| opendevreview | Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Fixing typo in 2024.2 testing runtime https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/913704 | 17:42 |
|---|---|---|
| JayF | thanks gmann, I approved as a typo-fix | 17:46 |
| gmann | JayF: thanks | 17:46 |
| JayF | I will be landing (wsgi goal) https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/902807 after the tc meeting today; if you haven't looked and may care, look soon :) | 17:49 |
| JayF | #startmeeting tc | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting started Tue Mar 19 18:00:19 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is JayF. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:00 |
| opendevmeet | The meeting name has been set to 'tc' | 18:00 |
| JayF | Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct. | 18:00 |
| JayF | Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee. | 18:00 |
| JayF | #topic Roll Call | 18:00 |
| JayF | o/ | 18:00 |
| dansmith | o/ | 18:00 |
| frickler | \o | 18:00 |
| gmann | o/ | 18:00 |
| spotz[m] | o/ | 18:00 |
| jamespage | o/ | 18:00 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:01 |
| rosmaita | o/ | 18:01 |
| JayF | I'm going to take this time to note that the election is over tomorrow; and this is the last meeting of the TC as currently constructed. Thanks to everyone who has been a part of TC over the last six months o/ | 18:01 |
| JayF | #info There are no tracked action items to follow up, agenda item skipped. | 18:02 |
| JayF | #topic Gate Health Check | 18:02 |
| JayF | How is the gate? | 18:02 |
| dansmith | not great in nova land, there were a bunch of rechecks on trivial patches last week trying to get them in | 18:03 |
| dansmith | a number of guest kernel crashes, which we have been seeing less of lately | 18:03 |
| JayF | I know for Ironic it's been a little rough; we had to disable a set of jobs because something broke in CI automation around building cirros partition images; we're going to be discussing at PTG how to get that build out of the CI flow | 18:03 |
| fungi | note there was an increase in zuul config errors from friday's centos-7 nodeset/label removal, but it mainly impacts very old branches (and a lot went away in subsequent unmaintained branch cleanup) | 18:03 |
| JayF | Thanks for the update Dan and fungi. Going to give another bit of time for additional info before moving on. | 18:04 |
| slaweq | speaking about rechecks, I sent today email https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/7L6DSFN6GB65FBVHQATTLSQ7HWGBZJHM/ | 18:04 |
| slaweq | I was looking at the reasons of rechecks in last 30 days and most of them are "unrelated failure" :/ | 18:05 |
| rosmaita | if only we could eliminate all those unrelated failures! | 18:05 |
| JayF | Thanks slaweq -- I'm glad you aggregated that. I'm a little concerned that 'unrelated failure' rechecks may indicate that we have contributors who are uncomfortable with how to troubleshoot CI. | 18:05 |
| slaweq | so I asked there if people can be more verbose and give some more specific reasons, hopefully we may have some better data in few weeks | 18:05 |
| fungi | how unhelpful (the recheck comments i mean, your research is very helpful!) | 18:05 |
| JayF | and/or are so busy that they don't have time to further dig and are only focusing on the task in front of them | 18:05 |
| frickler | or get tired of typing long comments again and again | 18:06 |
| dansmith | yeah the "recheck unrelated" has become the new bare recheck unfortunately | 18:06 |
| frickler | because nobody fixes the unrelated failures | 18:06 |
| dansmith | the point is to get people looking at the why and not just assuming "must not be my problem" | 18:06 |
| dansmith | there was one report recently of someone in nova re-re-re-rechecking things that were indeed failing because of stuff they broke | 18:06 |
| slaweq | dansmith +100 to what You said :) | 18:06 |
| dansmith | :) | 18:07 |
| spotz[m] | ouch | 18:07 |
| JayF | dansmith: that's yet another sign of contributors who are focused on the change in front of them and/or are missing context on how to troubleshoot CI. I don't really know how to fix the first half of that, and I only know how to help with the latter via 1:1 mentoring | 18:08 |
| gmann | yeah, unrelated recheck is not helping at all | 18:08 |
| dansmith | JayF: to be clear, their patch was broken, they weren't even seeing it was failing a test that covered the code they were doing | 18:08 |
| dansmith | I don't think it was a failure to understand some cryptic CI failure | 18:08 |
| dansmith | but if you mean that we've trained people to assume that things just fail a lot so they don't even look, that's definitely true | 18:09 |
| JayF | dansmith: ack; I will note that with extreme junior level contributors I've had to have that kinda conversation even in obvious context | 18:09 |
| gmann | is it because we have many job running in gate and a few of them failing and other passing make them of thinking that 'my code is ok as some job pass' ? | 18:09 |
| dansmith | and why I say hoping they'll at least look instead of assume is the reason that asking people to cough up a reason is at least mildly helpful | 18:09 |
| dansmith | obviously if we have people that aren't even going to click on a failed job and look at the testr results, then there's not much we can do there, other than 1-on-1 coaching, which is what happened in this case | 18:10 |
| JayF | I almost said "this is a good topic for PTG", but I'm not sure what could be said/discussed that hasn't been said/discussed before :/ | 18:10 |
| dansmith | but I have seen more than a few seasoned should-know-better people doing it :) | 18:10 |
| dansmith | and I poke them when I do | 18:11 |
| JayF | Yeah. It's a tough problem because even with some of the issues (the kernel panics on nova side; dnsmasq crashes on Ironic side), we've identified, escalated to people who should know and be able to help | 18:11 |
| JayF | and we end up stuck | 18:11 |
| dansmith | yup, but at least checking and commenting helps slaweq's stats show where the hot spots are | 18:11 |
| JayF | ++ | 18:12 |
| JayF | I'm going to move on | 18:12 |
| dansmith | if everything is "recheck unrelated" then even chatgpt (groan) can't summarize without hallucination :) | 18:12 |
| slaweq | :) | 18:12 |
| JayF | "Write me a recheck comment describing the failure in these logs" ;) | 18:12 |
| JayF | #topic Implementation of Unmaintained Branch Statuses | 18:13 |
| slaweq | JayF it actually may have more sense than just "recheck unrelated" ;) | 18:13 |
| spotz[m] | hehe | 18:13 |
| JayF | I assume this is mostly on pause/moving slowly due to release activities for 2024.2? Is there an update beyond the issues noted in the etherpad from last week | 18:13 |
| frickler | not much happened due to rc1 stuff | 18:13 |
| gmann | maybe we can update here about 'unrelated recheck' or something like this is another bare recheck type https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/testing.html#how-to-handle-test-failures | 18:14 |
| JayF | That's what I suspected, and thanks for all the work getting Caracal out o/ | 18:14 |
| fungi | there was a fair amount of branch cleanup at least? | 18:14 |
| JayF | gmann: I'd +1 such a change, depending on wording | 18:14 |
| JayF | fungi: nice, thank you | 18:14 |
| slaweq | gmann I will propose some additional info to that document | 18:15 |
| fungi | i didn't do any of the cleanup, that was down to frickler and elodilles i think, just reporting it ;) | 18:15 |
| slaweq | thx for pointing that out | 18:15 |
| gmann | slaweq: thanks | 18:15 |
| JayF | #topic TC vPTG 2024.2 | 18:16 |
| JayF | #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/apr2024-ptg-os-tc | 18:16 |
| JayF | I suggest to please add any additional topic over the next week. | 18:17 |
| JayF | I have a few things I'm writing up as starters for PTG topics which I'll add over the next couple of days. | 18:17 |
| JayF | Going to give another minute in case there is input/comment on PTG before moving to open discussion. | 18:18 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: Fixing typo in 2024.2 testing runtime https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/913704 | 18:19 |
| JayF | #topic Open Discussion | 18:19 |
| JayF | Anything for Open Dicsussion? | 18:19 |
| JayF | I'll reiterate that I will be landing the wsgi goal https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/902807 after the tc meeting today | 18:19 |
| rosmaita | reminder that TC voting closes in a bit over 24 hours | 18:19 |
| dansmith | ++ | 18:19 |
| spotz[m] | Can we please get the repos under the TC to count for AC status? | 18:19 |
| JayF | and we have other governance changes up for review: https://review.opendev.org/q/repo:%22openstack/governance%22+status:open | 18:20 |
| fungi | should be a relatively minor patch to the election tools to get them indexed | 18:20 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: I'd be OK with that, let me know if you get a patch up and I'll review it. | 18:21 |
| gmann | yes, many TC repo are not just governance part but a good contribution area for community for example p-t-g, doc repo etc | 18:21 |
| gmann | and we should include contributors of those repo in election AC status | 18:21 |
| JayF | Also, along the lines of rosmaita's comment: please evaluate if you want to be TC chair in next cycle. | 18:21 |
| spotz[m] | <- !AC apparently due to repos not counting | 18:21 |
| fungi | yes, i think the fact that docs repos dropped from being sig-owned created a fairly large blindspot for contributions | 18:21 |
| gmann | we count SIG repo right? | 18:22 |
| fungi | yes | 18:22 |
| gmann | cool | 18:22 |
| fungi | but there's no longer a docs/tech writing sig | 18:23 |
| gmann | yeah, that was not good to exclude them bcz repo added under TC | 18:24 |
| frickler | does that need a resolution or is it really just a tooling issue? | 18:24 |
| fungi | the tc electorate is defined in the charter, it needs someone to double-check that the charter doesn't say they shouldn't count, at least | 18:25 |
| spotz[m] | I honestly thought we had fixed it a few elections ago but when I asked where my ballot was this election found out it wasn't | 18:25 |
| gmann | I am thinking about the same | 18:25 |
| fungi | but unless adding them requires an adjustment to the charter for some reason, just do it | 18:26 |
| spotz[m] | I know back when we had doc repos it counted | 18:26 |
| spotz[m] | So Jayf can you retro make me an AC:) I can't vote but for the release anyways | 18:26 |
| fungi | the docs repos counted initially because they belonged to a project team, and then because they belonged to a sig and we added sigs repos | 18:26 |
| fungi | but now there is no sig, they belong to the tc directly | 18:26 |
| gmann | charter says 'who committed a change to a repository under any of the official OpenStack Project Teams (as defined in Projects) ' | 18:27 |
| gmann | https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#voters-for-tc-seats-ac | 18:27 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: it is past the deadline, I don't think that'd be appropriate unless someone wants to rules-lawyer me to being convinced it's legal | 18:27 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: unsure if you were serious :) | 18:27 |
| spotz[m] | So we would need to update the charter | 18:27 |
| gmann | I think we can explicitly say in charter that 'project repo', SIG repo, TC repo.. | 18:27 |
| JayF | Does someone want to take an action to revise the charter to correct this oversight? | 18:28 |
| spotz[m] | I will | 18:28 |
| gmann | i can help if needed | 18:28 |
| gmann | let's do this once election are close just to avoid any confusion of changing it in between | 18:29 |
| fungi | also it will be decided by the new tc anyway | 18:29 |
| gmann | yeah | 18:29 |
| gmann | that way it will easy to count the vote etc also | 18:29 |
| JayF | #action spotz[m] Will propose an update to TC charter, to ensure documentation contributors are properly recognized automatically as ACs. | 18:30 |
| JayF | Thanks. Is there anything else we wanna hit on? | 18:30 |
| JayF | #endmeeting | 18:32 |
| opendevmeet | Meeting ended Tue Mar 19 18:32:18 2024 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:32 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-03-19-18.00.html | 18:32 |
| opendevmeet | Minutes (text): https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-03-19-18.00.txt | 18:32 |
| opendevmeet | Log: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2024/tc.2024-03-19-18.00.log.html | 18:32 |
| JayF | Thanks all o/ | 18:32 |
| spotz[m] | Thanks everyone | 18:32 |
| slaweq | o/ | 18:32 |
| jamespage | Thanks! | 18:32 |
| rosmaita | bye! | 18:32 |
| loacker | Thanks! | 18:33 |
| fungi | refreshingly quick tc meeting! senioritis? ;) | 18:33 |
| fungi | thanks JayF for chairing the tc! | 18:34 |
| JayF | Well, as we determined last cylce | 18:34 |
| JayF | the chair is sticky unless someone runs in opposition | 18:34 |
| JayF | I suggest someone plan to run quickly, because I will crowbar myself outta the chair sometime in April whether there's a replacement or not :)\ | 18:34 |
| fungi | you didn't notice that your predecessor poured super glue on the seat on the way out, as a joke? | 18:35 |
| fungi | oh, i suppose that's why you need the crowbar | 18:36 |
| spotz[m] | You're on your own JayF:) | 18:43 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: just figured I should say that publically now instead of people acting shocked when I say it in a meeting after the new TC is seated :D | 18:43 |
| JayF | I honestly think it'd be a good demonstration of health in our community if we had enough engagement in governance to have a new chair every six months | 18:44 |
| spotz[m] | Only if we had someone training up to replace the chair, otherwise there might not be continuity | 18:44 |
| JayF | spotz[m]: yeah, I tried to get someone in as V-C who could take over, but there were no volunteers so rosmaita stepped up even though he had earned his last cycle as a lame duck :D | 18:48 |
| rosmaita | yeah, right now i am about as lame as it gets | 18:49 |
| fungi | gold lamé? | 18:49 |
| spotz[m] | You are never lame! | 18:50 |
| JayF | Everyone here focusing on the lame, nobody looking deeply into his last message. If you zoom in, I'm pretty sure the text he just sent was using rubber duckies as pixels | 18:51 |
| opendevreview | Merged openstack/governance master: [goal] Propose migration from WSGI scripts to Python module paths https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/902807 | 18:58 |
| gmann | tc-memebrs: adding py3.12 test job as non voting in 2024.2 template, If i remember correctly that is what we said that non voting is better way to encourage people to fix it instead of periodic. please comment if any objection - https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-zuul-jobs/+/913711 | 18:58 |
| gmann | tc-members ^^ | 18:58 |
| rosmaita | gmann: yes, my recollection is that we agreed that non-voting would be better than periodic | 19:00 |
| gmann | rosmaita: ++ thanks for confirming | 19:01 |
| spotz[m] | Yeah | 19:18 |
| spotz[m] | Ok the patch is ready, I'll wait until after the election/release and then put it up | 20:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!