmann | great, thanks | 14:11 |
| dhellmann | moving on | 14:11 |
| dhellmann | #topic defining the role of the TC | 14:11 |
| dhellmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Technical_Committee_Tracker#Next_steps_in_TC_Vision_.2F_defining_role_of_the_TC | 14:11 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "defining the role of the TC (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:11 | |
| dhellmann | last month cdent agreed to start a thread about the documented role of the TC | 14:11 |
| dhellmann | that has been done, thank you cdent | 14:11 |
| dhellmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/001612.html | 14:11 |
| dhellmann | What are the next steps for this initiative? | 14:11 |
| * mugsie sneaks in late | 14:11 | |
| cdent | Yeah, I just went back through that thread to see if I could extract any salient points. Unfortunately most of the best ones are from zane, who is on a volcano | 14:11 |
| TheJulia | I've had no time this past month to follow this :( | 14:11 |
| TheJulia | cdent: would it make more sense to try and sync up with zane when he is back? | 14:12 |
| ttx | I feel like absence of further feedback shows the base document we have somehow corresponds to the current state, and further discussion can be proposed as changes to that doc ? | 14:12 |
| cdent | But a main theme that we pulled out (and mentioned in a recent office hour) was that "what if the list is too big because the ideas are too small? What if we can't agree because the stakes are so low?" | 14:13 |
| cdent | As in: maybe we need to make goals more audacious | 14:13 |
| cdent | another was | 14:13 |
| TheJulia | I second that idea, that goals should be kind of scary | 14:13 |
| cdent | "It's... strange, if not exactly surprising, to me that facilitating those kinds of conversations (starting with making sure they happen) isn't something we have consensus on as being part of the TC's role." | 14:13 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 14:14 | |
| mnaser | (i don't want to sign up anyone for more work, but i think we need to figure out how to get more people engaged and give a reason for them to hit that reply button and respond) | 14:14 |
| TheJulia | mnaser: ++ | 14:14 |
| mnaser | that thread is mostly tc members discussing amongst us, but i don't have a solution either. | 14:14 |
| gmann | true | 14:14 |
| gmann | we need to hear more from community. | 14:14 |
| mnaser | (with a few notable, commonly vocal community members, which is awesome too, but yeah.) | 14:14 |
| ttx | TheJulia: it's true that goals as theey stand are VERY reasonable, rather than crazy-aspirational | 14:15 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : I wonder if the way to do that is just to interpret our role ourselves, and go about the business of running the project. People who object will, and people who support the work will. Both will result in more engagement. | 14:15 |
| ttx | maybe we need both | 14:15 |
| ttx | (reasonable/attainable in a cycle AND crazy-aspirational multi-cycle) | 14:15 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: i think someone would be more inclined to hit 'reply' when action is being taken rather than 'its just talks' | 14:15 |
| cdent | ttx++ | 14:15 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : that's exactly what I mean | 14:15 |
| TheJulia | I think it is the only way to really drive innovation or leaps. And we just don't use the asperational one as a hard requirement to shame any project. | 14:16 |
| ttx | I don;t think taht invalidates the "role of the TC" -- I think it definitely fits in there | 14:16 |
| dhellmann | we're going to be talking a bit about goals later, so let's focus on next steps for this initiative for now | 14:16 |
| ttx | in the "Providing technical guidance" section | 14:16 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: agreed. perhaps then we should look into evaluating the role of the tc and saying "this is what we're proposing becoming" and hear comments | 14:16 |
| mnaser | and see what type of response we get, i guess. | 14:17 |
| cdent | Do people agree with zane's assertion here [t cTUi] that there is not consensus: | 14:17 |
| purplerbot | <cdent> "It's... strange, if not exactly surprising, to me that facilitating those kinds of conversations (starting with making sure they happen) isn't something we have consensus on as being part of the TC's role." [2019-02-07 14:13:51.789068] [n cTUi] | 14:17 |
| dhellmann | well, I think we should just do it, and expect feedback as we go | 14:17 |
| ttx | hmm, which was renamed to "Encouraging a unified OpenStack experience" so that may not capture it indeed | 14:17 |
| cdent | (that's from http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/001895.html ) | 14:18 |
| dhellmann | cdent : what "kinds of conversations" is that referring to? | 14:18 |
| ttx | Maybe "Providing common goals" would capture that part of the role better | 14:18 |
| dhellmann | heh | 14:18 |
| fungi | is it what we're proposing becoming, or what we assert we've been doing/trying to do? | 14:18 |
| evrardjp | I would like to see ^ clarified | 14:19 |
| evrardjp | too | 14:19 |
| dhellmann | cdent : I suspect we've leaned a little too far in the direction of being laissez faire | 14:20 |
| ttx | I think it's totally part of the role of the TC to paint larger goals, and that painting can include smaller/reachable goals AND wider/aspirational goals. | 14:20 |
| ttx | as long as people realize painting them does not magically make then happen | 14:20 |
| mnaser | i think the conversation is starting to enter the realm of discussion details and what/how we're doing and the role of the tc rather than 'housekeeping' meeting items | 14:20 |
| evrardjp | ttx: we also had, in the past, an approach where we said "this goal failed" -- it doesn't encourage having larger goals, due to fear of failure -- should we not care about failure, it would be different | 14:21 |
| ttx | so the keywords become "reachable" and "aspirational" | 14:21 |
| mnaser | we can probably take this convo for office hours post meeting :> | 14:21 |
| ttx | ++ | 14:21 |
| evrardjp | mnaser: fair | 14:21 |
| mnaser | (imho anyways) | 14:21 |
| cdent | dhellmann: I think being less laissez faire about driving conversations would be a useful tc role goal | 14:21 |
| fungi | better to take it to the ml | 14:21 |
| TheJulia | mnaser: ++ | 14:21 |
| dhellmann | it sounds like there's more work to do on this, at least to agree on next steps, and that is likely to play in to our goal selection process for train | 14:21 |
| dhellmann | ok, let's move on | 14:22 |
| dhellmann | #topic keeping up with python 3 releases | 14:22 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "keeping up with python 3 releases (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:22 | |
| dhellmann | We have approved all of the patches for documenting the policy and for selecting the versions to be covered in Stein. | 14:22 |
| dhellmann | What are the next steps for ensuring that any implementation work is handled for Train? | 14:22 |
| mnaser | i think deployment tools need to help figure that part out and i think that's probably a next logical step. i'm not sure on how kolla and tripleo are handling it but those are all the tools that need to make sure they have support | 14:22 |
| mnaser | (because really, most people use them to deploy) | 14:23 |
| mnaser | i think as a goal, perhaps have deployment projects join effort to see how we can go about this transition especially with how tricky it can be when involving different OS's | 14:23 |
| TheJulia | I concur. An end-to-end everything python3 kind of exercise. | 14:23 |
| dhellmann | oh, I mean specifically the choosing of python 3 versions for train | 14:23 |
| dhellmann | no the implementation of python 3 support | 14:23 |
| TheJulia | oh | 14:23 |
| mnaser | oh, woops, jumped a bunch of steps then | 14:24 |
| dhellmann | the thing we said we would do is evaluate the PTI each cycle. Who is going to do that? When? | 14:24 |
| fungi | related (i think), i'm worried we're still on our way to running a lot of our stein testing on ubuntu xenial come release day. the qa team has admirably tackled getting devstack jobs moved to buinic, but many other jobs are still on xenial and we probably need to declare a flag day to switch them over in the base job | 14:24 |
| mnaser | i can be #2 on that effort but i cant help lead it because my knowledge of the python 3 + os internals and combinations aren't the strongest. | 14:25 |
| mnaser | so id gladly help coordinate, talk back and forth, etc, but i don't think i can lead it just because of lack of personal experience in the subject. | 14:25 |
| dhellmann | a flag day seems reasonable if we schedule it carefully. is the QA team still driving that? | 14:25 |
| fungi | i don't know, but perhaps gmann is aware of the status there | 14:26 |
| gmann | all base job are moved to bionic but legacy jobs are still using xenial | 14:27 |
| dhellmann | are legacy jobs defined in each project repo? | 14:27 |
| gmann | we decided not to move them to bionic with legacy implementation. they will get moved to bionic once migrating to zuulv3 | 14:27 |
| gmann | yes project side. | 14:27 |
| fungi | it would also mean switching our remaining non-version-specific-but-python3-using jobs from python 3.5 to 3.6 but in most cases i don't anticipate much fallout from that | 14:28 |
| dhellmann | fungi : that feels like a step we could take independently of porting the legacy jobs | 14:28 |
| *** irclogbot_3 has joined #openstack-tc | 14:29 | |
| fungi | there are still a *lot* of legacy jobs from the zuul v2->v3 mass config migration, many of which projects have copied into their repositories, and i haven't seen a ton of prioritization placed on replacing them | 14:29 |
| dhellmann | gmann : ok. we should probably set a deadline for the transition. do you want to start a conversation on the mailing list for that? | 14:29 |
| gmann | dhellmann: for legaycy job to zuulv3 ? | 14:29 |
| fungi | also a big elephant in that room is grenade, which still uses a legacy job definition. several people have picked up the attempt to rewrite it and then wandered off | 14:30 |
| dhellmann | gmann : for legacy jobs to bionic (I don't know if I care about the implementation details) | 14:30 |
| evrardjp | should that be a goal? | 14:30 |
| dhellmann | we need it done this cycle, right? otherwise we'll be releasing based on tests running on different platforms | 14:30 |
| gmann | dhellmann: ohk but moving legacy to bionic might be extra effort and moving to zuulv3 easy | 14:30 |
| gmann | but yea i can take that to ML | 14:30 |
| evrardjp | I mean we are talking about public facing goals, but reducing tech debts is something that should be considered as goals too.... Wondering if we should have that as a goal for this cycle | 14:31 |
| dhellmann | gmann : that's fine, I'm just saying I don't know enough of the details to care about the implementation but I care about the use of bionic | 14:31 |
| clarkb | note its also all the tox jobs running on xenial iirc | 14:31 |
| fungi | "easy" isn't necessarily the case given the apparent situation with grenade, at least | 14:31 |
| clarkb | not just "legacy" jpbs | 14:31 |
| dhellmann | #action gmann raise the topic of porting legacy jobs to bionic on the mailing list | 14:31 |
| gmann | thanks | 14:31 |
| fungi | right, this is where i think the qa team tends to have devstack+tempest blinders on most of the time | 14:31 |
| dhellmann | fungi : do you want to propose a flag day for any jobs we can switch via project-config? | 14:31 |
| dhellmann | or openstack-zuul-jobs or whatever -- centrally | 14:32 |
| fungi | sure, i'll post something to the ml after i take a bit to look over the stein release schedule | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | ok | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | #action fungi to propose flag day for proposing moving centrally managed jobs to bionic | 14:32 |
| fungi | #action fungi propose a default node flag day to switch to ubuntu bionic | 14:32 |
| fungi | er, whoops | 14:32 |
| dhellmann | no problem | 14:32 |
| cdent | now it will definitely get done | 14:33 |
| fungi | it'll get double-done | 14:33 |
| dhellmann | now, this topic was actually supposed to be about *train*, so who wants to take the task of figuring out what we need to do for the next cycle? | 14:33 |
| evrardjp | cdent: :) | 14:33 |
| dhellmann | I think we need someone to look at what OS platforms will be ready to be used, and what python versions they will include, and then update the PTI declaration | 14:34 |
| TheJulia | So, at a glance now, 3.6 for now, we should expect 3.7 this time next year. Although I think debian now ships 3.7 | 14:34 |
| * TheJulia was looking during the discussion | 14:35 | |
| dhellmann | let's not do it right now in the meeting, let's get a volunteer to do the work | 14:35 |
| TheJulia | I think dropping py35 makes sense | 14:35 |
| dhellmann | is that you signing up, TheJulia ? | 14:35 |
| cdent | Is smcginnis here, or is he midcycling still? I think he'd be a good choice for the PTI train work | 14:35 |
| * smcginnis scans logs | 14:35 | |
| cdent | incredible | 14:35 |
| smcginnis | Still at the midcycle and just got into the room. | 14:35 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: I'm not sure what I'm really singing up for there short of sending an email. | 14:35 |
| dhellmann | we need to update https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/project-testing-interface.html#tested-runtimes | 14:36 |
| mnaser | i think it's following up with the differnet platforms and gathering the information you mentioned and then pushing up a review to that ^ | 14:36 |
| dhellmann | with a section for train, like https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/runtimes/stein.html | 14:36 |
| dhellmann | ok, we'll look for volunteers later | 14:37 |
| TheJulia | I can do that, but I suspect it will be unchanged. I'll takea look | 14:37 |
| fungi | yeah, debian buster/testing has python3.7 as default, so the next ubuntu lts will most likely as well | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | ah, good | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | #action TheJulia investigate PTI updates for Train | 14:37 |
| fungi | since ubuntu tends to snapshot debian/testing | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | let's move on, we have a lot of other topics to cover | 14:37 |
| TheJulia | fungi: already does | 14:37 |
| dhellmann | #topic Train cycle goals selection update | 14:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Train cycle goals selection update (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:37 | |
| dhellmann | let's get an update from lbragstad and evrardjp before we resume any discussion started under the "role of the TC" topic earlier | 14:37 |
| lbragstad | a relatively quick update here | 14:37 |
| lbragstad | evrardjp and i have been meeting weekly to drive the possible goals - which have all been socialized on the ML | 14:38 |
| lbragstad | we've also proposed a schedule for when we'd like certain events to happens, so that we have enough lead time before the summit to decide goals | 14:38 |
| lbragstad | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002271.html | 14:38 |
| lbragstad | we're planning on getting goals up for review by the end of the month | 14:38 |
| lbragstad | currently - the big three prospective goals are 1.) resource cleanup on project deletion 2.) moving off legacy clients 3.) health check middleware | 14:38 |
| lbragstad | i think adriant is planning on getting #1 up for review soon | 14:38 |
| lbragstad | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002041.html | 14:38 |
| lbragstad | there is still pre-work to be done on #2, but artem is working on that and has called for assistance on the mailing list | 14:39 |
| lbragstad | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002275.html | 14:39 |
| lbragstad | both evrardjp and i think this pre-work is going to be useful in looking for ways to break this up, it's an ambitious goal | 14:39 |
| lbragstad | finally, #3 is in the pre-work stage as well, which evrardjp has details on | 14:39 |
| lbragstad | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/002089.html | 14:39 |
| * lbragstad is done | 14:39 | |
| evrardjp | nothing to add :) | 14:39 |
| dhellmann | great detail, thanks lbragstad & evrardjp | 14:39 |
| dhellmann | does anyone have questions about the current plans? | 14:40 |
| evrardjp | gmann: you were interested by adding a documentation one, correct? I think it might be worth discussing after the meeting | 14:40 |
| mnaser | thanks for leading the effort lbragstad and evrardjp :> | 14:40 |
| dhellmann | it will be interesting to see how those 3 items mesh with the discussion of raising the stakes for goals | 14:41 |
| lbragstad | this might not be something for this meeting - but the pre-work is supposed to help us feel comfortable in making informed decisions, i'm curious if other members think what we're doing is sufficient for pre-work is achieving that goal | 14:41 |
| gmann | evrardjp: i saw the reply from ttx and dhellmann about wiki page idea. i am still thinking help-wanted on project side contributor doc can be more easy to maintain | 14:41 |
| dhellmann | lbragstad : it does seem to be more than what we've done for some goals in the past, so that's good. I think having a "status report" of some sort at the point when we have to actually choose a goal would be helpful. | 14:42 |
| evrardjp | I second lbragstad here -- and also I don't want future people to have pressure on helping in that selection process. | 14:42 |
| dhellmann | evrardjp : what pressure do you mean? | 14:43 |
| gmann | lbragstad: just wanted to have more discussion on #1 about exposing API vs plugin approach. but yeah thats something to disucss separatly not in this meeting | 14:43 |
| lbragstad | i'm all ears and i'll be in office hours if folks have additional feedback | 14:43 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: I would like to clarify what you meant by status report first :) | 14:43 |
| dhellmann | evrardjp : oh, just a summary email or something with a description of how "ready" we would be to start the work | 14:43 |
| dhellmann | if someone promises to do prework, and then doesn't finish it, we need to know that | 14:44 |
| evrardjp | I think that maps well with our almost weekly summaries of where we are | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | ++ | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | ok, let's move on to new business then | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | #topic TC voting procedures | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | Now that we have good automation for evaluating whether a change to the governance repository is ready to be approved, | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | I wanted to remind everyone that in the past we recommended that TC members who propose changes also vote on their own changes. | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | This is a bit different from the process for code changes in other repos, but it gives us the flexibility to have the same person | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | propose several related but different (possibly mutually exclusive) changes and then indicate their own preference clearly | 14:44 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "TC voting procedures (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:44 | |
| dhellmann | (something we've done in the past with complex topics). | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | So, please keep this in mind as you propose changes. | 14:44 |
| dhellmann | Questions? | 14:44 |
| ttx | no | 14:45 |
| TheJulia | sounds good to me | 14:45 |
| cdent | makes sense | 14:45 |
| dhellmann | ok, good. I'll happily discuss that further during office hours, but want to push through the last few items on the agenda | 14:46 |
| gmann | +1 | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | #topic upcoming election | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | the TC election for Train is coming up | 14:46 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "upcoming election (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:46 | |
| dhellmann | #info nominations for TC election open 12 Feb | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-January/001829.html | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | cdent, dims, mugsie, mnaser, smcginnis, ttx, and zaneb are up for election this term | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | It is time to start considering whether you want to run again, and for all of us to be looking for additional candidates. | 14:46 |
| cdent | Tuesday, yeah? | 14:46 |
| dhellmann | yes | 14:46 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 14:46 | |
| dhellmann | if you have candidates you want to see run, please take a few minutes to contact them privately to encourage them to do so | 14:47 |
| cdent | Is anyone definitely not running? I'm still deciding. | 14:47 |
| smcginnis | I think I am not going to run again to allow room for someone else. | 14:47 |
| cdent | I have a few people I plan to prod. | 14:47 |
| ttx | I'm not certain to run again -- depends how many people drop | 14:47 |
| dims | dhellmann : ack. i won't be standing for re-election. yes, i'll ping some folks who i think should run. | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | dims : great, and thank you | 14:47 |
| lbragstad | thank you for your service, dims :) | 14:47 |
| evrardjp | ++ | 14:47 |
| dhellmann | smcginnis : thank you | 14:48 |
| evrardjp | and likewise for smcginnis | 14:48 |
| ttx | I'm sad to lose our favorite K8s community liaison! | 14:48 |
| lbragstad | you too smcginnis | 14:48 |
| gmann | thanks smcginnis and dims for such a great contribution | 14:48 |
| TheJulia | ++ | 14:48 |
| dhellmann | on a related note, I have decided, based on some other priorities at work, that I should not serve as chair for the Train cycle. | 14:48 |
| ttx | and sad to lose smcginnis too of course :) Just can't come with a good joke | 14:48 |
| dhellmann | I do intend to serve out my term as a TC member, so I will still be around and pariticipating in discussions. | 14:48 |
| dhellmann | If any of you are considering serving as chair, and are interested in talking about the role and responsibilities, please let me know (privately, if you prefer). | 14:48 |
| ttx | chairing is fun! | 14:49 |
| evrardjp | Thanks for the work and structure you brought dhellmann | 14:49 |
| dhellmann | it's less work than I expected in a lot of ways, tbh | 14:49 |
| ttx | yes, dhellmann totally added some structure to my old messy ways, so thx dhellmann ! | 14:49 |
| mnaser | indeed. having had to keep up for a few days, the 'systems' that dhellmann put in place really simplified things | 14:50 |
| TheJulia | That is kind of good to hear from when ttx originally described everything | 14:50 |
| evrardjp | I think it would be wise for continuity to not have all our long time TC members drop -- they would be the best at chairing. | 14:50 |
| dhellmann | evrardjp : I'll be sticking around (I'm not up for election until next time) | 14:50 |
| gmann | good process oriented things and system you setup dhellmann , really helpful for long term in community | 14:51 |
| ttx | evrardjp: yes, that's why I'still holding my decision | 14:51 |
| dhellmann | I just expect to need to focus more on some other work | 14:51 |
| dhellmann | and don't want that to detract from TC work | 14:51 |
| mnaser | i plan on running again and (assuming i make it), i think i'd like to try my hand at tc chair as i'm shuffling around priorities to be more free for tha role if need be | 14:51 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : great, thank you | 14:51 |
| evrardjp | mnaser: great | 14:51 |
| ttx | I feel like renewing 3-4 people at each election has worked well | 14:52 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 14:52 | |
| dhellmann | folks who won't be running, when nominations open please post to the ML to let folks know | 14:52 |
| gmann | mnaser: nice. | 14:52 |
| evrardjp | ttx: yes it's not a bad ratio | 14:52 |
| dhellmann | I know we've had people hold off on running because they didn't think there would be open seats | 14:52 |
| dhellmann | ok, 3 more topics on the agenda | 14:52 |
| dhellmann | #topic review proposed OIP acceptance criteria | 14:52 |
| dhellmann | Allison Randal (wendar) has asked the TC for feedback on the current draft of the board's acceptance criteria for new Open Infrastructure Projects | 14:52 |
| dhellmann | She shared a few links to etherpads to help with that review. | 14:52 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "review proposed OIP acceptance criteria (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:52 | |
| dhellmann | #link WG December/January meeting notes https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ProjectConfirmationGuidelines | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | #link December idea collection https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BrainstormingOSFProjectConfirmationGuidelines | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | #link TC review draft https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/TCReview-ConfirmationGuidelines | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | The current plan is to give us a little time (about a week) to provide feedback on the current draft | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | before opening it up for wider review. So, please spend some time looking at the etherpads and | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | leave comments inline in that last one. | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | it doesn't look like wendar is here, but I think that's all of the information we have to share at this point | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | #action tc-members review OIP acceptance criteria | 14:53 |
| ttx | With my TC hat on, I'd ike to weave a bit more "feedback from already-confirmed projects" in there... but there is already some mention of it | 14:53 |
| dhellmann | I pointed out on an earlier draft that there was no foundation membership requirement, like we have for OpenStack itself. I find that an interesting difference. | 14:54 |
| cdent | By "review" does that mean "make sure this feels complete and doesn't make you uncomfy"? | 14:54 |
| dhellmann | wendar asked for comments inline, that's why we have our own version of the latest draft (so she can keep the source of comments straight) | 14:55 |
| ttx | The way I envisioned it, we could file some amicus curiae to help the board make its decision | 14:55 |
| fungi | dhellmann: yes, i've brought up the lack of foundation membership requirement with osf leadership as well, and been told that ripping it out of the bylaws would have been a bit too much to tackle | 14:55 |
| dhellmann | fungi : I was rather thinking we should require it of all voters, myself | 14:56 |
| ttx | i think it will be much easier to consider once we have another thing confirmed | 14:56 |
| dhellmann | This review also gives us an opportunity to think about the criteria for project teams to become (and remain) official OpenStack projects, so keep that in mind as you read. | 14:56 |
| fungi | i also have some side concerns, like the ccla expectations osf has for companies contributing to openstack but seems to not really be pushing for any of the pilot projects (at least as far as i've been able to tell) | 14:56 |
| dhellmann | fungi : yes, that's another area where consistency would be good | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | let's put all of this into the etherpad | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | we have 2 more topics, which I don't think we'll have time to do justice to | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | #topic TC goals for Stein | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | last month I asked you all to consider what goals the TC should have for itself for the remainder of this cycle | 14:57 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "TC goals for Stein (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:57 | |
| *** Luzi has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| dhellmann | if anyone wants to propose a goal, maybe that's a conversation for office hours and the mailing list | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | #topic health check status for stein | 14:57 |
| dhellmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_health_tracker#Project_Teams | 14:57 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "health check status for stein (Meeting topic: tc)" | 14:57 | |
| dhellmann | does anyone have anything to raise based on what they have learned in their conversations with PTLs? | 14:58 |
| dhellmann | for example, I learned this week that there are basically no active contributors in the Telemetry project and only 1 for qinling | 14:58 |
| TheJulia | I do not, but I intend to try and make another pass on the list this month since I went through the list in early january | 14:58 |
| ttx | I learned that Winstackers is functional but still a single-vendor/single-contributor thing | 14:59 |
| ttx | and started wondering if that should not be a "Windows support SIG" instead | 14:59 |
| cdent | that reminds me, do we have a vague definition we can assign to "active" when referring to contribution? | 14:59 |
| ttx | since I see that work as disjoint from "teh product" | 14:59 |
| cdent | because, informally, I've seen lots of projects have fewer "active" (by some meanings) | 14:59 |
| dhellmann | I think it would be useful for us to start considering raising the bar a bit for new and existing teams, but I don't have a specific proposal for how to do that, yet. | 14:59 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: interesting | 15:00 |
| ttx | related: whoever is assigned to Searchlight should probably follow up on Trinh's recent email | 15:00 |
| TheJulia | Solum is one that concerns me | 15:00 |
| dhellmann | cdent : yes, many teams have reported a drop off in contributions or participation from reviewers | 15:00 |
| gmann | cdent: IMO as long as it take care of incoming request (review, fearure, bugs) is Active | 15:00 |
| cdent | that's me and dims | 15:00 |
| dhellmann | thanks for the reminder, ttx | 15:00 |
| dhellmann | #action cdent and dims follow up on Searchlight review email thread on the mailing list | 15:01 |
| ttx | gmann: ++ and releases | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | gmann : I heard from several teams that they were not active enough to work on the community goals. That concerns me. | 15:01 |
| gmann | yeah release | 15:01 |
| cdent | gmann: what about "listening at some point when people show up in the irc channel" or "responding to topical emails"? | 15:01 |
| dhellmann | ok, we're a bit over time so let me wrap the meeting up and we can continue in office hours | 15:01 |
| ttx | ack | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | #topic next meeting | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | #info the next TC meeting will be 7 March 2019 1400 UTC in #openstack-tc | 15:02 |
| 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 | 15:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "next meeting (Meeting topic: tc)" | 15:02 | |
| dhellmann | Thank you, everyone! | 15:02 |
| dhellmann | #endmeeting | 15:02 |
| *** 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/" | 15:02 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Feb 7 15:02:17 2019 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 15:02 |
| gmann | dhellmann: i feel we should provide volunteer to help project team on community goal but yeah that another chalange | 15:02 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2019/tc.2019-02-07-14.00.html | 15:02 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2019/tc.2019-02-07-14.00.txt | 15:02 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2019/tc.2019-02-07-14.00.log.html | 15:02 |
| gmann | thanks dhellmann | 15:02 |
| *** AlanClark has joined #openstack-tc | 15:02 | |
| smcginnis | Thanks dhellmann | 15:02 |
| lbragstad | dhellmann thanks | 15:02 |
| ttx | thanks dhellmann thanks | 15:02 |
| gmann | cdent: IRC is really hard due to TZ espacially when active member are in Asia TZ :) | 15:03 |
| fungi | cdent: yes, i agree it's not straightforward to, for example, spot occasional substantive changes from regular contributors on a project in the flood of boilerplate updates and typo fixes | 15:03 |
| gmann | Tacker is good example. | 15:03 |
| fungi | oh, and the meeting's over | 15:03 |
| lbragstad | but office hours is just getting started ;) | 15:04 |
| TheJulia | heh | 15:04 |
| gmann | :) | 15:04 |
| fungi | proof that i'm no good at juggling high-volume irc meetings | 15:04 |
| TheJulia | I did go back through my notes and Solum was a project that concerned me in early January | 15:04 |
| fungi | by the time i can read what everyone has said and interject, i'm interrupting a new topic | 15:04 |
| ttx | cdent: regarding adding "painting larger goals" into the role of the TC, I think that can be done with a rewording of the "Encouraging a unified OpenStack experience" section to go beyond unification | 15:04 |
| dhellmann | sorry, that agenda was a bit more packed than usual | 15:05 |
| dhellmann | I'll try to keep it shorter next month | 15:05 |
| ttx | cdent: would you like to drive that, or should I ? | 15:05 |
| fungi | i guess i'll stick to using the mailing list and let people who find irc meetings like that useful engage in them | 15:05 |
| * gmann bed time, have good day everyone. | 15:05 | |
| cdent | gmann: sure, I agree that IRC and tz a big problem, but there's some very sad and disappointing when looking at irc logs and people looking for help or to help never get any attention | 15:05 |
| ttx | gmann: thanks for staying up gmann! | 15:05 |
| fungi | g'night gmann! | 15:05 |
| cdent | ttx I think that's a good idea, and if you're up for it, please do | 15:05 |
| cdent | and I will provide vigorous feeback | 15:06 |
| ttx | cdent: fwiw my initial draft was a bit more general there, but that got cut out in reviews. So that review may be the home for interesting discussions. But after all that is why we craeted that doc | 15:06 |
| cdent | yup | 15:06 |
| evrardjp | dhellmann: if we have too much items for a month, maybe we could move some decisions to the ML? | 15:07 |
| * ttx adds to work pile | 15:07 | |
| evrardjp | (Just want to make sure we are not 'losing track' of things, but I know I can trust you there :p ) | 15:07 |
| dhellmann | evrardjp : yes, the goal is to get a status update, and we dug a bit deeper into a couple of items | 15:08 |
| * ttx takes a short break to move a dishwasher | 15:08 | |
| * dhellmann needs a new dishwasher | 15:08 | |
| cdent | Anyone have any comments/thoughts on how to make sure we are ensuring difficult conversations happen and reach conclusions? Or that we should be doing that at all? | 15:10 |
| dhellmann | cdent : I definitely think it's part of our role as community managers | 15:11 |
| cdent | Is "community managers" how you would mainly define/title the role? | 15:11 |
| *** purplerbot has quit IRC | 15:11 | |
| dhellmann | it's a part of it, sure | 15:11 |
| dhellmann | is that a surprise? | 15:12 |
| cdent | no, just fleshing out models | 15:12 |
| * dhellmann nods | 15:12 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 15:12 | |
| *** dansmith has quit IRC | 15:13 | |
| *** purplerbot has joined #openstack-tc | 15:13 | |
| dhellmann | I know I've been involved in more difficult conversations than I can count over the years, because I think it's important to deal with issues as they come up | 15:13 |
| *** dansmith has joined #openstack-tc | 15:14 | |
| TheJulia | It feels painful, but waiting makes it more painful | 15:14 |
| dhellmann | for example, I expect we're going to have some difficult choices to make regarding team status when we look at activity levels for stein | 15:14 |
| cdent | Yes. | 15:14 |
| TheJulia | And often, the outcome can be a surprise because humans have a tendency to worse case those things in their heads | 15:14 |
| cdent | I guess one of my concerns with difficult conversations is making sure they are inclusive | 15:14 |
| cdent | even of people who would rather not bother | 15:14 |
| dhellmann | and regarding my earlier comment about raising the stakes, I think if teams aren't working on goals at all that's a pretty big signal | 15:15 |
| cdent | table stakes? | 15:15 |
| dhellmann | cdent : that can be hard. but decisions are made by the people who show up -- that's one of our principles https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/principles.html#contribution-is-our-currency | 15:16 |
| TheJulia | ++, looking at changes, I did see some drive-by contributors working on related items though so I'm not sure how much we can really tie goals to that. Each one is going to have to be looked at in terms of both metrics and the actual body of work... or lack their of | 15:16 |
| cdent | dhellmann: sure, but I'm not meaning people who are indifferent. I'm thinking more in terms of people who want to get out of being a part of the commonweal. | 15:16 |
| dhellmann | I'm not sure I understand what you mean | 15:17 |
| * cdent thinks for a moment to come up with a made up but real-ish example | 15:18 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 15:18 | |
| cdent | Let's say project X, Y, and Z all decide that project A is preventing them from getting good stuff done. The TC orchestrates a conversation to try to resolve that, A doesn't show up and carries on doing whatever. | 15:20 |
| cdent | We'd like to avoid saying "you can't play in this playground any more" | 15:20 |
| cdent | we'd prefer to be able to improve things | 15:21 |
| cdent | without having to route around A | 15:21 |
| cdent | (which is the usual plan) | 15:21 |
| mugsie | yeah. but if A don't show up, the only thing we can really do is remove the team from A, and hope new people step up, right? | 15:21 |
| cdent | that's the so-called nuclear option | 15:22 |
| mugsie | or allow a fork of A (say A') - that does what X,Y and Z need | 15:22 |
| mugsie | but again, pretty nuclear | 15:22 |
| TheJulia | sometimes the nuclear option is what is needed to gain attention that there is actually a problem | 15:23 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 15:23 | |
| cdent | dhellmann: does the above clarify my point a bit beteter? | 15:23 |
| mugsie | TheJulia: yeah, but a lot of the time, we will not pull that trigger :/ | 15:23 |
| TheJulia | mugsie: but because we're optimists. The only other way is to raise visibility of the struggle | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | I would need to understand why the priorities of X, Y, and Z all require A's participation, what has been done to build the collaboration, etc. before commenting on any of that. But yeah, I get the scenario now. | 15:24 |
| cdent | brb, coffee | 15:24 |
| TheJulia | to convey that the nuclear option is next up for $thing | 15:24 |
| TheJulia | That has signaling implications, but maybe that is what is really needed | 15:24 |
| dhellmann | I'm more interested in building a culture that encourages collaboration than one that punishes for "failing" | 15:25 |
| TheJulia | Because honestly, there are a lot of people that are not going to think something is broken or needs attention unless it impacts them directly or they see it impacting them directly down the road. | 15:25 |
| mugsie | yeah. I am not sure the best way to signal that "we will do $ACTION", without doing it at least once. | 15:25 |
| dhellmann | that said, I think we need to take a harder look at goal participation in general | 15:25 |
| TheJulia | I'd hate to call it punsihment, it is "we have little choice but to" | 15:26 |
| TheJulia | we've exhausted our options, this is the final warning kind of action | 15:26 |
| dhellmann | removing a team from governance doesn't fix the issue for X, Y, or Z, though, right? | 15:26 |
| TheJulia | its not necessarilly punishment, blame shouldn't be placed, but that is transparent in terms of x is going to happen to y at some point. | 15:26 |
| mugsie | dhellmann: well, removing a team from A, is not the same as removing A from governance | 15:27 |
| mugsie | but it is a really crappy route | 15:27 |
| dhellmann | I don't see how they're effectively different | 15:27 |
| cdent | I think there are steps before that, which we don't do and don't really have a mechnism | 15:28 |
| dhellmann | do you think members of the team would stick around? or we would find new maintainers somewhere? | 15:28 |
| cdent | which is effectively: calling projects or people on their bullshit | 15:28 |
| TheJulia | I don't think we _can_ find new maintainers without indicating or signaling that something is going to occur | 15:29 |
| cdent | which frequently can be enough, because a third party supporting a second parties perception of bullshit can be very meaningful to the first party | 15:29 |
| TheJulia | we have to make it personal, we have to make them need to scratch an itch | 15:29 |
| dhellmann | In every case I can think of, when I looked at examples of teams "failing to collaborate", what I found was teams unwilling to accept patches "as is", but giving feedback that the proposers didn't want to accept. | 15:29 |
| cdent | that third partiness is the "adjudication" role that I think the TC exercises too little | 15:29 |
| mugsie | I can think of at least 2 or 3 cases where it was a failure from one team to collaborate | 15:31 |
| cdent | (interestingly, my example has kind of strayed us away from the original point I was trying to get us to discuss about "inclusive converation" but this is good (and related) too) | 15:31 |
| ttx | Based on previous experiences I'd expect the nuclear option to not be unanimous, too. So it's not really "the TC" making a decision, but more "a majority of the TC members" | 15:31 |
| mugsie | ttx: yes, I do not think it would be consensous based | 15:31 |
| dhellmann | consensus != unanimous | 15:32 |
| mnaser | "calling projects or people on their bullshit" seems pretty hostile to me | 15:32 |
| ttx | cdent: I feel like deterrence mostly worked though -- with people coming to some kind of compromise to avoid asking us to make a call. Do you have a specific example in mind where we shied away from taking the nuclear option? | 15:32 |
| mugsie | dhellmann: but consensus is a decision that all can live with | 15:32 |
| dhellmann | live by, but yeah | 15:32 |
| * TheJulia wonders where we got to "calling project or people" point... | 15:32 | |
| dhellmann | I might vote no but agree to live by a decision I don't agree with. | 15:32 |
| cdent | mnaser: it's an idiom trying to quickly explain us being somewhat different in approach: being judgemental sooner, before the nuclear option is required, so as to avoid nuclear winter | 15:33 |
| ttx | cdent: like a point where we should have exercised "adjudication" but did not? | 15:33 |
| * TheJulia may be just too logical for this entire thread of discussion | 15:33 | |
| mnaser | i'd like to know why we're discussing this topic. i think it's more beneficial to chat about a specific case or scenario rather than a general 'x, y, z' team | 15:33 |
| mnaser | because there are many different contexts and reasons why things would happen | 15:33 |
| cdent | TheJulia: we're rolling a fair bit, not really in a logical flow | 15:34 |
| jroll | we have a tendency to get buried in the details when we talk about specific cases, so I appreciate the abstract cases sometimes | 15:34 |
| dhellmann | mnaser : yeah, I was more interested in us looking at https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html to see if we want to make any changes there | 15:34 |
| cdent | jroll++ | 15:35 |
| cdent | Once details come into the picture we focus on them, insteaad of trying to adapt the TCs behavior to be more capable and prepared in the future | 15:35 |
| mugsie | yeah, and it helps not to rehash the same specific arguements over and over. | 15:36 |
| *** zbr has joined #openstack-tc | 15:36 | |
| cdent | I'm trying to suggest that _if_ we agree that part of the TCs role is help insure important conversations are had, and that the relevant people are participating then there are strategies and processes we need to develop | 15:36 |
| mnaser | jroll: i think the concern that some community members have shared is that when we speak so vaguely, doubts within teams start to happen "are we team A?" | 15:36 |
| mugsie | I think having a clear "this is how we mediate conflict in the community" overview, would help us when each opf the cases came up previously | 15:36 |
| TheJulia | I think it absolutely part of our role, but I think we can't always find or have the right people so all we can do is what is best overall for the community. | 15:37 |
| *** zbr|ssbarnea has quit IRC | 15:37 | |
| TheJulia | that is not to say that we don't try, it is just that we don't block on it forever | 15:37 |
| cdent | Not just "how we mediate" but a more clear assertion that we do. | 15:37 |
| cdent | In my experience we take a role too late | 15:38 |
| mugsie | mnaser: that is true, but as soon as we say "team A is Designate" that tends to cause a tangent flame war :/ | 15:38 |
| jroll | mnaser: sure, you can't win either way. sometimes we need specifics, sometimes we needs abstract | 15:38 |
| jroll | mugsie: ++ | 15:38 |
| mnaser | mugsie: well, isn't this the whole base of all this, avoiding the hard conversations/ | 15:38 |
| TheJulia | cdent: Of course, because of the size, scope, and overall amount of information. The visibility needs to be defined or raised to us for us to be able to act. | 15:38 |
| dhellmann | cdent : I've been trying to address that by asking tc-members to engage with PTLs through the health checks. | 15:39 |
| ttx | cdent: the role-of-tc document mentions it though. Do you think that it does not stress it enough ? Or that it does not really act on that part of its role? | 15:39 |
| ttx | "Finally, while most conflicts should be resolved at the project team level, | 15:39 |
| ttx | the TC remains ultimately responsible in case issues cannot be solved at | 15:39 |
| ttx | that level, for example in case there is a dispute between two project | 15:39 |
| ttx | teams on the common way forward. | 15:39 |
| ttx | " | 15:39 |
| cdent | My experience (personal and observation) is that we don't act effectively enough nor soon enough | 15:39 |
| ttx | ok | 15:39 |
| cdent | It's the ultimately responsible part. which makes it sound like a last resort | 15:40 |
| evrardjp | wouldn't that be a project A leadership issue? | 15:40 |
| ttx | So the assertion is there but we do not engage on it early enough | 15:40 |
| TheJulia | cdent: It is like two injectors are incompatible in a warp drive. The federation counsel is not going to know or be aware of the injector until it gets to that point that there needs to be involvement. | 15:40 |
| cdent | ha! | 15:40 |
| evrardjp | woops I realized my scrollback was not at the right place, my comment is not linked | 15:40 |
| * mnaser would like to know examples of where we didn't act effectively or soon enough | 15:41 | |
| mugsie | docs + non core projects is a good one | 15:41 |
| dhellmann | yeah, if we're going to have a retrospective on that I think we do need to go concrete | 15:41 |
| mugsie | and to tie in evrardjp's comment, that took a project leadership change to fix | 15:41 |
| cdent | every single time someone has left the nova project or thought about it because of the abusive environment (it's much better now) | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | mugsie : you mean the policy of saying that cross-project teams could set their own scope? | 15:42 |
| mugsie | dhellmann: the refusal of the docs teams to let non core teams docs into certain docs repos | 15:42 |
| dhellmann | mugsie : right, that was based on the policy we set that said teams could set their own scope. | 15:43 |
| mnaser | so how would the tc intervene in that case, cdent ? | 15:43 |
| cdent | I really didn't want to go concrete on this. I don't think it is useful. I want us to talk about the role of the TC making sure it mediating | 15:43 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: I feel like if we're going to have a retrospective, we need to keep it to concrete things and keep those concrete exchanges of though stream specific. tl;dr I'm thinking irc is the wrong venue | 15:43 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : likely | 15:43 |
| TheJulia | or just limit the discussion to one topic at a time | 15:43 |
| mugsie | dhellmann: I am not sure what scope we are talking about here, but for non core projects, trying to get things like cli clients documents was a struggle | 15:44 |
| dhellmann | cdent : ok. but I don't think anyone disagrees that we should be mediating. so if we're going to say we're doing something wrong, I need to understand how it's wrong in order to consider changes. | 15:44 |
| cdent | mnaser: I'm not certain, encourage complainants to make code of conduct violation assertions rather than trying to paper over things? | 15:44 |
| TheJulia | mugsie: My perception is that change also finally came when there was a realization that things were broken and not working | 15:44 |
| mugsie | and it was only in the ATL PTG that asettle shook it up, and allowed everyone in | 15:44 |
| dhellmann | mugsie : we said that cross-project teams could decide how much work they were going to take on, and the docs team wanted to limit the amount of coverage they were trying to deal with. I disagree with the decision, but it's based on a policy we set | 15:44 |
| cdent | I _really_ don't want to recapitulate my own experiences here and I feel like even mentioning stuff makes it about me, but it isn't just about me. | 15:45 |
| TheJulia | Yeah, and there was not a solid contextual understanding of just how broken things were and people were frustrated until those discussions took place in ATL | 15:45 |
| dhellmann | mugsie : https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20141202-project-structure-reform-spec.html#impact-for-horizontal-teams | 15:45 |
| cdent | But my experience has pretty consistently been: don't make a fuss, try to work with people. | 15:45 |
| mnaser | cdent: things like code of conduct violations have a foundation-level avenue, which is https://www.openstack.org/legal/community-code-of-conduct/ with direct contacts to jonathan/lauren | 15:45 |
| mnaser | while i like us being the tc, that's not our thing to be dealing with | 15:45 |
| cdent | mnaser: yes, but the TC, as "leaders" are in a posotion to help and provide guidance | 15:46 |
| cdent | I need to not go down this avenue right now, so will be back a bit later. | 15:46 |
| mnaser | we're technical leaders IMHO. code of conduct violations and 'abusive' behaviour is best handled by the foundation, they would reach out to us if they want clarification or information | 15:46 |
| mugsie | well, there was understanding in other parts of the community, but not with those teams. This is somewhere that the TC could have lead a mediation, but it was shot down every time | 15:46 |
| dhellmann | mugsie : ok, that's fair feedback | 15:47 |
| mnaser | we don't get along is one thing, abusive behavior and code of conduct violations is another. imho. | 15:47 |
| dhellmann | yeah, I thought we were talking about collaborating and agreeing on priorities, not abuse | 15:48 |
| mnaser | dhellmann: yeah, i think the tc can help and try to be involved in that, i agriee | 15:49 |
| * TheJulia is kind of lost in what we're actually trying to discuss or resolve | 15:50 | |
| * TheJulia has lost the concrete thing | 15:50 | |
| fungi | so much discussion between tc members during office hour... on the topic of removing projects from governance, what we govern is not software it's teams of people. we would be removing teams from governance, the software sticks around and is not lost, it's there for some new team to pick up and resume and be added to our governance later if there's interest | 15:51 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia: I'm not sure we ever disagreed on the assertion that the TC should be involved in mediation and fostering collaboration. It sounds like we haven't done that to everyone's satisfaction in all cases. | 15:51 |
| TheJulia | There is an element of family in this community. Nobody wants to shame family or friends. Nobody wants to be shamed. Sometimes things are hard and not fun, and all any of us can do is what we believe is right for the community and project as a whole. | 15:51 |
| mugsie | TheJulia: ++ | 15:51 |
| TheJulia | fungi: ++ | 15:52 |
| dhellmann | fungi : good point | 15:52 |
| dhellmann | on a positive note, there are fewer red boxes in the table on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Python3 this week | 15:53 |
| evrardjp | :) | 15:53 |
| fungi | i'm afraid i'm going to have to just give up and skim this scrollback. it's accumulating faster than i can get through it | 15:53 |
| mugsie | TheJulia: there is also the social capital cost, that raising these issues can make life difficult for people for a while after, or people can perseive that there will be a cost for them | 15:53 |
| dhellmann | we're still a long way from done, but making progress | 15:53 |
| TheJulia | dhellmann: I don't think we can meet everyone's satisfaction given the nature of the community. All we can do is try our best and to do the right thing when the issue clearly presents its self as problem. There might be weeks or months while we're in the background having some discussions or trying to encourage/coach depending on the issue, but yeah. We're all only human... and I'm definitely not a vulcan like my wife | 15:53 |
| TheJulia | claims. | 15:53 |
| TheJulia | mugsie: very true | 15:53 |
| dhellmann | TheJulia : yep | 15:54 |
| fungi | if there are any important points in here, hopefully someone will repeat them on the mailing list | 15:54 |
| TheJulia | "We are only human" is my takeaway | 15:55 |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-tc | 16:01 | |
| * TheJulia feels like she killed the discussion | 16:01 | |
| * dhellmann has switched gears to catching up on email | 16:02 | |
| * TheJulia needs to do the same | 16:03 | |
| * mugsie is in the process of getting hardware packed up and wiped | 16:03 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 16:15 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 16:16 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 16:20 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 16:24 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 16:24 | |
| *** AlanClark has quit IRC | 16:27 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 16:30 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 16:38 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 17:08 | |
| *** dklyle has joined #openstack-tc | 17:29 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 17:36 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 17:37 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 17:37 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 17:38 | |
| cdent | I'm struggling to fully reconcile mnaser's assertion of "we're technical leaders" with dhellmann's "community managers" | 17:43 |
| cdent | but it's a complicated world, so that's how it goes | 17:43 |
| fungi | i reconcile them as independent opinions from different elected representatives of the community | 17:50 |
| cdent | well, yes, clearly that. | 17:51 |
| * cdent calls it a night | 17:52 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 17:52 | |
| * dhellmann doesn't find those 2 perspectives mutually exclusive | 17:55 | |
| TheJulia | Nor do I. Leadership is sometimes just being the conduit or enabler of the [technical] discussion. | 18:14 |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:15 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 18:22 | |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 18:25 | |
| *** e0ne has joined #openstack-tc | 18:42 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 18:51 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 18:57 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 19:02 | |
| *** remi_ness has joined #openstack-tc | 19:04 | |
| *** lbragstad has quit IRC | 19:32 | |
| *** lbragstad has joined #openstack-tc | 19:32 | |
| *** remi_ness has quit IRC | 20:07 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 20:25 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has joined #openstack-tc | 20:27 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 20:30 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 20:52 | |
| *** ijolliffe has joined #openstack-tc | 21:03 | |
| *** e0ne has quit IRC | 21:19 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur_ has quit IRC | 21:30 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:30 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:33 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:33 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:42 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:47 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 21:51 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 21:54 | |
| *** ijolliffe has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 22:15 | |
| tonyb | dhellmann: Thanks for doing that release | 22:15 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:20 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 22:21 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 22:27 | |
| dhellmann | tonyb : no problem, thanks for making that library more useful! | 22:28 |
| *** mriedem is now known as mriedem_afk | 22:43 | |
| dhellmann | tc-members: jamesmcarthur is looking for volunteers to help organize the forum. If you're interested, see his post to the mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-February/002513.html | 22:49 |
| *** tosky has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| jamesmcarthur | Thanks for the promo, dhellmann:! | 22:54 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** whoami-rajat has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 23:15 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:20 | |
| dhellmann | #spreadtheword | 23:32 |
| *** jamesmcarthur has joined #openstack-tc | 23:36 | |
| *** jamesmcarthur has quit IRC | 23:40 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!