16:00:29 <knikolla[m]> #startmeeting tc
16:00:29 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Mar 22 16:00:29 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is knikolla[m]. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:29 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:29 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
16:00:41 <knikolla[m]> #topic Roll call
16:00:42 <dansmith> o/
16:00:44 <gmann> o/
16:00:44 <noonedeadpunk> o/
16:00:49 <JayF> o/
16:00:53 <jamespage> o/
16:01:04 <spotz[m]> o/
16:01:30 <rosmaita> o/
16:01:33 <knikolla[m]> o/
16:01:40 <knikolla[m]> Hi all, welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee
16:01:47 <slaweq> o/
16:01:48 <knikolla[m]> A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct
16:02:05 <knikolla[m]> #topic Follow up on past action items
16:02:22 <knikolla[m]> I see an item under JayF to notify PTLs about action-needed for PyPI maintainership cleanup
16:02:29 <JayF> Yeah I have a quick update
16:02:42 <JayF> I emailed the list, and asked PTLs to take action. Between that and any action already taken, we've seen movement.
16:02:51 <JayF> When we started, there were 358 project extra maintainers, representing 156 humans with excess access. A week after asking PTLs to take action, we now have 49 fewer project extra maintainers, representing 25 fewer humans who have access.
16:03:01 <gmann> #link https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-March/032780.html
16:03:18 <JayF> So that's a nontrivial amount of success in a short period of time.
16:03:31 <JayF> I've also had contributors reach out to me indicating they're starting the long process of recovering a PyPI account.
16:03:35 <gmann> I just sent this on original thread also #link https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-March/032874.html
16:03:36 <fungi> those of us who manage the inbox for the openstackci account in pypi are continuing to see notifications about the progress as well
16:03:37 <JayF> So tl;dr: progress being made, it's slow
16:03:56 <knikolla[m]> fantastic!
16:04:16 <gmann> let's ping the projects PTLs we are involved in if they have not done this.
16:04:19 <JayF> If you want, I can run the script and check progress in TC meetings, just as we have for other topics
16:04:22 <gmann> so that we can close it during PTG
16:04:23 <gouthamr> o/
16:04:38 <JayF> gmann: I don't think we've given enough time. It took me nearly a half-day to track down and email all Ironic-project-owners
16:04:47 <knikolla[m]> Thank you JayF!
16:05:03 <JayF> gmann: and that's as a long time Ironic'er who knows many people in the community. It'll take some time, especially for new PTLs, to track anyone down. I've already gotten emails to me personally asking for help with doing this.
16:05:07 <gmann> let's see how many can do as this remaining week can be utilized for that
16:05:27 <JayF> Actually, I'm going to email and sasy PTLs should utilize PTG to make those contacts
16:05:34 <gmann> for QA, it was quick as most of those maintainers responded quickly
16:05:42 <JayF> because at a PTG you have a bigger chance of someone knowing who `pypi_user_123` is or whatever :D
16:05:53 <knikolla[m]> Any follow-up actions that we should note on the log?
16:06:06 <JayF> If we want to track progress, I'm happy to keep an agenda item
16:06:13 <JayF> but I don't think there's anything hashtag-action worthy :)
16:06:15 <rosmaita> JayF: ++ on the follow up reporting to track, and also on the pre-PTG email
16:07:14 <knikolla[m]> alright :) moving on then
16:07:19 <knikolla[m]> #topic Deciding on meeting time
16:07:31 <knikolla[m]> I saw that there was some confusion about doodle poll. It is in local time, and since I set the dates in April, they are past all DST changes.
16:07:40 <gmann> JayF: please use this etehrpad for tracking where many projects has added info #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack-pypi-maintainers-cleanup
16:07:47 <knikolla[m]> We're still missing one vote I think.
16:07:53 <gmann> knikolla[m]: we have one more action item #link https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-03-15-16.00.html
16:08:05 <gmann> Remaining 5 TC members to respond to https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/er2LQQ2e/vote
16:08:10 <gmann> but related to meeting things
16:08:31 <gmann> this is where you can see all the recorded AI of meeting #link https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2023/tc.2023-03-15-16.00.html
16:08:48 <knikolla[m]> gmann: that action is related to the topic I just opened and I was going to bring it up now.
16:08:53 <gmann> +1
16:09:35 <knikolla[m]> Unfortunately no time worked for all the TC. Each time has >= 2 absences.
16:09:50 <knikolla[m]> I'm leaning towards making an alternating schedule for the technical committee meetings.
16:10:04 <knikolla[m]> I know it's not ideal, but it seems the only choice we have to guarantee full participation.
16:10:13 <dansmith> please no alternating meetings...
16:10:30 <noonedeadpunk> it's even more imposible to read with more ppl that are voted...
16:10:37 <gmann> that can make it more complex i think
16:10:50 <gmann> yeah in term of voting, agreement etc
16:11:08 <rosmaita> i've been thinking about this, though ... i think an alternating meeting would be OK
16:11:16 <spotz[m]> Ok weird I voted but not seeing myself listed
16:11:17 <JayF> I don't see any fair option without alternating meetings. It's not OK for us to completely block out 2 of our members due to time conflicts.
16:11:24 <spotz[m]> hang on
16:11:43 <JayF> I would say, if it's possible at all for TC members to adjust their downstream meeting schedule to help, we should pull those levers if we haven't already.
16:11:52 <gmann> last meeting we were discussion about current time, I have noted for it I have other schedule but I am ok to adjust my schedule
16:12:12 <gmann> so 1 absence of mine can be counted as presence in the same time slot we have now
16:12:28 <gmann> JayF: +1, I can do that for current time.
16:13:28 <noonedeadpunk> knikolla[m]: I wonder of your workday given any time from 12pm to 3am UTC works for you :D
16:13:32 <slaweq> I can eventually attend e.g. on Wednesday 8-9 PM CEST time (I think it will be 6-7 UTC)
16:13:41 <spotz[m]> Ok voted, not sue what happened the first time
16:13:59 <gmann> I selected the current time as available if that help
16:14:05 <dansmith> is there some way to better visualize all the votes? I can only see three lines at a time
16:14:16 <rosmaita> i gotta say, that doodle interface is the worst
16:14:21 <knikolla[m]> noonedeadpunk: if European folks have to stay until late, I figured I should show I can make the same effort as TC chair.
16:14:23 <dansmith> it is the *worst*
16:14:34 <spotz[m]> dansmith: I generally just look at the number listed under the date
16:14:54 <dansmith> spotz[m]: yeah I just want to see the matrix
16:15:06 <JayF> knikolla[m]: I'll note, you can assume I have the same willinness even if I didn't vote that way, although I obviously don't prefer to be meeting at late/early my time, I assume European/APAC folks don't wanna either.
16:15:41 <gmann> so then let's vote here if current time works for everyone ?
16:15:55 <dansmith> +1 for current time from me
16:15:59 <spotz[m]> Doesn't work for me, but I said that last time
16:16:06 <spotz[m]> -1
16:16:25 <slaweq> for me it's fine now but it will not be that good after DST (next week) :/
16:16:34 <knikolla[m]> Current time also has 2 absences.
16:16:36 <JayF> I am -1 to a solution which leads to any TC member unable to attend most regular meetings.
16:17:02 <knikolla[m]> I can see the matrix as poll organizer. Didn't know it shower you a different view.
16:17:24 <knikolla[m]> showed*
16:17:28 <JayF> It's OK if we have rotating misses (like we would for an alternating meeting) but why should we be a 9 person body if we're willing to effectively whittle down to 7 for purposes of meetings?
16:17:32 <spotz[m]> Tuesday at 1(sorry might be CST) has 7 and 2 maybes(noonedeadpunk and myself)
16:17:39 <gmann> no matrix there, we need to go to slots one by one
16:18:00 <slaweq> spotz (@_oftc_spotz:matrix.org) this one may be okish for me
16:18:01 <spotz[m]> No slawek or jamespage though so NM
16:18:09 <slaweq> it's a bit late but I can attend usually
16:18:27 <knikolla[m]> gmann: understood. Noted that it shows the matrix view only to the organizer and to use a different tool next time.
16:18:28 <slaweq> it's 8pm to 9 pm my time but I can handle that
16:18:30 <noonedeadpunk> Thursday as well
16:18:32 <gmann> it is hard to find all members available at same time unless we want to adjust other things for TC meeting
16:18:32 <spotz[m]> I was hoping it was 7 + the two maybes
16:19:57 <jamespage> just checking on that Tuesday timeslot
16:20:07 <jamespage> I may be able to make it
16:20:53 <knikolla[m]> So it seems like we might be able to get full attendance on that Tue time slot
16:21:12 <slaweq> yeap
16:21:16 <rosmaita> which slot is that?
16:21:23 <JayF> Can we restate the specific time, in UTC, we're considering?
16:21:28 <JayF> I'm having trouble locating it on the doodle
16:21:28 <gmann> which one? 6 UTC ?
16:21:32 <rosmaita> JayF: ++
16:21:38 <knikolla[m]> 1800 UTC
16:21:49 <knikolla[m]> Tuesday
16:22:01 <slaweq> that's the only one with 7 votes on doodle
16:22:03 <gmann> slaweq: jamespage: not present and spotz[m]tentative ?
16:22:13 <JayF> gmann: that reflects what I see, too
16:22:14 <noonedeadpunk> I think it's 1900UTC
16:22:14 <dansmith> gmann: jamespage is checking
16:22:22 <gmann> ok
16:22:40 <spotz[m]> Yeah though it does count the 2 maybes as full counts. I can make it work, noonedeadpunk you were the other maybe can you do it?
16:22:41 <slaweq> gmann yes, as it's 8pm for me I said "no" but if there's no other option I can change my vote to "tentative" and attend at that time :)
16:22:49 <slaweq> so please count me in for that slot
16:23:00 <fungi> 19:00 utc tuesdays is the time of the opendev sysadmins meeting, but conflicts are always going to be a risk
16:23:09 <gmann> slaweq: appreciate that.
16:23:10 <JayF> slaweq: thank you for doing that; seriously I appreciate it
16:23:11 <dansmith> it's 1800UTC though right?
16:23:12 <noonedeadpunk> spotz: not perfect, but I can
16:23:19 <knikolla[m]> it is 1800 UTC
16:23:24 <jamespage> likewise - I will from time-to-time have a conflict but I should be able to make it
16:23:31 <fungi> cool, noonedeadpunk seemed to think it was 19
16:23:36 <gmann> dansmith: yes, 18 UTC tuesday we are taking. if I am not wrong :)
16:23:55 <knikolla[m]> because the local times there are after DST changes.
16:24:13 <dansmith> yeah, doing this in the DST change envelope is very confusing
16:24:25 <gmann> yeah
16:24:31 <noonedeadpunk> Hm... I'm just UTC+1 now I assume, and Tusday slot with 2 tenatnive and 7 overall is showing as 8PM-9PM...
16:24:39 <knikolla[m]> next time I'll send out polls in UTC.
16:24:41 <spotz[m]> Doing anything until everyone catches up is hard
16:24:58 <slaweq> noonedeadpunk but it's for April 4th so after DST for us
16:25:00 <gmann> let's do ti in PTG then
16:25:06 <slaweq> that's at least my assumption :)
16:25:15 <knikolla[m]> slaweq: ++, that's why I set the date to that. to save you all the confusion.
16:25:20 <spotz[m]> I will be on PTO 4/4:)
16:25:21 <gmann> because I see it is confusing for EU DST things
16:25:24 <rosmaita> everyone, go here and add your city: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20230404T180000&p1=1440
16:25:27 <knikolla[m]> so you could just look at your calendars.
16:25:41 <slaweq> so then we will be UTC+2
16:26:19 <gmann> I feel current time has more majority (8 members) but if spotz can adjust the things but not sure if that is something cannot be. just checking
16:26:19 <noonedeadpunk> slaweq: Ok, I'm totally confuused about DST then, as I was thinking it in like, time that's written, not converting to utc after dst...
16:26:22 <noonedeadpunk> what a mess
16:26:52 <slaweq> yeah, it's a mess
16:26:53 <dansmith> right, the problem is it's not clear if the times in the doodle are pre- or post-adjustment
16:26:53 <gmann> noonedeadpunk: :) its not just you. I selected time wrongly due to that
16:27:04 <dansmith> me too
16:27:10 <noonedeadpunk> Thursday at 4 also have 7 votes just in case
16:27:28 <slaweq> but if we are talking about Tuesday 1800 UTC now, this will be for sure 2000 for us after DST
16:27:36 <gmann> I feel https://framadate.org/ is more simple in poll than doodle
16:27:38 <JayF> Is the best approach at this point for knikolla[m] to take an action to arrange a menu of times based on the doodle, and us discuss at PTG?
16:27:52 <dansmith> I thought we're settled
16:27:58 <dansmith> on tue at 1800UTC, no?
16:28:13 <knikolla[m]> Ok, with that in mind, and regardless of all the assumptions about DST
16:28:14 <knikolla[m]> I'm going to start a vote
16:28:15 <knikolla[m]> about 1800UTC on Tuesdays
16:28:30 <knikolla[m]> Yes but need a vote to formalize.
16:28:47 <dansmith> ack, JayF was talking about delaying, but I think we're good to vote
16:28:57 <JayF> I was only because I thought we still had an off-by-one err
16:29:06 <JayF> I'm happy to not table the issue if we have a happy place
16:29:15 <gmann> I think so. not sure if jamespage has checked but good to vote for 16 UTC Tuesday
16:29:25 <dansmith> jamespage: said he could usually make it
16:29:29 <jamespage> I did
16:29:32 <gmann> ohk. perfect
16:29:34 <rosmaita> gmann: i thought it was 18UTC?
16:29:36 <gmann> sorry, I missed
16:29:46 <gmann> so sorry 18 UTC
16:29:58 <gmann> let's do vote
16:30:18 <rosmaita> i'm ok with voting now
16:30:20 <knikolla[m]> #startvote Starting after the vPTG, hold the weekly Technical Committee meeting on Tuesdays 1800UTC? Yes, No
16:30:20 <opendevmeet> Begin voting on: Starting after the vPTG, hold the weekly Technical Committee meeting on Tuesdays 1800UTC? Valid vote options are Yes, No.
16:30:20 <opendevmeet> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
16:30:29 <dansmith> #vote Yes
16:30:34 <gmann> #vote yes
16:30:35 <knikolla[m]> (Did I mess up the syntax? )
16:30:35 <spotz[m]> #vote yes
16:30:41 <jamespage> #vote yes
16:30:42 <noonedeadpunk> #vote Yes
16:30:44 <slaweq> #vote yes
16:30:52 <rosmaita> #vote Yes
16:30:55 <knikolla[m]> #vote Yes
16:31:02 <JayF> #vote yes
16:31:13 <knikolla[m]> #endvote
16:31:13 <opendevmeet> Voted on "Starting after the vPTG, hold the weekly Technical Committee meeting on Tuesdays 1800UTC?" Results are
16:31:13 <opendevmeet> Yes (9): JayF, dansmith, spotz[m], noonedeadpunk, knikolla[m], slaweq, jamespage, rosmaita, gmann
16:31:28 <rosmaita> \o/
16:31:31 <knikolla[m]> Thank you all!
16:31:50 <JayF> I know we have an official meeting invite, but I usually maintain one on my calendar as well. Please DM me your email if you want me to add you on the invite for the new meeting time and you can get a curated email invite from me :D
16:32:14 <gmann> we have one on ircmeeting also
16:32:24 <dansmith> I subscribe to the ics, yeah, so that needs updating
16:32:34 <fungi> i've given aprice a heads up since this will impact the zoom bridge
16:32:39 <JayF> Yeah, I've had trouble importing those ICS files in the past, so I have my own invite. We should make sure that gets updated though.
16:33:02 <spotz[m]> I've got that repo locally I can do it
16:33:04 <gmann> knikolla[m]: please update the chair info also here #link https://meetings.opendev.org/#Technical_Committee_Meeting
16:33:34 <knikolla[m]> gmann: ah, thanks for pointing that out.
16:33:35 <gmann> fungi: ah, right. we need to check for video call things also knikolla[m]
16:33:56 <gmann> knikolla[m]: I was waiting for new time so we can do name and time change togehter
16:34:09 <knikolla[m]> spotz: you said you can propose the changes to meetings.opendev.org?
16:34:11 <fungi> she checked and the zoom bridge you've been using is free at that time so no changes are needed there
16:34:23 <spotz[m]> changing it now
16:34:30 <knikolla[m]> thank you :)
16:34:32 * dansmith puts the pin back in the grenade
16:34:34 <gmann> fungi: aprice : perfect thanks
16:35:21 <knikolla[m]> #topic Gate health check
16:35:53 <dansmith> About the same as last week for me, which is good news
16:36:29 <dansmith> gmann has been moving grenade and devstack targets forward, which will unblock nova from using the skip-level-always job
16:36:30 <gmann> only one thing for grenade jobs
16:36:41 <fungi> node capacity has been good recently since we tweaked some parameters to squeeze out a bit better quota utilization
16:36:46 <gmann> +1, all patches merged for that
16:36:52 <dansmith> (which would be advisable for other projects as well if they're willing)
16:37:00 <gmann> but octavia-greande job failing and need DIB fix  to be released #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/diskimage-builder/+/878089
16:37:23 <dansmith> also, there are backports for the mysql memory mitigation to help the stability there, not sure if are merg{ing,ed} yet or not
16:37:25 <johnsom> gmann I am going to propose that release now
16:37:44 <gmann> dansmith: yeah, I will prepare the etherpad for grenade skip upgrade testing and greande-skip-level-always usage also
16:37:48 <gmann> johnsom: perfect, thanks
16:37:55 <dansmith> cool
16:38:29 <dansmith> this for zed for the mysql thing: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/devstack/+/878135
16:38:42 <dansmith> not yet merged, but we should probably do that
16:38:52 <gmann> dansmith: +2
16:38:57 <dansmith> stable branch stability has been sucking similarly to how master was a bit ago, so..
16:38:59 <dansmith> yeah
16:39:01 <gmann> dansmith: do you want to switch the setting on master ?
16:39:13 <slaweq> gmann that skip-level-always job is opt-in job which we discussed few weeks ago, right?
16:39:14 <dansmith> gmann: yeah, we should probably do that too, I'll propose later
16:39:20 <dansmith> slaweq: yeah
16:39:26 <gmann> it will be good timing if we see anything and need to be discussed in PTG
16:39:31 <slaweq> I remember I have to add something to neutron but I forgot what it was :)
16:39:35 <slaweq> ok, thx
16:39:53 <dansmith> that's all from me
16:39:58 <gmann> slaweq: I can add it in integrated template and make use of that in neutron, let's discuss it tomorrow or so
16:40:09 <slaweq> ok
16:40:17 <knikolla[m]> great :) due to time constraints i want to move on unless there's something that requires consensus
16:40:19 <gmann> no other failure i observed or info from my side too
16:40:49 <knikolla[m]> #topic 2023.2 cycle Leaderless projects
16:40:54 <knikolla[m]> There's still 6 projects without candidacies.
16:41:06 <knikolla[m]> We have a rally candidacy. Which is great.
16:41:14 <knikolla[m]> We're still missing for Monasca, Sahara, Swift, TripleO, Vitrage and Winstackers.
16:41:25 * bauzas waves super late
16:41:28 <noonedeadpunk> TripleO is deprecated, so sorted out as well
16:41:35 <gmann> noonedeadpunk: no, we need PTL there
16:41:37 <slaweq> for Monasca I have contacted previous ptl and he told me that he's not able to be ptl again
16:41:46 <gmann> even deprecation patch need PTL +1 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/877132/2
16:41:58 <noonedeadpunk> Do we need a PTL for maintenance of EM branches?
16:42:01 <slaweq> and I don't have any other info from him about who could we ask for help with it
16:42:01 <knikolla[m]> I think as TC we can replace the PTL in that instance.
16:42:18 <JayF> I think we might be waiting a very long time if we wait for someone to volunteer to PTL TripleO :/
16:42:20 <slaweq> so IMO it's candidate for marking as inactive project really
16:42:25 <gmann> noonedeadpunk: as it is not retired only deprecated, we still need PTL for stable/wallaby maintenance point of contact or so
16:42:28 <knikolla[m]> We already voted as a governing body to deprecate the project.
16:42:43 <noonedeadpunk> ^ this, yeah
16:42:47 <knikolla[m]> Ah, thanks for pointing out the difference between retired and deprecated.
16:42:48 <JayF> It doesn't matter if we need/want a PTL, the operative question is if we'll get anyone volunteering to be a PTL.
16:42:57 <gmann> knikolla[m]: we need PTL ack also.
16:43:01 <knikolla[m]> But I think we can just hold another vote as a governing body to explicitly retire, no?
16:43:14 <gmann> and I think james on email said they are ok to volunteer if needed
16:43:14 <knikolla[m]> As we have the power to assign PTLs, this is just a formality.
16:43:17 <dansmith> retire is what we didnt' want to do right?
16:43:19 <JayF> I have seen zero interest on any of the TripleO posts to the mailing list about deprecation and such, yeah? Does anyone know of anyone willing to work to maintain TripleO, or stable branches?
16:43:23 <gmann> i think we should ask them to stepup as PTL
16:43:31 <dansmith> me too
16:43:47 <dansmith> it should be very minimal work, so I think it's a reasonable ask
16:43:50 <gmann> I can check with james about PTL things
16:43:51 <noonedeadpunk> dansmith: no, retire means nothing can't land anywhere
16:43:55 <gmann> dansmith: yeah
16:44:02 <dansmith> noonedeadpunk: exactly?
16:44:04 <knikolla[m]> ah, understood.
16:44:17 <gmann> until it is retired we need PTL and other formalities
16:44:20 <knikolla[m]> That cleared it out for me. Since it's not retired, it still needs a PTL despite deprecation.
16:44:25 <gmann> yeah
16:44:28 <knikolla[m]> It took me a seconds to click.
16:44:39 <fungi> you'll have the same problem with projects like monasca too though, right?
16:44:48 <gmann> let me reachout to james and ask if they are ok to serve as PTL
16:45:19 <gmann> fungi: if anyone want to maintain stable branch for monasca then yes otherwise we just retire them like we did for congress etc
16:45:25 <noonedeadpunk> Well, we have EM described as `community members maintaining it`
16:45:37 <gmann> searchlight also same examle
16:45:38 <noonedeadpunk> So I'm not sure I agree this inclines requirement of PTL
16:45:42 <dansmith> especially since they said they're keeping up maintenance for their last repo (wallaby?) I think that there's someone around that can ack PTL required things
16:45:57 <fungi> wallaby is no longer maintained. it's under extended maintenance now
16:46:16 <gmann> yeah but  extended maintenance is still under governance right
16:46:25 <dansmith> fungi: I'm talking about their declaration email
16:46:57 <fungi> right, just pointing out that with no remaining branches officially maintained, it's effectively retired
16:47:01 <gmann> let's me ask james about it and if we do not have any then we will see how it goes but I think they said ok for PTL in email
16:47:23 <JayF> gmann: I looked back thru that thread and didn't see him say that; but it wouldn't hurt to ask in either event.
16:47:24 <noonedeadpunk> it's under governance, but does it require PTL is smth I'm not fully agree with. It requires release liason at least...
16:47:36 <noonedeadpunk> but yeah, dunno
16:47:43 <knikolla[m]> Can we say DPL under the TC?
16:47:54 <noonedeadpunk> I like that ^
16:47:57 <knikolla[m]> And point to whoever is current TC chair or a liaison of the TC?
16:47:58 <JayF> We still need humans willing to fulfill those distributed roles, right?
16:48:04 <fungi> ptl or a dpl. but also anyone could just volunteer to be the ptl or dpl in name only, and not actually have any responsibilities since the project is retired
16:48:35 <gmann> JayF: its there in first email only #link https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-February/032083.html
16:48:35 <knikolla[m]> fungi: ++, i just want them to have a group of people to hide behind
16:48:37 <fungi> sort of like how the tc is also the uc in an official capacity, but only because bylaws say we have a uc
16:49:14 <JayF> gmann: aha, he said they'd find someone moreso than volunteering himself, same thing though, thank you for pointing it out to me
16:49:32 <gmann> knikolla[m]: any project leadership is under governance/TC if they are official openstack project
16:50:07 <noonedeadpunk> So basically why I'm kind of regarding PTL for deperecated projects, because retiring project that jsut doesn;t happen to have PTL now is kind of too aggressive....
16:50:12 <knikolla[m]> gmann: I understand that. But we require a formal PTL role or DPL liaisons even under that official leadership.
16:50:14 <gmann> DPL, PTL or any new in future. that is just a project level leadership but everything in OpenStack official projects under TC
16:50:19 <gmann> even SIG etc
16:50:32 <fungi> noonedeadpunk: how about retiring a project which no longer has any maintained stable branches?
16:50:34 <noonedeadpunk> Ie, ppl have running deployments of monasca, there could be still vulnarabilities found and patched by community
16:50:47 <noonedeadpunk> But since we require PTL we retire project instead of deprecate it
16:51:00 <JayF> fungi: So you're saying: 1) tripleo only says they'll support wallaby, 2) wallaby is EM, not maintained, leads to 3) we should just retire it now?
16:51:01 <gmann> I will say if tripleO is not able to give PTL then we must retire it instead of deprecation
16:51:24 <JayF> fungi: if that's what you're saying, I think I agree
16:51:31 <fungi> JayF: no, you're right that we're still treating the newer stable branches as maintained until they reach em
16:51:40 <knikolla[m]> gmann: that doesn't match my understanding of what we voted on. As we would still keep accepting patches, and retiring means not accepting patches.
16:51:45 <dansmith> right, we decided to keep zed alive
16:51:51 <slaweq> noonedeadpunk for monasca it's not just lack of ptl, there is almost no activity in the project, some gates are broken as I checked
16:51:54 <noonedeadpunk> I don't like retiring projects due to reasons like not having ptl...
16:52:00 <slaweq> so there's more things to consider there
16:52:07 <JayF> noonedeadpunk: slaweq: last commit to Monasca was 11 months ago from gmann
16:52:10 <gmann> knikolla[m]: yes but we need PTL for all deprecated projects
16:52:11 <bauzas> do we have contributions or activity on such projects ?
16:52:21 <slaweq> JayF exactly
16:52:27 <knikolla[m]> I want to timebox this discussion here for TripleO specifically and for the PTL role.
16:52:39 <gmann> I am saying if no one step up as PTL then option 5 is best way to go #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2023.2-leaderless
16:52:41 <slaweq> and   gmann is also most active contributor to Monasca in last cycle or two
16:52:43 <fungi> right, monasca came up because they basically had no 2023.1 release but took too long to decide that was the case so they still got listed as part of 2023.1
16:52:44 <knikolla[m]> We can talk about that async as it's mostly implementation details, and worst case we can talk during the PTG.
16:52:56 <gmann> slaweq: heh :). i should stop that helping them on gate
16:52:58 <JayF> What about other PTL-less projects? Are we taking action to find PTLs? I see Swift, for instance, still has activity but not a PTL.
16:53:00 <slaweq> so lack of PTL is just a red flag for me to check other things
16:53:25 <knikolla[m]> Thanks JayF, was just going to bring up Swift.
16:53:32 <knikolla[m]> And want to dedicate the last few minutes to it.
16:53:37 <gmann> if we cannot find leaders (PTL or DPL) we need to think about retirement
16:53:50 <slaweq> gmann++
16:54:18 <knikolla[m]> Does anyone have a communication channel with the team?
16:54:23 <JayF> looking at https://opendev.org/openstack/swift/commits/branch/master I see at least 3, maybe 4 contributors in the last month, have we reached out to them to voluntell one of them to be PTL>?
16:54:24 <dansmith> does retirement mean deleting the repo that they say they still want to contribute to?
16:54:53 <noonedeadpunk> Dunno, that still kind of... extreme to me... Ok, monasca, but like retiring swift that really huge deployments and other projects rely on....
16:54:53 <dansmith> repo/branch I mean
16:55:01 <gmann> dansmith: yes but 2nd option is to move to x namespace (out of openstack) and contriute/maintain
16:55:13 <dansmith> gmann: right, so that doesn't match with what I think is going on for tripleo
16:55:20 <noonedeadpunk> Aren't we causing regressions with that for other projects? Given severe vulnarability is going to be found in Zed for example
16:55:25 <dansmith> which is why I think deprecate and ask for a PTL, which I think is reasonable if they're still around
16:55:29 <fungi> fork not move, the copy in the openstack namespace gets closed down but it can be forked elsewhere
16:55:34 <gmann> dansmith: yes. agree. I will ask on ML if there is any PTL until retirement
16:55:36 <bauzas> I'm quite sad with moving a project to the x namespace
16:55:51 <bauzas> as an example, blazar is one of the oldest projects from openstack
16:56:01 <bauzas> who just resurrected from the deads
16:56:10 <gmann> bauzas: yeah, that is unfortunate that we have contributor but need to move out of openstack
16:56:18 <knikolla[m]> tc-members: can we take an action item to reach out to the mentioned teams next week during the PTG?
16:56:28 <fungi> the way it works is that the repository in the openstack namespace remains but gets closed down and code in the master branch replaced by a readme. if anyone wants to continue development on it they can start a new project in another namespace (or elsewhere outside opendev even) and fork the original
16:56:39 <bauzas> if we put projects into sidelines, I'm not sure those could resurrect the same way
16:57:03 <slaweq> shouldn't we first mark such project as inactive https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html and ask for PTL/Liaisons ?
16:57:38 <JayF> knikolla[m]: I'll reach out to those swift contributors.
16:57:49 <JayF> knikolla[m]: Ironic has a big dep on swift so we have investment in it.
16:57:50 <slaweq> and then we can think of retirement in next cycle https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/emerging-technology-and-inactive-projects.html#timeline
16:57:56 <JayF> well, big optional dep :)
16:57:56 <gmann> slaweq: we are passed to that stage i think, I mean if no PTL/leader to lead that project then we should talk to contributor about it if no then retirement etc. inactive is more of we still ahve PTL etc and no activity
16:58:19 <gmann> slaweq: we need to retire in same cycle as no PTL/leaders or may be no release they can produce
16:58:39 <slaweq> gmann in this document it's written differently
16:58:50 <gmann> keeping project without PTL/release liaison is difficult situation for release team as well as for us
16:59:02 <JayF> We have two meeting minutes left, we should get the actions down for people to contact the remaining leaderless teams before it runs out
16:59:09 <slaweq> if inactive project will not have leaders before milestone-2, there will be no release of it in the cycle
16:59:10 <knikolla[m]> We're out of time now
16:59:12 <slaweq> and next cycle TC will discuss retirement
16:59:27 <gmann> slaweq: even for PTL-less projects?
16:59:30 <knikolla[m]> #action JayF to reach to Swift about lack of PTL candidacy
16:59:48 <gmann> slaweq: we can check/updaet that if that is written for leaderless projects
17:00:09 <gmann> I will check for tripleo
17:00:18 <knikolla[m]> The rest please fill out on the etherpad if you plan to reach out to one of the project teams
17:00:21 <knikolla[m]> Next week is the Virtual PTG, so there will be no weekly meeting
17:00:21 <slaweq> gmann++ let's check it later
17:00:26 <knikolla[m]> On Monday there will be the TC+Community Leaders interaction
17:00:33 <knikolla[m]> And Thu and Fri the TC Slots.
17:00:44 <knikolla[m]> I will send out calendar invites for all of the above and prepare the agenda.
17:00:55 <knikolla[m]> Reach out to me for items and scheduling.
17:00:57 <knikolla[m]> Thanks all
17:01:00 <knikolla[m]> #endmeeting