20:01:01 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:01:02 <openstack> Meeting started Tue May 16 20:01:01 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:01:03 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:01:06 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:01:10 <ttx> Was great seeing you all last week in person!
20:01:13 <dims> o/
20:01:18 <ttx> Our agenda for today is at:
20:01:22 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:01:23 * edleafe wanders aimlessly
20:01:34 <ttx> Reminder that you can all use #info #idea and #link to help build a more readable summary
20:01:44 <ttx> #topic Boston feedback and immediate action items
20:01:50 <ttx> Wanted to spend a few minutes to get for feedback on the Forum
20:01:56 <ttx> err -for
20:02:06 <ttx> and also to write down a few #action points for the TC from the discussions that happened there
20:02:09 <mordred> o/
20:02:28 <ttx> in case we missed anything we need to track
20:02:33 <ttx> (beyond the ones that are already on the agenda for this meeting)
20:02:38 <notmyname> ttx: I have one...
20:02:46 <ttx> notmyname: sure shoot
20:03:18 <notmyname> a community member expressed some frustration that our team's sessions were restricted, yet there were plenty of empty rooms, especially on wed-thurs
20:04:02 <ttx> notmyname: two things on that
20:04:14 <ttx> I would agree that Thursday afternoon was under-utilized
20:04:28 <ttx> Original plan was to keep it for continuing discussion
20:04:33 <ttx> and last-minute topics
20:04:44 <ttx> but in the end almost nobody scheduled anything there
20:04:47 <dims> (sign up for Thu afternoon was here - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Forum/Boston2017)
20:05:03 <mriedem> o/
20:05:06 <smcginnis> Hacking rooms were available but rarely used.
20:05:10 <diablo_rojo> There were also hacking rooms available to drop int.
20:05:13 <diablo_rojo> smcginnis, lol
20:05:17 <mriedem> i have feedback unrelated to ^
20:05:20 <smcginnis> diablo_rojo: ;)
20:05:23 <ttx> As far as empty rooms on Wed and Thu morning, not sure.... we limited the number of concurrent sessions to 3. Are you suggesting we hhould have had more ?
20:05:26 <ttx> should*
20:05:26 * rockyg wanders in and sits near edleafe
20:05:40 <notmyname> right. we ended up scheduling something on that wiki page (i missed that announcement). and we dropped in a hackingroom
20:05:45 * edleafe passes rocky_g some popcorn
20:05:58 <sdague> I think the thurs sign up process was maybe less clear, it would have been nice to have a whiteboard in the hallway for those sessions instead of the wiki. Something that could be more organic.
20:06:02 <notmyname> ttx: yes, I think more concurrent sessions would have been fine
20:06:13 <smcginnis> sdague: I like that idea.
20:06:14 <rockyg> sdague, ++
20:06:21 <ttx> notmyname: noted
20:06:29 <notmyname> ttx: just wanted to raise the point as feedback. I'll pass it along, too
20:06:36 <ttx> What do you guys think ? CAn we afford more than 3 concurrent sessions ?
20:06:44 <flaper87> ttx: we can certainly try
20:06:51 <sdague> personally I appreciated it being only 3 way
20:06:52 <mriedem> i wouldn't
20:06:53 <flaper87> also, I like sdague's idea
20:07:04 <flaper87> or, at least, we should communicate better the sign up process
20:07:08 <mriedem> the point of the forum is to get people together, in a forum, for discussion, right?
20:07:10 <dtroyer> Even with only three there were some notable conflicts, but not as many as I recall from the past
20:07:10 <ttx> I feel like I was not overextended, but then I'm not involved  in day-to-day development
20:07:14 <sdague> because I was only double booked twice instead of 6 or 8 times
20:07:15 <mriedem> too much concurrency and you miss out on things
20:07:20 <mriedem> sdague: yeah
20:07:24 <cdent> mriedem++
20:07:28 <dims> ++ mriedem
20:07:36 <ttx> we could also have most days with 3 concurrent sessions, and one day with 4, I guess
20:07:44 <dhellmann> yeah, planning for the overflow sessions was a little last minute. something physical on site might work better next time.
20:07:46 <ttx> although from a space utilization perspective it's suboptimal
20:07:50 <flaper87> I agree it'd be awesome to avoid overlaps as much as possible.
20:08:02 <flaper87> ttx: 3x3 and 1x4 ++
20:08:12 <mriedem> i'd never want to see >3 concurrent sessions
20:08:17 <sdague> mriedem: ++
20:08:22 <rockyg> mriedem, ++
20:08:23 <mriedem> hell i'd be happy if there were 2
20:08:24 <dtroyer> even without personal conflicts, getting a critical mass of "the right people" into a room is easier with fewer sessions
20:08:25 <ttx> notmyname: do you feel like you missed on user feedback due to less sessions being available ?
20:08:31 <ttx> (comapred to previous summits)
20:08:38 <mriedem> i didn't get user feedback
20:08:40 <mriedem> was my complaint
20:08:42 <sdague> the point of this was to get us more mixing together, not replicating the 20+ track PTG everyone in a corner
20:08:43 <mriedem> or operator really,
20:08:53 <ttx> sdague: indeed
20:08:55 <rockyg> Just have bookable (on site, like sdague said) rooms so adhoc sessions can happen around emerging topis
20:08:58 <mriedem> in general i didn't feel the forum was any different from the first 2 days of design summit in previous summits
20:09:06 <fungi> i liked that pretty much all of the forum sessions were non-project-specific but were instead topic-specific
20:09:16 <flaper87> fungi: ++
20:09:20 <dhellmann> fungi : ++ that's what we wanted
20:09:22 <ttx> fungi++
20:09:22 <dims> agree fungi
20:09:25 <sdague> mriedem: pretty much
20:09:26 <mriedem> i still got the feeling most things were dev-driven,
20:09:28 <mriedem> and dev-centric
20:09:32 <mriedem> like,
20:09:39 <notmyname> ttx: definitely. previous summits had much better feedback and progress made. although we made use of the hacking rooms when we found them, we even had someone (an operator and new to the community--first in-person event) didn't have any idea where any of the rest of the community was
20:09:40 <mriedem> devs: "here is the plan, what do you think?"
20:09:44 <ttx> mriedem: in my sessions I saw a lot more ops involved than we used to, but maybe those were the less dev-oriented
20:09:44 <mriedem> everyone else: "crickets"
20:10:06 <dims> regarding project onboarding, some teams got good turnout, others did not
20:10:09 <flaper87> mriedem: that was the hardest thing to avoid but I think many of us intervined more than once suggesting to not dive into "dev" specific discussions
20:10:19 <notmyname> ttx: so the discoverability of sessions, especially in the hacking rooms, was bad. a whiteboard schedule would really help with that (a la sdague)
20:10:20 <flaper87> mriedem: any example of the sessions where that happened?
20:10:29 <flaper87> That was not the case for most of the sessions I attended
20:10:30 <sdague> so, except for the quotas session, I feel like the operators there were the same ones that were always there. Maybe it's a transition, but it didn't seem to be substantially different in that regard
20:10:37 <flaper87> so it'd be interesting to know when that happened
20:10:39 <mriedem> sdague: same
20:10:45 <mriedem> flaper87: the claims in the scheduler session,
20:10:47 <dhellmann> are we competing with presentations?
20:10:51 <mriedem> the instance/volume affinity HPC session
20:10:54 <sdague> dhellmann: there is also that
20:10:54 <mriedem> dhellmann: yes
20:10:54 <dhellmann> I don't know how to avoid that, if we are
20:11:01 <mriedem> there are also talks i'd like to attend
20:11:13 <mriedem> like people presenting on their upgrade and scaling issues
20:11:20 <mriedem> i feel that's where the 'user' feedback is
20:11:25 <mriedem> but the devs are all in a forum cave
20:11:30 <ttx> I prioritized forum sessions because they are not recorded and you actively participate in them. I just watch videos later
20:11:36 <rockyg> mriedem, ++
20:11:37 <dims> i was able to get to some talks and learn new stuff
20:11:45 <flaper87> ttx: that's what I do
20:11:48 <notmyname> mriedem: ++
20:11:56 <flaper87> mostly prioritize on talking to people at the forum while I can
20:12:05 <dhellmann> ttx: I do that, too. I wonder if we're still too segregated, though, if ops are prioritizing presentations over discussions
20:12:06 <mriedem> flaper87: i generally talk to the people i know,
20:12:11 <mriedem> it's the people i don't that i'm missing
20:12:11 <cdent> I really wanted to attend more sessions than I did (to learn new stuff) but felt obliged to be in the forum rooms (mostly 102 for some reason)
20:12:19 <sdague> the problem with watch later, is it doesn't provide a clear way to continue the conversation
20:12:27 <mriedem> sdague: yes,
20:12:35 <mriedem> and my todo list grows and i don't actually watch later :)
20:12:43 <ttx> Don't hesitate to mention that in the official feedback form
20:12:46 <rockyg> There are ops sessions (some inforums, some in presos) that have really good info for devs.  the LDT sessions talk about workarounds for scaling and other issues
20:12:46 <sdague> heh, yeh, I hear you
20:12:56 <flaper87> cdent: mostly 102 here too :P
20:12:59 <EmilienM> &/rdo
20:13:03 <EmilienM> oops
20:13:23 <dims> overall, it was a great positive experience for me inspite of the daily commute :)
20:13:24 <ttx> happy to receive suggestions on how to improve the format
20:13:35 <mriedem> anyway, in general i get the sense that unless i ask a very specific question to ops/users (where are the users anyway?), i don't get any feedback
20:13:53 <rockyg> I thought it was great for the first time effort
20:14:00 <smcginnis> rockyg: +1
20:14:14 <ttx> some sessions were definitely still sounding like old design summit discussions, but some others definitely had a new feel
20:14:15 <mriedem> also, record the onboarding rooms next time
20:14:23 <ttx> mriedem: ++
20:14:27 <mriedem> that's hard with audio though
20:14:32 <EmilienM> mriedem: yes, many projects thought the same thing
20:14:34 <mriedem> but, mics i gues
20:14:35 <smcginnis> We may just record our own.
20:14:36 <cdent> despite it having some bumps I thought it was way better having the forum than having the old style summit
20:14:37 <fungi> a number of the "presentations" were actually feedback-oriented panels too
20:14:59 <rockyg> fungi, ++
20:15:08 <ttx> ok, let's move on -- but feel free to express your feedback on the ML, the survey or by email to me
20:15:10 <fungi> for example, in the security panel we spent about 50% of the time on prepared questions and the other 50% on audience questions
20:15:26 <smcginnis> fungi: And one "we ran OpenStack and here are all the failures we had." :/
20:15:47 <mriedem> is there a feedback thread?
20:16:00 <rockyg> part of the confusion, especially for users/ops this round was they thought they needed to get into the presentation schedule when they really could have done better in the forum
20:16:06 <ttx> Recording on-boarding and improving late scheduling and publicizing the hacking room schedule are all no-brainer optimizations in my opinion
20:16:15 <dims> mriedem : go ahead start one :) i didn't see any
20:16:26 <notmyname> ttx: +1
20:16:27 <ttx> adding more parallel discussions is likely a two-edged sword
20:16:44 <EmilienM> I've also heard some feedback about some Forum sessions without much agenda. For the next Forum, I would maybe be a little bit more engaged to push people to prepare the sessions they're supposed to lead
20:17:00 <ttx> EmilienM: yes, in some preperation was a bit minimal
20:17:05 <EmilienM> I've found some Forum sessions well prepared, where the discussion happened smoothly and finished before time
20:17:23 <dims> one fish bowl did not have a moderator, but that kind of stuff happens..
20:17:23 <EmilienM> on the opposite, some sessions didn't have any etherpad or agenda before it started
20:17:34 <EmilienM> dims: the one with k8s & orchestration?
20:17:52 <dims> EmilienM : y and we drafted the kolla-kubernetes folks in the room to run it
20:18:03 <EmilienM> anyway, we should maybe push people to prepare better next time
20:18:14 <ttx> I propose we move on
20:18:17 <rockyg> lots of Asia folks didn't get their visas
20:18:18 <flaper87> ttx: ++
20:18:20 <ttx> let's quickly discuss post-forum action steps for a number of already-submitted proposals
20:18:21 <smcginnis> I wonder if there's a good way we can tag forum sessions to let operators know which ones it would be good for them to attend.
20:18:24 <smcginnis> Other than all.
20:18:30 <ttx> #topic Next steps for TC vision
20:18:32 <dims> ++ smcginnis
20:18:32 <smcginnis> ttx: Yes, let's move on.
20:18:37 <ttx> Proposed draft is here:
20:18:40 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/453262
20:18:48 <ttx> Feedback was collected on the review, on an anonymous survey and in a summit presentation last week
20:19:29 <ttx> My brain is a bit mushy but I think someone signed up to collect and organize the feedback into a number of changes
20:19:44 <ttx> some cosmetic that we can probably easily include
20:19:47 <sdague> ttx: I don't think anyone actually committed to the next phase
20:19:54 <ttx> some deeper that might require further discussion
20:20:05 <cdent> because my todo list got crowded like mriedem's, I haven't seen it yet: is the video of that session going to be coherent enough to watch now?
20:20:05 <sdague> we definitely need probably two folks to tackle the next draft
20:20:08 <ttx> sdague: might have been gothicmindfood or johnthetubaguy during that session
20:20:26 <ttx> but then I don't want to sign them up if my memories are unclear
20:20:42 <ttx> I'll follow up with them
20:20:51 <sdague> having done the last draft consolidation, it would be good if it was "notme" so that other voices mix in here, and I don't accidentally skew too far
20:21:04 <cdent> I'll happily volunteer to help someone else (who was at the session and has access to the feedback survey)
20:21:04 <ttx> #action ttx to follow up with gothicmindfood / johnthetubaguy re: next step on TC vision
20:21:17 <ttx> #info cdent volunteers to help
20:21:20 * dtroyer can also help out here
20:21:32 <ttx> #info so does dtroyer
20:21:45 <smcginnis> I still need to review the session recording. I'll try to add comments as I do that as well.
20:21:56 <ttx> ok moving on, since we are missing the people who actually know what's going on
20:21:59 <sdague> there weren't a ton of feedback in the session itself
20:22:06 <sdague> the spread sheet is the big one
20:22:15 <ttx> feedback in-session was mostly positive
20:22:25 * flaper87 is sad to have missed that session
20:22:29 <sdague> especially as there are bunches of conflicting commentary in there, so it's going to require judgement
20:22:31 <ttx> but yes, not much. A lot of people were hearing the vision for the first time
20:22:39 <flaper87> (one example of conflicting sessions for me)
20:22:51 <sdague> yeh, timing it against the pike goals session was less than ideal
20:22:51 <flaper87> ttx: good stuff
20:22:59 <ttx> flaper87: I hear one of the speakers was awesome. Just sayin
20:23:00 <smcginnis> sdague: +1
20:23:04 <flaper87> ttx: :P
20:23:13 <ttx> #topic Next steps for assert:supports-api-compatibility
20:23:19 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/418010
20:23:22 <ttx> The dependency review (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/421846) was approved recently
20:23:26 <ttx> cdent suggested on the review that it should be renamed to supports-api-interoperability
20:23:44 <ttx> not sure how many cycles mtreinish will dedicate to a new rev
20:23:47 <cdent> only because that word became the key word when resolving the dependent review
20:23:52 <ttx> or if someone should pick it up
20:24:18 <ttx> since it's missing a few things as dhellmann noted
20:24:18 <sdague> he's out today, I can poke him when he's back later this week to see
20:24:21 <cdent> I can do it if necessary. I'm a bit more concerned about the issue with the api-wg potentially being the arbiter
20:24:28 <ttx> sdague: ok
20:24:40 <cdent> which would be an important change in activity
20:24:50 <ttx> #action sdague to follow up with mtreinish to see if he will push it to the end
20:25:02 <dhellmann> cdent : I asked about that because it wasn't clear who would manage the tag. I don't know if it's a good idea or not.
20:25:22 <cdent> me neither :)
20:25:25 <ttx> #topic Next steps for deprecate postgresql in OpenStack
20:25:27 <dhellmann> it has worked for some other teams, but maybe the WG isn't able to do it? or doesn't want to?
20:25:35 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/427880
20:25:39 <ttx> sdague already refreshed it based on the forum discussion
20:25:45 <ttx> I think we can iterate on the review
20:25:47 <smcginnis> Based on the change proposed, it doesn't seem to me like "deprecate" is the right term now.
20:26:01 <sdague> also
20:26:05 <sdague> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/116642.html
20:26:19 <ttx> I would not mind if we also explained the kind of involvement we'd like to see to revert the course of action
20:26:24 <sdague> for ml thread (which there is no response on yet, though there is some gerrit responses)
20:26:42 <sdague> ttx: that has never been successful
20:26:54 <ttx> which makes me think -- how is the ML/Gerrit discussion mix working for you all
20:27:06 <ttx> feels like it doesn't realy make it easy to follow
20:27:08 <dhellmann> yeah, my impression was we were going to close this off and *not* ask for action to reverse it
20:27:20 <sdague> asking folks that don't really think there is value in doing the work, to assess and break down the work for other people into chunks they might decide to fund, just isn't a virtuous cycle
20:28:00 <ttx> sdague: in other words.. If there was someone who made it work (without us asking) would we likely revert the course ?
20:28:07 <sdague> ttx: yes
20:28:21 <rockyg> Anyone talk to the postgres folks in the marketplace?
20:28:25 <ttx> ok, I can follow that. Agree asking hasn't served us that well anyway
20:28:26 <sdague> if you are removing work from existing upstream folks
20:28:37 <rockyg> Totally unaware of Postgres in the control plane.
20:28:39 <sdague> you get the freedom and trust to also do things important to you
20:28:43 <rockyg> suggested they get involved.
20:28:50 <ttx> sdague: yes, by "involved" I mean shouldering significant QA work otherwise
20:28:54 <fungi> cynical perhaps, but i see the main benefit in outlining what would be needed to reverse direction is that we can point at it to show that we provided an alternative nobody took us up on
20:28:56 <rockyg> They might be good candidates to recruit
20:29:17 <rockyg> fungi, ++
20:29:17 <smcginnis> ttx: by "shouldering the QA work", do you mean running CI outside of our normal gate?
20:29:20 <dhellmann> rockyg : see the links above, and the forum session. We've been trying to get people to get involved in the discussion.
20:29:34 <ttx> smcginnis: no I mean helping the QA team by funding people to work there
20:29:43 <sdague> ttx: and proactively engaging in upgrade work, and reviews in projects that need an rdbms (which is many of them)
20:29:53 <sdague> it's not just final QA, it's being early in the process as well
20:30:28 <smcginnis> ttx: Seems like a narrow slice of work to have specific people called out as "funded for pg" work.
20:30:29 <sdague> smcginnis: so, if I change the title to "Be clear about support level of Postgresql", you would be happier
20:30:32 <dims> sdague : some downstream teams seem to start looking at stuff only after we push out a release so by then it's too late
20:30:33 <rockyg> dhellmann, these guys were clueless.  Users, but no idea how to participate.  but interested when they heard about it.
20:30:35 <ttx> anyway, we have a way forward on this one. I think the proposed resolution reflects the consensus at the Forum alright
20:30:46 <cdent> do we need to be detailed about the need for support? Can't we just say "we are asking for support to make this go"?
20:30:47 <ttx> let's see how it flies
20:30:58 <smcginnis> sdague: If we are planning to ultimately remove support, then I think deprecation is the right term.
20:31:02 <sdague> cdent: yes, we need to be clear
20:31:04 <fungi> i still see taking away seemingly arbitrary choices in deployment as one of the primary solutions we have for addressing the common complaints about complexity
20:31:06 <sdague> because that's exactly the ask
20:31:12 * cdent shrugs
20:31:13 <smcginnis> sdague: If we are saying, "pg is meh" then I don't think it is.
20:31:26 <sdague> "tell me how much engineering budget I have to ask for for this feature to not go away"
20:31:53 <dims> smcginnis : i think "Deprecate" is appropriate signal if we want folks to wake up and pitch in
20:31:54 <fungi> people did speak up saying "taking away an option i'm using doesn't simplify openstack" but of course having taken it away before they ever started to evaluate openstack likely would have simplified things for them later
20:32:06 <ttx> I propose we continue the discussion on the review/ML. It's not as if the discussion was deadlocked there yet
20:32:18 <sdague> fungi: right, and we right now aren't really being honest with folks
20:32:18 <smcginnis> dims: Fair enough. It certainly conveys a greater sense of urgency.
20:32:27 <ttx> #topic Next steps for "Describe what upstream support means"
20:32:33 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/440601
20:32:42 <ttx> Do we still want this one ?
20:33:03 <ttx> I guess I should follow up with johnthetubaguy
20:33:11 <ttx> but maybe you have opinions
20:33:18 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy says on a recent comment that he's planning to update it next week-ish
20:33:35 <ttx> oh I see it now
20:33:39 <ttx> ok, let's do that
20:33:42 <sdague> I'd say let him drive the discussion when he can
20:33:43 <dhellmann> I think we do want this, to some extent. It relates to that discussion we had at the forum about explaining how things make it into openstack.
20:33:50 <dims> mixed feelings ttx, is a blog post enough to point people at?
20:33:59 <sdague> dhellmann: sure, it feels very "opensource 101" to me
20:34:00 <dhellmann> yeah, I think it's ok to let this one ride another week to see how things go
20:34:21 <sdague> which I guess is fine, but seems odd to have to do it
20:34:23 <fungi> it seems a useful statement to me at least
20:34:30 <ttx> In general, do you feel like mixing discussion in Gerrit and ML is working ? Or should we have different types of discussions on each ?
20:34:37 <dhellmann> sdague: right, and as you pointed out even the linux foundation had to explain that for a long time. I think we expected people to already understand it more than we should have.
20:34:44 <fungi> though still not sure whether the project-teams guide might be a better location for that info
20:34:49 <sdague> dhellmann: yep, good point
20:34:56 <dims> fungi : right +1
20:35:04 <ttx> Asking because notmyname was wondering where to post (and ended up copy-pasting on both, which is a bit ineffective)
20:35:18 <notmyname> ttx: it's doubly effective! ;-)
20:35:19 <sdague> ttx: I feel like the ML threads have brought people into the discussions that would have not otherwise
20:35:19 <dhellmann> ttx: a comment as long as notmyname's really only needed to go on the ML
20:35:24 <dhellmann> sdague : ++
20:35:39 <dhellmann> that was one reason I started the thread about binary packages there instead of directly with a resolution
20:35:41 <sdague> dhellmann: agreed, it's actually kind of hard to ack in the gerrit review because you can't break it up
20:35:48 <ttx> sdague: I guess we'll develop an habit about what fits on which
20:35:57 <sdague> I honestly think they all need the ML threads
20:36:06 <dhellmann> I think we should work out details on the ML, and refine language on the review
20:36:08 <ttx> Ideally I would like the review to carry simple discussions and the ML to carry hard ones
20:36:14 <dhellmann> going deep into policy in gerrit is hard
20:36:17 <fungi> the current division/duplication between ml and gerrit comments seems likely to be a transitional state
20:36:21 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh
20:36:37 <ttx> But in the end we want our objection heard so we post everywhere
20:36:40 <sdague> honestly, if the API Key thing had been only in gerrit, it just would have circled for 2 more years
20:36:46 <ttx> which I find a bit ineffective
20:37:01 <ttx> anyway, let's give it a bit more time
20:37:06 <sdague> fungi: also, I agree, it's super early in the transition, new habbits have not yet formed
20:37:07 <fungi> over time people seeing complex discussion limited to the ml will follow suit
20:37:12 <ttx> #topic Change the target for this goal to uWSGI not Apache mod_wsgi
20:37:17 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/460951
20:37:19 <smcginnis> ttx: I think you are right that it is transitional, but we will always have some overlap.
20:37:19 <dhellmann> ttx: maybe the folks driving the "drop the meeting" stuff can write down some suggestions as part of replacing the stuff we have now
20:37:34 <EmilienM> ttx: this one looks ready to approve
20:37:42 <ttx> EmilienM: yes, approving now
20:37:48 <smcginnis> +1
20:37:49 <EmilienM> sdague: thanks for this change ^
20:37:53 <sdague> EmilienM: no prob
20:37:56 <ttx> done
20:38:04 <ttx> #topic Moving away from weekly meetings
20:38:06 <sdague> with that in, the nova completion of it should hit this week as well
20:38:08 <ttx> OK, several pieces
20:38:09 <dhellmann> ttx: when do the new "wait a week" rules go into effect? I suppose we have to approve them first.
20:38:15 <EmilienM> sdague: wouhouuu !
20:38:18 <ttx> dhellmann: exactly
20:38:23 <ttx> * Stop requiring public IRC meetings
20:38:28 <sdague> dhellmann: the last vote there was May 4
20:38:29 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/462077
20:38:39 <sdague> oh, sorry, there were 4 today
20:38:45 * sdague bad at reading dates
20:38:52 <ttx> Still think we need that one in before we start making changes
20:39:02 <flaper87> I like it
20:39:03 <ttx> reflects current situation better anyway
20:39:31 <ttx> Let me approve the sphinx cap now that it has two review
20:39:35 <flaper87> ++
20:39:52 <ttx> then we can recheck that one
20:40:16 <flaper87> folks can still vote, fwiw
20:40:19 <ttx> but feel free to pile up votes
20:40:32 <ttx> I would rather pass this one first rather than hold the rest of our community to a higher standard than the TC's
20:40:39 <ttx> * Remove the proxying section from charter
20:40:44 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/463140
20:40:48 <ttx> This one is I think a no-brainer. It's a charter change though, so we need 9 approvers
20:40:57 <flaper87> dtroyer: had a concern that other folks answered
20:40:57 <smcginnis> +1
20:41:14 <ttx> I just can't remember the last time we sued it
20:41:17 <ttx> used*
20:41:24 <flaper87> (which is mainly the reason I proposed this)
20:41:33 <smcginnis> Seems pretty much unnecessary at this point.
20:41:34 <sdague> there have only been 2 votes in the last 6 months, right?
20:41:46 <ttx> sdague: and none used proxying
20:41:49 <sdague> and they were more about getting a sense of the room, and not binding
20:41:56 <ttx> yes
20:42:00 <smcginnis> At 9 approvals now.
20:42:02 <ttx> we use Gerrit for all resolutions
20:42:02 <dhellmann> my only real concern with this one is if we decided we needed to do something in an in-person meeting, but I think we'd want to move that decision out of the meeting anyway
20:42:09 <dtroyer> ok, I'm on board now
20:42:14 <ttx> dhellmann: yeah
20:42:16 <ttx> ok, approving
20:42:32 <flaper87> dhellmann: yeah, decisions out of meeting
20:42:47 <ttx> * Document voting process for `formal-vote` patches (https://review.openstack.org/463141)
20:42:55 <ttx> This one is pretty close. Charter change, so also needs 9 approvers
20:43:05 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/463141
20:43:26 <flaper87> ttx I addressed the comments there
20:43:36 <flaper87> should be ok, except for the sphinx thing
20:43:39 <ttx> yes you can pile up votes
20:43:47 <ttx> I'll recheck it and all
20:44:05 <fungi> do we have any other resolutions/motions up for vote we haven't brought to the mailing list?
20:44:41 <fungi> just wondering if we're about to merge a process change that will cause us to instantly violate it with other votes currently underway
20:44:42 <dhellmann> has this one been brought up there?
20:45:11 <ttx> Not yet
20:45:25 <ttx> maybe that should be brought as part of the "Drop TC meeting" thread
20:45:32 <flaper87> I think it was
20:45:40 <flaper87> in the drop tc meeting this was mentioned
20:45:46 <sdague> ttx: I thought there was also going to be a waiting period *after* a resolution reached critical mass before landing
20:45:50 <flaper87> and it also triggered the work on this patch
20:46:04 <ttx> sdague: sure, that's additional
20:46:13 <rockyg> sdague, I thought so, too
20:46:19 <ttx> sdague: you have a minimal patchset-to-adoption delay
20:46:28 <flaper87> mmh, I don't recall anything about the waiting period after the critical mass but I guess we could add it
20:46:41 <sdague> that was one of the concerns
20:46:44 <dhellmann> oh, yeah, that was actually the concern I had
20:46:45 <ttx> and you have a 2-3 day wait after it reached votes
20:47:04 <sdague> people wait until some point, then the whole TC votes in 30 minutes and lands it
20:47:10 <dhellmann> yeah
20:47:11 <ttx> those two we have on the docket mostly reflec tthe current status
20:47:13 <flaper87> dhellmann: I must have missunderstood your concern. I thought the concern was to have enough time for voting and not really to check the patch until the critical mass was reached
20:47:19 <fungi> should new resolutions link to the relevant ml thread(s)?
20:47:19 <flaper87> misunderstood
20:47:24 <flaper87> I can add  that, it makes sense
20:47:32 <dhellmann> fungi : good idea
20:47:35 <flaper87> fungi: yes
20:47:39 <ttx> fungi: yes , like in commit message
20:47:52 <sdague> a 7 + 7 rule (7 days minimum, 7 days after critical mass)
20:48:01 <sdague> I also think the 5 votes for critical mass probably needs to change right
20:48:05 <sdague> that was about quorum
20:48:07 <ttx> that would slow a *lot*of things down
20:48:16 <sdague> but with gerrit quorum is
20:48:19 <fungi> just wondering if that prior discussion reference provision needs to be called out explicitly
20:48:22 <dhellmann> sdague : so that's a minimum of 8 days but the average is going to be a lot longer
20:48:24 <sdague> always 7, right?
20:48:33 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh
20:48:37 <dhellmann> well, I guess a min of 7
20:48:38 <dhellmann> still
20:49:14 <ttx> Ideally, the critical mass delay would apply to all resolutions
20:49:23 <dhellmann> flaper87 : my brain is too fuzzy to help with wording right now, but maybe we can talk about it tomorrow
20:49:31 <ttx> since people may object to what we consider trivial
20:49:45 <rockyg> heh
20:49:53 <flaper87> dhellmann: sure thing. I'll dump something and run it by you
20:50:08 <ttx> so giving them all three day bake-time before pushing approve sounds reasonable
20:50:10 <flaper87> we can extend this a bit to cover fungi's concern and the delay after critical mass
20:50:23 <dhellmann> ++
20:50:51 <ttx> anyway, that's other babystep changes
20:50:58 <ttx> should not block the other ones
20:51:06 <flaper87> yes
20:51:07 <sdague> sure, 7 seems most community friendly to give folks time to get engaged on things that are going in, 3 seems minimum acceptable
20:51:08 <dhellmann> do we want to do this in steps, then? and approve this one?
20:51:22 <ttx> dhellmann: yes
20:51:24 <sdague> I'd honestly like some delay before this change, even if it's the 3 day one
20:51:46 <ttx> sdague: sure, happy with holding.
20:52:00 <ttx> It's just that as long as they are not passed we'll still have it the old way
20:52:06 <ttx> which says 4 days
20:52:09 <flaper87> ok, let's move this one in
20:52:12 <ttx> so.. incremental changes ftw ?
20:52:13 <flaper87> I had -W but removed it
20:52:17 <flaper87> ++
20:52:22 <flaper87> I'll push another patch tomorrow
20:52:31 <flaper87> s/patch/review/
20:52:45 <ttx> flaper87: if sdague is uncomfortable with passing it now, I see no reason to rush
20:52:52 <dhellmann> wfm
20:53:00 <ttx> dhellmann: what wty ?
20:53:07 <dhellmann> waiting works for me
20:53:10 <ttx> ok
20:53:12 <sdague> push it tomorrow, we vote, it lands by next session under the current 4 day rule, right? :)
20:53:21 <flaper87> I guess we'll wait
20:53:25 <dims> :)
20:53:29 <ttx> My brain hurts. Remember its 11pm and I still fight with jetlag
20:53:36 <sdague> it also tests doing it without needing a meeting
20:53:44 <dhellmann> good point
20:54:08 <ttx> happy with tarpitting those
20:54:10 <ttx> * Drop Technical Committee meetings (https://review.openstack.org/459848)
20:54:11 <flaper87> not really, I don't think we can test this until this patch lands
20:54:15 <flaper87> anyway, let's wait
20:54:24 <ttx> flaper87: I can just be slooow
20:54:27 <rockyg> ttx, best cure for that is some fine cognac....
20:54:29 <flaper87> ttx: :)
20:54:38 <flaper87> ttx: so, this one we can skip today
20:54:43 <ttx> flaper87: ok
20:54:48 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:54:53 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
20:55:02 <flaper87> nice seeing y'all last week
20:55:06 <ttx> I suspect we'll still have a meeting next week ?
20:55:08 <dhellmann> I'd like some more TC folks to weigh in on the thread about binary containers before I write a resolution
20:55:10 <dhellmann> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-May/116677.html
20:55:29 <ttx> until https://review.openstack.org/459848 passes ?
20:55:42 <ttx> dhellmann: it's pretty noisy already :)
20:55:44 <flaper87> dhellmann: btw, thanks for sending that out. I've been involved in this for a bit and it didn't occurred to me. I guess because I'm involved
20:55:49 <dhellmann> at this point I'm still planning to write a "we don't publish binary artifacts" resolution
20:55:50 <EmilienM> dhellmann: I found the thread hard to follow
20:55:54 <smcginnis> dhellmann: I'm really mixed on that one. I'd like to have them, but I think the risks you pointed out are very legitimate.
20:56:06 <flaper87> dhellmann: I'd be happy with that, fwiw.
20:56:09 <dhellmann> ttx: we could "skip" next week as an experiment :-)
20:56:11 <dims> dhellmann : even at release boundaries?
20:56:20 * fungi wonders if publishing wheels to pypi counts
20:56:40 <dhellmann> fungi : that did come up. we don't call wheels "production ready" packages
20:56:45 <sdague> dhellmann: we've had a lot in that thread already right? you, me, dims, fungi, ttx, smcginnis
20:56:49 <ttx> I'm happy to consider the cargo-culted tradition of requiring a meeting before approving anything as dead
20:57:00 <ttx> if everyone is comfortable wit hthat
20:57:04 <smcginnis> ttx: +1
20:57:06 <dtroyer> ttx: ++
20:57:08 <flaper87> sdague: fwiw, I've commented on the thread already
20:57:16 <dhellmann> sdague : maybe we're ready? I don't feel like I'm getting much feedback from the other perspective except "but this is what we want to do!"
20:57:16 <sdague> flaper87: yep, and you :)
20:57:24 <flaper87> ttx: Is something happening next week? Why are we skipping?
20:57:31 <sdague> sorry, I knew I was going to miss someone adhoc building a list
20:57:35 <flaper87> ttx: is that just part of the "let's do fewer meetings"?
20:57:42 <flaper87> don't get me wrong, I'm happy to skip
20:57:43 <sdague> that's majority providing commentary
20:57:43 <dhellmann> flaper87 : yeah, just fewer meetings
20:57:46 <dims> dhellmann : we can chat a bit if you wish before you start writing the resolution
20:57:50 <ttx> flaper87: nothing happening. just asking
20:57:56 <flaper87> just want to make sure I'm not missing something important
20:58:03 <dhellmann> sdague : fair, I didn't actually count, but didn't see some folks I expected to see
20:58:04 <ttx> I can post a weekly report to try
20:58:14 <flaper87> I want to be everywhere, I'm supposed to be millennial, this is what we do
20:58:14 <dhellmann> dims : sure
20:58:14 <smcginnis> 2 minutes
20:58:16 <flaper87> ok
20:58:17 <sdague> dhellmann: worth poke people you want in there  :)
20:58:18 * flaper87 chills
20:58:28 <ttx> will likely post on Tuesday to keep the cadence
20:58:29 <dhellmann> sdague : yeah
20:58:30 <flaper87> +1 for skipping
20:58:37 <sdague> like mordred, I assumed to see him in there
20:58:38 <cdent> we talked about starting a process of educating the board on better ways to ask the technical community to do stuff? Is there a next step on that?
20:58:39 <dims> darn, i was hoping we would wrap up early... given what we are trying to do with no-meetings
20:58:42 <ttx> unless someone has a preference
20:58:54 <ttx> cdent: dhellmann volunteered
20:58:55 <dhellmann> cdent : ttx and I are supposed to start working on a draft of a presentation
20:59:02 <ttx> oh, and me too
20:59:03 <smcginnis> dims: :)
20:59:05 <cdent> cool, just wanted to check that was still live
20:59:19 * dhellmann doesn't remember it quite that way, but ok
20:59:21 <dhellmann> cdent : I'd be happy to have your help, if you have time
20:59:23 * fungi wonders what he's volunteered for last week and already forgotten
20:59:29 <dims> :) fungi
20:59:32 <cdent> dhellmann: I can probably find it
20:59:36 <sdague> fungi: that's why I started an org-mode doc :)
20:59:41 <dhellmann> cdent : cool, I'll loop you in when we start
20:59:56 <ttx> alright we are out of time
20:59:59 <dhellmann> fungi, sdague: I use paper, so that if someone else forgets they don't have my notes
21:00:29 <ttx> no meeting next week unless we end up absolutely needing one
21:00:34 <ttx> #endmeeting