18:01:10 <JayF> #startmeeting tc
18:01:10 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Oct 10 18:01:10 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is JayF. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:10 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:01:10 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
18:01:20 <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.
18:01:25 <JayF> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee.
18:01:26 <dansmith> o/
18:01:28 <JayF> #topic Roll Call
18:01:31 <rosmaita> o/
18:01:31 <jamespage> o/
18:01:36 <slaweq> o/
18:01:36 <knikolla> o/
18:01:38 <spotz[m]> o/
18:01:38 <gmann> o/
18:01:43 <frickler> \o
18:02:01 <JayF> 9 outta 9 in twenty seconds; awesome :)
18:02:22 <JayF> #topic Follow up on tracked action items
18:02:35 <JayF> Starting with mine; I have three items being tracked
18:02:43 <JayF> #action JayF  Before next video meeting, write up a short document on pros/cons of moving TC video meetings to jitsi-meet.
18:02:47 <JayF> no action on that one, carrying over
18:02:58 <JayF> rosmaita was appointed as vice chair; thank you and congrats
18:03:03 <rosmaita> \o/
18:03:15 <JayF> And for the last one; I was to schedule a cross-performance session at the PTG centered around apparent heavy DB usage
18:03:35 <JayF> I have an email out to Stephenfin and to Mike, the SQLA maintainer; Mike has responded but not stephenfin yet. I will put something on the calendar when I hear from him.
18:04:08 <JayF> I would expect this to be scheduled sometime Monday early, if that works for Stephen.
18:04:27 <JayF> I had one other action item which wasn't properly documented that was carried over from last time as well;
18:04:31 <clarkb> zzzeek once told me to ping him in openstack irc channels for oepnstack related stuff becuse then he knows it is related to openstack stuff and can be prioritized appropriately
18:04:42 <JayF> Yeah; he responded to my email quickly and was incredibly nice :)
18:04:42 <clarkb> so maybe try IRC
18:04:52 <JayF> I'm waiting on Stephen, and I neglected to send the email until yesterday.
18:04:53 <clarkb> oh I misread zzzeek did resposne already. great
18:05:05 <JayF> so this is on track except I've been busy :D
18:05:16 <JayF> the one additional item; I emailed the tripleo team about their maintenance intentions
18:05:20 <JayF> let me get the exact quote
18:05:40 <JayF> According to James Slagle:
18:05:42 <JayF> > We don't plan to maintain any wallaby branches in TripleO after around the end of October. All these branches can be transitioned to EOL at that time. For the CI repos (tripleo-ci, tripleo-quickstart, tripleo-quickstart-extras), those can also EOL'd unless the TC wants those around to support Zed for some reason.
18:06:08 <JayF> This should simplify our work around unmaintained branches; as we should be able to retire the tripleo related branches and repos without impacting that team.
18:06:44 <dansmith> wow, that's surprising to me, but yeah, easier
18:06:49 <knikolla> yay
18:06:55 <JayF> We don't have a dedicated item for it; but I imagine the review for unmaintained branch implementation would be a good topic for open discussion; so we can use that information as a tool there.
18:06:56 <clarkb> any idea if that has been communicated to users?
18:07:30 <JayF> clarkb: this was a private email from me to TripleO DPLs. If it's been communicated, it wasn't in a location I've seen anytime recently.
18:07:45 <JayF> clarkb: that being said; Wallaby is an EM branch and we do not make promises about support lifetimes for EM branches.
18:08:14 <JayF> clarkb: your comment is taken under advisement; I'll reply to James and suggest they communicate that to the list.
18:08:20 <clarkb> yes, but useres may not undersatnd that if it is the last release of tripleo.
18:08:29 <gmann> as per the new stable policy, stable/wallaby is going to 'unmaintained' status and if no maintainer for any project like tripleO then it can be EOL.
18:08:31 <clarkb> we had people discussing use of tripleo as recently as end of august on the mailing list
18:08:50 <clarkb> (I'm not saying don't eol, I'm saying make sure people know tripleo is really EOL at this point)
18:08:55 <gmann> Em did not get release anyways. so stable/wallaby releaed long back
18:08:57 <JayF> Yeah, it's a good point. I'd rather a DPL be the one to start that thread so I will nudge them but will send an email myself if they will not.
18:09:17 <JayF> Going to ask we table further discussion on this until open discussion
18:09:26 <JayF> Moving on to other action items; knikolla had two
18:09:33 <JayF> >  Complete documentation for unmaintained branch policy in releases.openstack.org
18:09:41 <JayF> >  Investigate or delegate research on DB usage patterns in Keystone in devstack. Due before PTG.
18:09:56 <JayF> I assume you want the "before PTG" one kicked ahead a week?
18:09:56 <knikolla> For the docs side of things, I have two patches up
18:10:10 <knikolla> https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/897505 updates the project team guide
18:10:41 <knikolla> And https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/releases/+/897848 updates the release series status (it does not EOL the branches by itself, that's for a future series of patches)
18:10:50 <knikolla> Please take a look and comment
18:11:18 <JayF> Thank you for those; I already left some comments. It's much easier to think about this with a concrete suggestion.
18:11:21 <JayF> #action knikolla Investigate or delegate research on DB usage patterns in Keystone in devstack. Due before PTG.
18:11:24 <knikolla> For the keystone and devstack side of things. I did some progress, collected all the database queries for a stack.sh run and am analyzing them. so far, most seems to be related to users and roles.
18:11:38 <gmann> I also left comment on the release patch, I think we should merge the p-t-g change first so that anyone looking at release page knows what is 'unmaintained' means
18:12:00 <JayF> That's neat to hear. I am looking forward to seeing the full results of those.
18:12:12 <JayF> The last TC member with tracked action item was slaweq
18:12:13 <knikolla> It does feel like a lot of those queries should have been cached, and I'm gonna dig further to see if there are any caching issues
18:12:21 <dansmith> knikolla: sweet
18:12:23 <JayF> > To propose a patch to openstack/governance for TC consideration to mark monasca inactive
18:12:30 <JayF> knikolla: \o/ thank you very much for this, it'll be huge
18:12:48 <slaweq> I sent a patch and email to ML about Monasca
18:12:49 <slaweq> https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-October/035281.html
18:12:50 <slaweq> no response for that email so far
18:13:16 <JayF> #link https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-October/035281.html
18:13:31 <JayF> #link https://review.opendev.org/897520
18:13:36 <gmann> previous PTL added late candidacy, maybe they are not seeing ML?
18:13:45 <gmann> or at least gerrit
18:14:23 <slaweq> I can try to contact with previous PTL this week
18:14:28 <JayF> Lets get through gate health check and we can hit that in detail during leaderless projects?
18:14:37 <JayF> #topic Gate Health Check
18:14:42 <JayF> Anything going on with the gate?
18:15:27 <dansmith> mostly still pretty good I think
18:15:39 <dansmith> things are merging at rates I've not seen in a while
18:15:45 <gmann> yeah, seems good
18:15:46 <dansmith> just based on my butt dyno
18:16:01 <gmann> devstack setup for stable/2023.2 is not yet finished. we had few jobs failing there which are marked non voting for now. hopefully those will merge today/tomorrow.
18:16:22 <JayF> We're in the eye of the hurricane so to speak :D (or maybe the storm is over?)
18:16:33 <JayF> thank you for the work to keep things stable
18:16:36 <clarkb> that is a pretty normal cycle for openstack
18:17:19 <JayF> Aight, if that's all for gate moving on
18:17:19 <clarkb> the release rush makes things worse in two ways a) we are our own noisy neighbors and b) landing new functionality and tests that may not be super stable
18:18:02 <JayF> #topic Leaderless projects
18:18:21 <JayF> gmann: slaweq: do we wanna un-table monasca conversation?
18:18:27 <gmann> we have volunteer for Skyline project, seems they missed the election things
18:18:53 <slaweq> for Monasca I think I will try to reach out to the previous PTL and see what answer I will get, if any
18:19:04 <slaweq> and then we can hopefully discuss about it next week
18:19:10 <gmann> yeah but we really really need commitment from them otherwise it will be same story next cycle
18:19:16 <JayF> For skyline; it's especially concerning their electorate is so small. Should we consider modifying requirements around foundation membership to be more inclusive of those contributors?
18:19:36 <gmann> so slaweq proposal going with Inactive project way is good idea
18:19:53 <JayF> I second the concern about Monasca: no PTL volunteer is only a small reason it appears inactive; the bigger reason is no independent contributor has been doing maintenance on it, and instead it's been being done by openstack-wide teams
18:20:00 <gmann> I mentioned the DPL option for them if election is overhead
18:20:41 <gmann> I mean DPL model for Skyline
18:20:48 <JayF> Yeah; I realize, but they also are impacted by TC decisions
18:21:03 <JayF> and if they are not represented in the overall OpenStack electorate, it's not really an equitable situation
18:21:23 <gmann> also, sent email to previous PTL + ML for call of PTL/DPL model for Rally and Mistral
18:21:29 <clarkb> JayF: that may be encoded in the bylaws? I don't remember
18:21:54 <TheJulia> foundation bylaws can be changed
18:22:08 <TheJulia> and project governance is largely up to the project itself deciding how it wants to run it's project
18:22:24 <slaweq> regarding Rally I think many projects have some CI jobs based on this tool so any action there may imact other projects
18:22:33 <JayF> I suspect, in general, the OIF board would be aligned with us trying to ensure projects get a reasonable say in their governance
18:22:36 <gmann> slaweq: good point
18:22:38 <slaweq> just saying :)
18:22:59 <JayF> I'll take an informal-action to dig into that; I don't wanna promise I'll have time but I'll make a note on my todo list to see what'd be neccessary for such a change
18:23:12 <fungi> right, not all openinfra projects require electors to be foundation members, however it's a good way to reduce the risk of ballot stuffing since someone would have to apply for multiple foundation memberships in order to do so
18:23:19 <fungi> which has its own legal implications
18:23:51 <JayF> So we've had three separate conversation threads here; I want to summarize for minutes:
18:24:20 <JayF> #info Skyline project has leadership candidate who missed nomination period and appears active. We hope they will have DPL or PTL soon.
18:24:35 <clarkb> looks like it is encoded in the bylaws for the TC but not for the projects themselves
18:25:03 <JayF> #info Rally and Mistral, email sent to ML and previous PTL asking if there is interest in continuing to maintain.
18:25:13 <fungi> and that's part of the bylaws we're working with the board and legal counsel to get dropped anyway
18:25:24 <JayF> #info Monasca is proposed for inactivity; but despite no response on ML and proposal to mark inactive; a PTL candidate has emerged.
18:25:29 <gmann> yeah, those TC specific things from bylaw will go away soon
18:25:49 <JayF> #action slaweq to sync with Monasca potential PTL candidate and report back to TC next meeting
18:26:05 <JayF> do those infos and actions appear to represent the discussion around leaderless projects faithfully?
18:26:16 <gmann> ++
18:26:24 <JayF> alright, going to move on, thank you for the work on this gmann
18:26:24 <gmann> and that is all from my side on leaderless projects, all notes are in etherpad too #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.1-leaderless#L55
18:26:29 <frickler> where was the skyline candidate seen? I think I missed that
18:26:35 <JayF> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.1-leaderless
18:26:50 <JayF> frickler: https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-October/035303.html not in the proper place, but they did volunteer
18:26:50 <gmann> frickler: #link https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2023-October/035303.html
18:26:57 <gmann> yeah that one :)
18:27:16 <JayF> frickler: there is clearly a disconnect between our procedures and the contributors to the project; I suspect it may be around language.
18:27:52 <frickler> yes, language was something I was also thinking about, maybe we can check with the i18n whether they could also translate governance docs?
18:28:05 <frickler> *the i18n team
18:28:10 <TheJulia> And maybe the filter for who can vote at the project level is also a bit self limiting in some of the more organic origin cases
18:28:20 <gmann> ++, at least translated election doc/notification can help
18:28:42 <JayF> I haven't interacted much with i18n team; is there someone in the TC willing to reach out and inquire with them about this?
18:28:59 <spotz[m]> How are we doing on the new platform?
18:29:00 <fungi> it's an i18n sig now
18:29:11 <fungi> (no longer a team)
18:29:16 <rosmaita> i can follow up with the i18n sig
18:29:32 <JayF> #action rosmaita to engage i18n sig about possibilty of translating governance docs
18:29:39 <frickler> refreshing the translation platform is a related open issue
18:29:39 <JayF> Thank you, I appreciate it.
18:29:42 <gmann> ianychoi[m]:  is chair of i18n SIG but not sure about how much bandwidth they have as we already asked for volunteer to help in translation
18:30:00 <gmann> rosmaita: ++, thanks
18:30:05 <JayF> I may also reach out to the PTL who emailed the list directly and try to help them get their paperwork in order in the short term.
18:30:24 <JayF> If they are doing what's needed technically; I wanna help them succeed in the governance/social bits.
18:30:36 <JayF> s/PTL/PTL candidate/
18:30:46 <spotz[m]> I think Seongsoo is working with him
18:30:58 <gmann> I think this is good topic for PTG, how to improve election notification or governance process communication
18:31:01 <JayF> oh, wonderful, that's nice to hear, I was hoping something like that would be the case
18:31:10 <JayF> but if you assume someone else it helping that's a good path to nobody helping :D
18:31:21 <JayF> gmann: I'd encourage you to add it to the topic list.
18:31:29 <gmann> we are facing it in every cycle and many things we tried did not actually helped much
18:31:34 <gmann> sure, will add
18:31:44 <JayF> If I can figure out the details around the electorate question, that'd be a good topic for ti too, but I don't want to add it until I feel informed enough to participate in the discussion.
18:31:54 <JayF> Moving on to the next topic now.
18:32:06 <JayF> oh, good transition
18:32:10 <JayF> #topic PTG Scheduling and Agenda
18:32:41 <JayF> I have reserved Monday 1600-1800 UTC in Folsom room for TC/Community interaction
18:32:55 <JayF> And Thursday 1500-1900 UTC, Friday 1500-1900 UTC for other TC topics
18:33:19 <fungi> JayF: i think you interpreted spotz[m]'s response as stating that seongsoo is helping the skyline ptl, but i believe she meant he's helping ianychoi with the translation platform move
18:33:22 <JayF> I have not performed any mapping of specific topics to timeslots yet for the TC due to the small number of agenda items we currently have listed.
18:33:31 <JayF> fungi: ack; understood thank you for the clarification
18:34:10 <JayF> This is the time to say if those times create a hardship for you.
18:34:36 <frickler> according to the ptg schedule, the sessions end at 18 UTC
18:34:48 <rosmaita> not a hardship, but i may have to leave early on Friday
18:35:10 <gmann> I think we are 4 hrs on Thurs and friday?
18:35:17 <JayF> frickler: you're right, Friday ends at 1800, I fat fingered it in the etherpad
18:35:39 <gmann> frickler: I requested many times to open slot for 18-19 UTC but it was rejected every times.
18:35:51 <gmann> I find having that in ptgbot easy in communication
18:36:12 <JayF> So limiting ourself to what's reserved in the bot, that gives us 3 hours Thursday and Friday.
18:36:15 <JayF> Honestly it's probably enough.
18:36:40 <frickler> so that brings up a good question: who decides which slots can be used at the ptg. because the kolla team wants to move into the other direction
18:36:40 <gmann> we can book 4 hrs like we did in last two cycle and mention it in ML.
18:36:52 <slaweq> ++
18:37:12 <gmann> slots in ptgbot should not be a limitation
18:37:25 <fungi> the amer+emea block is already 5 hours long (13:00-18:00 utc). extending that to 19:00 utc would either mean the possibility of being in conference calls for 6 hours straight or removing some of the earlier part of that block to shoft it forward
18:37:26 <JayF> If the majority of the TC sees value in holding our slots open through 1900 UTC; I personally have no objection to that, but I'm also skeptical we have 8 hours of content and that timeboxing to 6 hours won't be an improvement.
18:37:55 <gmann> I am in favor of 4 hrs slot on both days. till 19 UTC
18:38:15 <spotz[m]> +1 to fungi
18:38:40 <gmann> fungi: that is not actually true not every team book all open slot in ptbot so team can decide what 4 hrs they want to book or if they are ok with 5-6 hrs then also it is fine
18:39:00 <fungi> if we pretend the ptg is not a cross-project event, then that would be true
18:39:02 <gmann> it is about opening more slots and team can book as per their need
18:39:24 <JayF> #startvote When should TC sessions end? 1800, 1900
18:39:24 <opendevmeet> Begin voting on: When should TC sessions end? Valid vote options are 1800, 1900.
18:39:24 <opendevmeet> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
18:39:40 <fungi> the event organizers are trying to promote personal health of our contributors by not recommending overly long blocks of time for back-to-back ptg sessions
18:40:07 <gmann> fungi: who gurantee what members are not attending more than 4 hrs, we have !13 slots open per day :)
18:40:15 <gmann> s/what/that
18:40:22 <JayF> I suggest we take this as an informal poll to see what tc members think.
18:40:51 <fungi> gmann: no more than 4-5 hours without a significant break
18:41:19 <slaweq> #vote 1900
18:41:19 <gmann> break is different thing :) which can be done in between of 4 hrs too.
18:41:24 <JayF> If we go until 1900 on Thursday, for instance, I will be on Ironic + TC PTG from 1300 UTC through 1900 UTC with minimal breaks.
18:41:26 <gmann> #vote 1900
18:41:27 <JayF> #vote 1800
18:41:30 <spotz[m]> #vote 1800
18:41:32 <frickler> to me even 1800 is very late, especially on friday
18:41:36 <dansmith> I'll abstain, I don't really care
18:41:37 <knikolla> #vote 1800
18:41:37 <rosmaita> i was a proponent of the "extra" block in the past, but the last ptg kicked my butt, the day was too long
18:41:42 <jamespage> #vote 1800
18:41:44 <rosmaita> #vote 1800
18:41:44 <dansmith> I have a bucket under my desk
18:42:15 <JayF> that is 5 votes for 1800, 1 abstain, 2 votes for 1900 and 1 not voting
18:42:17 <JayF> #stopvote
18:42:19 <rosmaita> i would not want to have to empty that bucket
18:42:22 <knikolla> If we need extra time for a specific topic, we can schedule ad hoc meetings or discuss asynchronously.
18:42:24 <JayF> #endvote
18:42:24 <opendevmeet> Voted on "When should TC sessions end?" Results are
18:42:24 <opendevmeet> 1900 (2): slaweq, gmann
18:42:24 <opendevmeet> 1800 (5): knikolla, JayF, spotz[m], jamespage, rosmaita
18:42:37 <spotz[m]> When you add all the other sessions on top earlier in the week people will be burntout on things by Thursday and Friday
18:42:46 <JayF> We will end at 1800. I will offer to be available for targetted topic discussions afterwards if a TC member needs it.
18:43:02 <fungi> i'm already burned out and the ptg isn't even starting for two weeks
18:43:22 <JayF> So thanks for the lively discussion about timing :D
18:43:27 <JayF> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-ptg-october-2023
18:43:41 <JayF> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-leaders-interaction-2024-1
18:43:51 <JayF> these are up, ready for topics if you have any to add.
18:44:13 <JayF> I will wait until the week before PTG to map topics to times; if you have preferences (e.g. for rosmaita who may not be here for the whole PTG) please indicate and I'll schedule so you're available.
18:44:17 <JayF> #topic Open Discussion
18:44:43 <JayF> I'll note we have multiple open goverance reviews; I intend on merging eligible changes after this meeting. Please review them.
18:45:06 <JayF> One item we tabled earlier was discussion of unmaintained/, specifically in relation to tripleo, we can untable that discussion
18:45:06 <rosmaita> i have a question about the python 3.8 situation
18:45:09 <JayF> or discuss anything
18:45:13 <JayF> sure rosmaita you have the floor
18:45:35 <rosmaita> iirc, we reinstated it for 2023.2 because a library or two dropped support and broke everyone
18:45:58 <rosmaita> do we have a transition plan for getting off 3.8, or are we just kicking the can down the road?
18:46:44 <rosmaita> it's just not obvious to me that we need to support python 3.8 in 2024.1
18:46:45 <fungi> when it came up, we floated a few possible transition plans
18:46:49 <dansmith> when we discussed it we said we'd keep language compatibility (not necessarily testing) on supported pythons
18:47:10 <dansmith> so at least "new code doesn't use some new feature that makes it a parse error in 3.8"
18:47:24 <gmann> yeah at least unit tests make sure that
18:47:33 <dansmith> it's an incredibly low bar
18:47:39 <fungi> keeping one unit test job is a safe way of checking that continues to be the case
18:47:51 <gmann> and we also agree that as much as we can keep the min version it is good for everyone
18:47:57 <frickler> except when libs drop py38 support
18:47:59 <JayF> Well, sorta, it does have a pretty big side effect of limiting us to versions of libraries that also run under python 3.8, which frickler indicated was already keeping us from upgrading some library versions.
18:48:06 <fungi> frickler: i meant in the libs
18:48:23 <gmann> python 3.8 EOLing on Oct 2024 so keeping it in 2024.1 which suppose to release in Mar 2024 seems ok to me
18:48:25 <fungi> but yes, for third-party libraries it's a shackle
18:48:26 <frickler> yes, but you cannot run unit tests without dependencies
18:48:59 <gmann> yeah, external deps lib can be good point too along with EOLing of python version itself
18:49:07 <JayF> gmann: I'm concerned that only looks at the top layer; there may be things we depend on which will not have supported versions for python 3.8 when we release
18:49:21 <rosmaita> JayF: ++
18:49:30 <gmann> JayF: yes, if we encounter such thing we can think of dropping or how to test
18:49:42 <JayF> gmann: but it's tough to make that case as well as the opposite: it's easy to see when python 3.8 breaks someone running 3.8; it's not easy to see when some random library is missing a two-line fix because we're running 1.x instead of 2.x
18:49:42 <frickler> see https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/896904 for an example for how this is treated in reqs
18:49:45 <dansmith> yeah I'd rather deal with that if it happens
18:49:53 <rosmaita> and who will want to run openstack in an EOL python version, which will happen with 2024.1 like two months after release
18:50:16 <gmann> yeah, if we have that situation then we can discuss about how to handle it. and if no way to test then drop
18:50:21 <fungi> rosmaita: two months after 2024.2 actually
18:50:45 <frickler> well py38 is EOL only upstream, I assume redhat and ubuntu will continue to support what is in their LTS distros?
18:50:50 <fungi> 'Provided irregularly on an “as-needed” basis until October 2024.' https://peps.python.org/pep-0569/#source-only-security-fix-releases
18:51:02 <gmann> frickler: hope so.
18:51:02 <fungi> not eol upstream
18:51:17 <dansmith> frickler: correct
18:51:18 <frickler> s/is/will be soon/
18:51:22 <gmann> and we are using focal to test the python3.8 so it should be there at least
18:51:46 <fungi> cpython is continuing to release versions of 3.8 for the next ~year
18:52:11 <fungi> i'm not advocating for keeping support for 3.8, just making sure the timeline around it is clear
18:52:42 <JayF> Both sides have incredibly compelling arguments. It's not an easy choice to make, and I don't think there's a clear right choice.
18:52:50 <JayF> What is clear is we have to decide one way or another very, very soon.
18:53:00 <dansmith> well, the right choice is to be conservative and deal with something practically if it happens
18:53:09 <gmann> yeah
18:53:18 <dansmith> if it doesn't, then we're fine and if it does, we'll have a better idea of what the impact is to inform a move
18:53:58 <JayF> I default more to trying to avoid disruptions in the middle of the busy part of the development cycle; just different trade offs.
18:54:04 <JayF> Either way; TC members need to put a vote on this soon.
18:54:10 <gmann> I thought we are getting agreement about keeping it on gerrit? https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/895160
18:54:18 <dansmith> yeah I thought we were settled
18:54:43 <JayF> Given there's contention, I will not merge this after meeting like originally intending to, but I will give at least 48 more hours for folks to update votes and set a reminder to land it on Thursday.
18:54:48 <gmann> I did not see any -1 vote on the change
18:55:04 <JayF> I'll note this started with a question from a tc member who had not voted on the change yet :)
18:55:29 <JayF> so there is some consensus but working to grow it doesn't hurt, and all of us being able to explain why we decided a thing is good :D
18:55:37 <JayF> Is there anything else for open discussion? 5 minute warning.
18:56:04 <frickler> just noting that I found two two year old project retirements that are not completed
18:56:30 <frickler> the governance patches have merged, but project repo cleanup and zuul config cleanup are pending
18:56:45 <gmann> that js lib ?
18:56:47 <JayF> Is there any action we (TC?) can take to complete that?
18:56:49 <frickler> I wonder if there is a gap in the process there
18:56:59 <frickler> js lib is one
18:57:26 <frickler> the tc could track the status and ping people if things stop moving
18:57:45 <gmann> frickler: I think it is just missed, usually we complete all the steps on retirement but yes a few can be missed
18:58:08 <gmann> 2-3 years back we did a lot of cleanup on retired repos and most of them were in good state
18:58:38 <gmann> I can take js lib forward if ricolin does not have time and busy in other thing
18:58:54 <gmann> I will check with him and propose remaining changes
19:00:03 <frickler> ok then
19:00:15 <JayF> Thanks for that, and we're outta time.
19:00:22 <JayF> have a good Tuesday o/
19:00:25 <JayF> #endmeeting