| *** pojadhav is now known as pojadhav|lunch | 09:36 | |
| *** pojadhav|lunch is now known as pojadhav| | 10:12 | |
| *** pojadhav| is now known as pojadhav | 10:13 | |
| *** lajoskatona_ is now known as lajoskatona | 10:31 | |
| *** iurygregory_ is now known as iurygregory | 11:45 | |
| *** pojadhav is now known as pojadhav|out | 14:19 | |
| *** tosky_ is now known as tosky | 14:27 | |
| gmann | tc-members: meeting on IRC in 5 min from now | 14:55 |
|---|---|---|
| *** diablo_rojo__ is now known as diablo_rojo | 14:58 | |
| gmann | #startmeeting tc | 15:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Thu Mar 17 15:00:25 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is gmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 15:00 |
| gmann | #topic Roll call | 15:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 15:00 |
| rosmaita | o/ | 15:00 |
| diablo_rojo | o/ | 15:00 |
| dansmith | o/ | 15:00 |
| slaweq | o/ | 15:00 |
| jungleboyj | o/ | 15:01 |
| spotz_ | o/ | 15:01 |
| gmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee | 15:02 |
| gmann | Today agenda ^^ | 15:02 |
| gmann | let's start | 15:02 |
| gmann | #topic Follow up on past action items | 15:02 |
| gmann | no action item form last meeting | 15:02 |
| gmann | #topic Gate health check | 15:02 |
| gmann | any news on gate? | 15:02 |
| dansmith | there was a creeping failure in the nova-ceph-multistore job, | 15:03 |
| dansmith | which was OOMing mysql, which I hopefully fixed by trimming down | 15:03 |
| knikolla | o/ | 15:03 |
| dansmith | that affected a few projects at least | 15:03 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:04 |
| dansmith | I know we've still got the volume detach failure thing going on with the centos jobs, at seemingly 100%, but those aren't voting anywhere that I know of | 15:04 |
| gmann | yeah, I am able to make rescue server test pass with SSH-able server fix but there are two more test failing #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/tempest/+/831608 | 15:04 |
| dansmith | oh I thought all the sshable fixes were merged | 15:04 |
| dansmith | oh right, I remember this one now, nevermind | 15:05 |
| gmann | even after unrescue server we need to wait for ssh-ready before detach happening | 15:05 |
| dansmith | this breaks non-centos jobs now right? | 15:05 |
| fungi | we upgraded gitea yesterday, and this exposed a regression with pip install of git remotes from it which impacted blazar's jobs because they were still configured to try zuul v2 era zuul-cloner workflows | 15:05 |
| gmann | yeah, not all. rescue test was seen as failure in reported bug but there are few more | 15:05 |
| gmann | dansmith: no, they will pass. i did recheck. | 15:05 |
| dansmith | gmann: oh, then why haven't we merged it yet? | 15:06 |
| fungi | i've got a fix in the pipe to address the pip install errors, but also it exposed that their jobs are sorely in need of modernizing | 15:06 |
| gmann | dansmith: I was trying a litlte smart for having active server then rescue/unrescue and then SSH but that did not work | 15:06 |
| gmann | dansmith: It just passed yesterday might so will merge after gate pass :) | 15:06 |
| dansmith | oh okay | 15:06 |
| gmann | *yesterday night | 15:06 |
| gmann | fungi: you mean their jobs also on zuulv2? | 15:07 |
| jungleboyj | On a related note the Cinder team is starting a renewed effort to get people to not do 'naked rechecks' . | 15:08 |
| dansmith | oh very nice | 15:08 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:08 |
| rosmaita | \o/ | 15:08 |
| fungi | gmann: more that their jobs hadn't been touched since the zuul v2 days, so were trying to use the zuul-cloner tool to checkout openstack/nova, and because that's not a thing any longer they were falling back to pip install nova from a git remote | 15:08 |
| dansmith | jungleboyj: I try to shame people when I find them doing that with evidence that it's wrong :) | 15:08 |
| * jungleboyj isn't surprised | 15:08 | |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 15:08 |
| rosmaita | dansmith: we expect no less of you | 15:09 |
| dansmith | but it works ;) | 15:09 |
| gmann | slaweq had good script to collect recheck numbers. | 15:09 |
| slaweq | speaking about rechecks, I prepared some data as we talked last week | 15:09 |
| spotz_ | *hides* | 15:09 |
| gmann | yeah, I was coming to that | 15:09 |
| slaweq | https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zlJixCttF1e7ZSJdZzORfrJWRqsllRDn97FHyTr11e8/edit?usp=sharing | 15:09 |
| slaweq | here are data for "main" repositories | 15:09 |
| slaweq | and if You want it for each repo in openstack/ there is tar.gz file http://kaplonski.pl/files/openstack_rechecks_data.tar.gz | 15:09 |
| slaweq | I collected data for each repo from openstack from last 365 days | 15:10 |
| diablo_rojo | Oh thats a pretty cool visualization. | 15:10 |
| gmann | very nice. | 15:10 |
| dansmith | I'm not really sure what the numbers are though | 15:10 |
| slaweq | the number there are basically average number or rechecks done on last PS before it was merged | 15:11 |
| gmann | is it like <2 recheck per week for most project? or I am reading wrongly ? | 15:11 |
| dansmith | is this rechecks or just build failures? | 15:11 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: Ok, good. Not just me. | 15:11 |
| slaweq | average for every week | 15:11 |
| dansmith | slaweq: ah okay | 15:11 |
| jungleboyj | Ah ... | 15:11 |
| dansmith | slaweq: so higher numbers potentially mean recheck grinding to get a patch in? | 15:11 |
| slaweq | dansmith: right | 15:11 |
| gmann | ohk so it is per patch not all jobs | 15:11 |
| slaweq | it's per patch and average per week | 15:12 |
| gmann | then 1 or 2 still high number per patch | 15:12 |
| jungleboyj | So, on average ever other patch has to go through a recheck to merge. | 15:12 |
| gmann | jungleboyj: yeah | 15:12 |
| jungleboyj | Wow. | 15:12 |
| fungi | is that just for gate pipeline failures, or check as well? | 15:12 |
| gmann | good question ^^ | 15:12 |
| slaweq | fungi: both | 15:12 |
| gmann | check might have mostly but yeah gate also have recheck | 15:13 |
| fungi | so given that the patch has to pass once in check and once in gate in order to merge | 15:13 |
| slaweq | I was basically counting "recheck" comments on last patch sets | 15:13 |
| slaweq | of course there may be some patches where rechecks were done "on purpose" | 15:13 |
| slaweq | but in general I think it's not very common practice | 15:13 |
| jungleboyj | Fair assumption. | 15:13 |
| fungi | also note that long patch series and/or depends-on can skew this, since one change failing can cause all the ones which rely on it to also fail | 15:14 |
| gmann | slaweq: ohk so on last PS not all recheck on that commit ? | 15:14 |
| slaweq | fungi: true, it's not ideal metric for sure | 15:14 |
| jungleboyj | Oh wow, if it is just the last patch set, then the actual number of rechecks per patch could be higher. | 15:14 |
| slaweq | gmann: yes, I was counting only last patch set as I assumed that if that PS was merged finally, it means it was good | 15:14 |
| gmann | yeah, DNM, testing patch also in that but that is ok | 15:15 |
| slaweq | DNM patches aren't in that metric. I was filtering only merged patches | 15:15 |
| gmann | k, +1 | 15:15 |
| fungi | jungleboyj: but remember that this includes check, so includes the "surely the problem isn't my patch, oh i guess maybe it is?" rechecks too | 15:15 |
| fungi | or would if you included patch sets before the final one | 15:16 |
| slaweq | I'm using this script and metric in neutron since some time and even if it's not great it shows us pretty clearly current state of the Neutron CI :) | 15:16 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 15:16 |
| jungleboyj | Some data is better than no data. | 15:16 |
| dansmith | yeah I think this probably gives us a good view of how much rechecking needs to happen to get something to land, | 15:16 |
| slaweq | https://github.com/slawqo/tools/blob/master/rechecks/rechecks.py | 15:16 |
| slaweq | that is script | 15:16 |
| gmann | slaweq: and is it lot of data if we collect for all recheck including previous recheck that merge PS? | 15:16 |
| dansmith | but probably needs a bit more to tell us more than that, like if individual patches are actually rechecked more than the average, etc | 15:16 |
| gmann | dansmith: yeah | 15:17 |
| dansmith | but as a heartbeat sort of thing, if the graph goes up -> bad | 15:17 |
| slaweq | dansmith: I can prepare some data "per patch" too | 15:18 |
| slaweq | I will need to modify that script but it shouldn't be hard | 15:18 |
| gmann | yeah and we can like ignore patches if just 1 recheck or so if data is more | 15:18 |
| dansmith | slaweq: I'm not asking you to do that, just suggesting, but yeah always nice to have data and more data :) | 15:19 |
| gmann | slaweq: just to make sure it is just 'recheck' not recheck with reason? | 15:19 |
| gmann | or both | 15:19 |
| slaweq | gmann: actually it is counting number of comments like "Build failed" on the last PS | 15:19 |
| slaweq | https://github.com/slawqo/tools/blob/master/rechecks/rechecks.py#L155 | 15:19 |
| dansmith | I really hate that we've drifted away from "recheck with reason" .. I wish we could encourage better behavior there sometime | 15:19 |
| dansmith | *somehow | 15:19 |
| diablo_rojo | The same way you should be descriptive with your commit message, you should be descriptive with why you are rechecking. | 15:20 |
| dansmith | diablo_rojo: I agree, and I never do naked rechecks, but I'm in the minority | 15:20 |
| fungi | "recheck with reason" has always been optional. people who are inclined to look into and record why they're rechecking something will do it regardless of whether it's expected, and people who don't want to bother will make something up like they did back when we enforced it | 15:20 |
| diablo_rojo | I know I am not innocent when it comes to rechecks without explicitly saying why. | 15:20 |
| slaweq | dansmith: sure, I will do modification to have data "per patch" | 15:20 |
| spotz_ | I just kind of assumed it triggered off the commit just being recheck | 15:20 |
| dansmith | and I was shamed for my use of shame, so.. lollipops? :) | 15:20 |
| slaweq | I don't know if for next week but I will do that | 15:21 |
| * jungleboyj is guilty as well. | 15:21 | |
| dansmith | fungi: yeah I know | 15:21 |
| spotz_ | My guess is training issue. We see just recheck so we use just resheck | 15:21 |
| diablo_rojo | Sure its optional, but it would be better if we made it the majority rather than a minority. | 15:21 |
| gmann | slaweq: no hurry. I am going to add this recheck script/data in PTG and we can discuss what all data we want to monitor per week in zed | 15:21 |
| diablo_rojo | Wouldn't want dansmith feeling lonely, you know. | 15:21 |
| * dansmith sobs uncontrollably | 15:21 | |
| gmann | easy data will be per week as we monitor weekly so will be easy to check even for all patches or per patches | 15:22 |
| slaweq | gmann: sure, great idea. I will be more than happy to help with that | 15:22 |
| dansmith | spotz_: it used to be required, but people would just "recheck foo" or "recheck bug 00000" | 15:22 |
| jungleboyj | There there ... | 15:22 |
| fungi | i agree it's a good practice, but it's not a good source of data unfortunately because of the number of people who knowingly pollute it | 15:22 |
| * diablo_rojo hands dansmith a handkerchief "there there" | 15:22 | |
| gmann | slaweq: thanks for this. | 15:22 |
| dansmith | maybe we should try to encourage PTLs to push the better behavior in their teams | 15:22 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: That is where Cinder is starting. | 15:23 |
| diablo_rojo | slaweq, yes thanks for the data. I look forward to the per patch info! | 15:23 |
| gmann | sure, how? in TC+PTL sessions or in ML? | 15:23 |
| dansmith | jungleboyj: ack, well, let's try to spread that | 15:23 |
| dansmith | gmann: yeah we could start in the PTG session | 15:23 |
| gmann | +1 | 15:23 |
| gmann | I will add it | 15:23 |
| slaweq | yeah, in neutron we are trying to do "recheck with reason" too but it's not always easy | 15:23 |
| dansmith | gmann: cool | 15:23 |
| jungleboyj | +2 | 15:23 |
| slaweq | and I also don't do it sometimes :/ | 15:23 |
| slaweq | but I will try to do better :) | 15:24 |
| gmann | #action gmann to add recheck data topic in PTG etherpad (TC and TC+PTL for awareness) | 15:24 |
| dansmith | slaweq: be the change.. be the change.. :P | 15:24 |
| gmann | +100 | 15:24 |
| rosmaita | this is our advice in cinder: https://docs.openstack.org/cinder/latest/contributor/gerrit.html#ci-job-rechecks | 15:24 |
| slaweq | dansmith: yes sir! :D | 15:24 |
| dansmith | :) | 15:24 |
| spotz_ | heheh | 15:24 |
| dansmith | 24 minutes in and still on gate, eh? | 15:24 |
| rosmaita | just putting it out there, because i don't know that we are generating machine parseable comments | 15:24 |
| jungleboyj | It is our favorite topic dansmith | 15:25 |
| dansmith | rosmaita: "recheck I don't know but at least I looked" is better to me than nothing | 15:25 |
| gmann | fungi: coming back to blazer issue, do you have link for that/job or know if they are working to fix their side? | 15:25 |
| fungi | priteau is working on it, but it was jobs for blazar-nova specifically | 15:26 |
| gmann | rosmaita: I see them sometime machine generated comment (not recheck) and that annoy me more than anything | 15:26 |
| gmann | fungi: ok. | 15:27 |
| rosmaita | i have tried to get out third-party ci to add the appropriate gerrit tag so they don't pollute the comments, but you can see how much success i have had | 15:27 |
| gmann | and as frickler pointed out today I pushed moving l-c job to focal/py38 but there are existing config error in that field which needs to be fixed | 15:27 |
| fungi | gmann: an old tools/tox_install.sh in blazar-nova specifically | 15:28 |
| gmann | fungi: I see | 15:28 |
| gmann | good discussion on gate things today. anything else? | 15:29 |
| dansmith | +1000 | 15:29 |
| dansmith | very glad to see the gate getting proper attention | 15:29 |
| rosmaita | slaweq: nice work on that script, btw | 15:29 |
| gmann | true, +10000 :) | 15:29 |
| slaweq | thx | 15:29 |
| dansmith | gmann: you just had to +10x me huh? | 15:30 |
| gmann | yeah | 15:30 |
| dansmith | hah | 15:30 |
| gmann | #topic Z cycle Leaderless projects | 15:30 |
| gmann | only 1 project adjutant left which we are waiting until March end. we will discuss that in PTG | 15:31 |
| gmann | I will remove it from genda | 15:31 |
| gmann | #topic PTG Preparation | 15:31 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 15:31 |
| gmann | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-yoga-ptg | 15:31 |
| gmann | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-ptl-interaction-zed | 15:31 |
| gmann | please add topic in those etherpad | 15:31 |
| gmann | timeslots are finalized and I have updatad it on ML as well as in etherpad | 15:32 |
| fungi | note that the schedule and precreated etherpad links are now live in ptgbot, so can probably safely start adding overrides if needed. diablo_rojo would know for sure though | 15:32 |
| knikolla | the first one is the link from the yoga ptg :) | 15:32 |
| gmann | I have informed Kubernets steering committee for joining us in PTG | 15:32 |
| spotz_ | gmann do we need to bring up Sahara, Magnum, etc there or will it be too late | 15:33 |
| diablo_rojo | I think you can override it now. | 15:33 |
| gmann | sorry #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-zed-ptg | 15:33 |
| jungleboyj | here we go. | 15:33 |
| gmann | spotz_: in TC+PTL sessions? | 15:33 |
| spotz_ | Yeah | 15:33 |
| *** ykarel is now known as ykarel|away | 15:34 | |
| gmann | yeah, we call everyone actually not specific projects | 15:34 |
| diablo_rojo | Everything looks correct at this point. I just need to do the zoom room setup once we are closer but that shouldn't affect other things. | 15:34 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo: +1, nice | 15:34 |
| gmann | spotz_: and for less active/broken project like sahara, magnum we can address/ping them separately. I would like to keep TC+PTL sessions to get/give feedback sessions instead of going towards project health checks | 15:35 |
| gmann | if we do project health check many PTLs will not join :) | 15:36 |
| spotz_ | gmann ok | 15:36 |
| gmann | spotz_: for magnum I know there are few new cores in last cycle which you can ping. | 15:36 |
| jungleboyj | Probably true. | 15:36 |
| gmann | anything else on PTG? | 15:37 |
| diablo_rojo | Please register if you havent yet! | 15:37 |
| gmann | +1, i did. | 15:38 |
| slaweq | Me too 🙂 | 15:38 |
| gmann | #topic Open Reviews | 15:38 |
| gmann | #link https://review.opendev.org/q/projects:openstack/governance+is:open | 15:38 |
| diablo_rojo | \o/ | 15:38 |
| gmann | I need one more vote on slaweq vice-chair nomination #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/833171 | 15:39 |
| spotz_ | voted:) | 15:39 |
| gmann | all other open reviews are good, either waiting for time or PTL +1 | 15:39 |
| gmann | thanks, that is all from my side today. anything else to discuss? | 15:39 |
| diablo_rojo | nice :) | 15:39 |
| gmann | we have around 21 min | 15:39 |
| jungleboyj | Voted! Thank you slaweq ! | 15:40 |
| gmann | thanks and yes thanks slaweq for volunteer | 15:40 |
| spotz_ | Assuming we have joint leadership in Berlin do we want to do anything separate from that? | 15:40 |
| slaweq | yw, I hope I will learn quickly and be able to help gmann there :) | 15:40 |
| gmann | slaweq: +100 | 15:40 |
| diablo_rojo | Forum submissions should be opening next week I think | 15:41 |
| gmann | spotz_: I think that is good one to restart. and joint leadership meeting is enough at least for Board interaction | 15:41 |
| spotz_ | Sounds good, I pinged the OPS Meetup folks as we're 10 weeks out and really need to get planning | 15:41 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo: on Forum sessions, do we need TC volunteer for selection committee like we used to have? | 15:42 |
| gmann | spotz_: +1 on ops meetup. | 15:42 |
| diablo_rojo | I have a few PTL volunteers actually | 15:42 |
| diablo_rojo | So we are good for OpenStack forum selection representation | 15:42 |
| spotz_ | I told her I would if no one else staeeped up | 15:42 |
| diablo_rojo | That too :) | 15:42 |
| gmann | dansmith: nice, I saw wiki and if i understand correctly requirement is not two TC has to be in selection but it can be anyone from community right? | 15:43 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo: ^^ | 15:43 |
| diablo_rojo | lol | 15:43 |
| gmann | dansmith: please ignore | 15:43 |
| dansmith | aheh | 15:43 |
| dansmith | I was like ..uhh | 15:43 |
| gmann | your both name with d* :) | 15:43 |
| diablo_rojo | Yeah it can be anyone from the community just ideally someone in a governance position | 15:43 |
| diablo_rojo | so PTLs are great too | 15:44 |
| diablo_rojo | Yeah dansmith, here I thought you were the Forum expert lol | 15:44 |
| gmann | "1 delegate from each OpenInfra Project | 15:44 |
| gmann | 2 OpenInfra Foundation staff members" | 15:44 |
| diablo_rojo | yep | 15:45 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo: may be good to mention that clearly about governance in that | 15:45 |
| diablo_rojo | gmann, it says elsewhere in the wiki I believe | 15:45 |
| gmann | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Forum | 15:45 |
| gmann | "The TC and UC are best placed to decide which of their members should represent each body...." may be this line can be modified now? | 15:46 |
| gmann | this is left om previous requirement? | 15:46 |
| diablo_rojo | Ah yeah that needs to be updated. | 15:46 |
| diablo_rojo | I will tweak later today | 15:46 |
| gmann | k, just making sure we do not miss anything from TC which we need to do | 15:46 |
| gmann | diablo_rojo: thanks | 15:46 |
| diablo_rojo | I would let you know if we were :) | 15:46 |
| gmann | great. | 15:47 |
| gmann | anything other topic to discuss/ | 15:47 |
| gmann | #endmeeting | 15:48 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Thu Mar 17 15:48:12 2022 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 15:48 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2022/tc.2022-03-17-15.00.html | 15:48 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2022/tc.2022-03-17-15.00.txt | 15:48 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2022/tc.2022-03-17-15.00.log.html | 15:48 |
| slaweq | o/ | 15:48 |
| diablo_rojo | o/ | 15:48 |
| spotz_ | Thanks gmann and everyone! | 15:48 |
| jungleboyj | Thank you! | 15:48 |
| opendevreview | Kendall Nelson proposed openstack/governance master: (WIP) Defining Tech Preview https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/834208 | 17:59 |
| diablo_rojo | Sorry I have been so behind on doing that but at least its up before the next PTG? lol | 18:00 |
| dansmith | diablo_rojo: is the next ptg after this one for sure in-person? | 18:38 |
| diablo_rojo | dansmith, thats the tentative plan..pending pandemic etc. We don't have exact dates yet, just likely October. The events staff are working to nail down exact date + location by the summit in Berlin | 18:47 |
| dansmith | okay | 18:47 |
| diablo_rojo | just excited to see us all in person eh, dansmith ? ;) | 18:48 |
| dansmith | nope :) | 18:48 |
| * diablo_rojo is hurt | 18:48 | |
| dansmith | sorry (not sorry) :P | 18:49 |
| diablo_rojo | If you were, you wouldn't be you :) | 18:49 |
| dansmith | to be clear, I do want to see you all in person, I'm just not excited about actually doing it (as things are) | 18:49 |
| gmann | I am hoping to get community feedback on this before final call. still situation is not so safe to travel. | 18:55 |
| diablo_rojo | I highly doubt it will ever be as 'safe' as it was in 2019. Kinda like how everything changed for US travel post 2011. I don't think we are ever going 'back'. | 18:58 |
| gmann | IMO, I understand that marketing events can/needs to be physical but developers event can be virutal or hybrid at least (for this year at least). | 18:59 |
| gmann | just my opinion though :) | 18:59 |
| dansmith | diablo_rojo: I think you mean 2001 | 19:03 |
| dansmith | we didn't have zoom in 2002, and I agree, it's just not that important to rush back, IMHO | 19:04 |
| dansmith | 2001 was a single event, and getting back to normal did not increase the likelihood of it happening again, so not really the same to me | 19:05 |
| diablo_rojo | Lol yes I mean 2001 dansmith lol | 19:07 |
| diablo_rojo | obviously I need a nap or more caffeine. | 19:07 |
| jungleboyj | I think we are going to have to keep more of a hybrid approach because some companies aren't going to go back to letting people travel. | 19:08 |
| jungleboyj | Or it is going to take a while. | 19:08 |
| gmann | yeah that is another factor we should consider. | 19:08 |
| gmann | and more than that individual choice. | 19:08 |
| dansmith | yeah, I think the shrunken budgets aren't going to snap back to normal | 19:09 |
| jungleboyj | Amazingly, Lenovo was on the track of 'Everyone must come to the office' in October of 2019. Now they are going to a permanent hybrid approach. They want people to come in at some point during the week but are encouraging everyone to work remote for the majority of the week. | 19:09 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: Exactly! | 19:09 |
| gmann | indeed, I am sure companies budget preparation for 2022FY are not considering much travel. | 19:10 |
| fungi | lots of companies dropped the leases for their office buildings | 19:11 |
| fungi | nowhere to tell the employees to come back to | 19:11 |
| dansmith | hybrid really puts the remote people at a disadvantage, more so than if everyone is remote too, | 19:11 |
| dansmith | which is a concern of mine | 19:11 |
| jungleboyj | ++ | 19:11 |
| dansmith | (for the ptg I mean) | 19:11 |
| fungi | i think it should be possible to make sessions less convenient for the people attending in person, in order to put them on an equal footing with those attending remotely | 19:12 |
| dansmith | fungi: yeah I was just hearing about one local company the other day that said "you know, we could more than pay for everyone's internet if we stop rending a box 24 hours a day that only gets used for 8" | 19:12 |
| dansmith | *renting | 19:12 |
| jungleboyj | :-) | 19:12 |
| jungleboyj | I like rending a box as well. | 19:13 |
| fungi | renting it, but then also rending it | 19:13 |
| fungi | it really does end up being both | 19:13 |
| * jungleboyj laughs | 19:13 | |
| fungi | but yes, the costs of maintaining office space are, in many cases, greater than the benefits | 19:14 |
| fungi | without a year or two long experiment in not using office buildings, it would be much harder to convince a lot of companies of that fact, but now they have the numbers | 19:14 |
| dansmith | yeah | 19:14 |
| dansmith | so...thank you pandemic? no, that's too far. | 19:15 |
| dansmith | it's done wonders for my antisocial tendencies, I'll say that ;) | 19:15 |
| jungleboyj | :-) There has been upsides from it. | 19:15 |
| jungleboyj | dansmith: How much more could be done. ;-) | 19:15 |
| dansmith | heh | 19:15 |
| fungi | when i had an hour-long commute each way every day, i never managed to get to work on time. once i started working from home, i was never late! | 19:15 |
| dansmith | now that my wife WFH too there's a little traffic on my commute, but it's very manageable :) | 19:16 |
| fungi | also, all that time no longer wasted travelling back and forth, costly fuel and vehicle maintenance, et cetera | 19:16 |
| dansmith | yeah | 19:16 |
| jungleboyj | We have a traffic jam on the stairs once in a while. Especially if the dog commutes at the same time ... but not too bad. | 20:32 |
| fungi | we have a cat who is determined to assassinate us and make it look like an stairwell-related accident | 20:35 |
| jungleboyj | :-) I think our cat tries that once in a while. She is too lazy in the morning to be a part of the commute. | 20:36 |
| dansmith | fungi: hah. my cat is fine with having blood on his claws following his assassination operation | 20:36 |
| jungleboyj | Our dog is a Dachshund though. He looks like a bratwurst. So we joke about having a jack knifed sausage on the stairs blocking traffic. | 20:36 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Add slaweq nomination as vice-chair https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/833171 | 23:17 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Appoint Wu Chunyang as Trove PTL https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/833152 | 23:17 |
| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Reset TC liaisons list https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/834243 | 23:47 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!