18:00:19 #startmeeting tc 18:00:19 Meeting started Tue Oct 31 18:00:19 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is JayF. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:19 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:00:19 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 18:00:23 #topic Roll Call 18:00:26 o/ 18:00:30 o/ 18:00:31 Welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee. A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct. 18:00:35 o/ 18:00:35 Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee. 18:00:44 #info Two noted absenses: spotz[m] and slaweq 18:01:07 o/ 18:01:09 \o 18:01:32 Alright, I think that's everyone accounted for then, moving on to the agenda. 18:01:40 #topic Follow up on tracked action items 18:01:52 there is one; it's mine; and I've not done it yet due to running out of hours in the day 18:02:01 #action JayF Before next video meeting, write up a short document on pros/cons of moving TC video meetings to jitsi-meet. 18:02:21 I wanted to have this done by this meeting, but between PTG and other responsibilities I did not have time. I'll try to have something written up in an etherpad by the end of the calendar-week. 18:02:32 #topic Gate Health Check 18:02:36 Anything on the gate? 18:02:54 so, 18:03:04 things are not terrible, but not great either, IMHO 18:03:31 this morning I debugged an issue which ended up being a *glance* OOM, where it swole up to >2G while uploading a tiny snapshot to swift 18:03:37 which of course took out a bunch of other tests 18:04:25 there have also been some unstable devstack or node setup type things I've seen, but haven't chased to any conclusions 18:04:39 we were temporarily running without rackspace due to an openstacksdk update that broke nodepool's ability to talk to that cloud. This should be temporarily resolved wtih a more proper fix on its way through merge processes 18:04:52 but basically I think we're in that same post-big-fix-push where stuff starts to rot out the minute we stop making a concerted effort :/ 18:05:39 a few of failure i also observed but other than that it was ok. got a few of the changes merged in tempest, devstack, and neutron quickly 18:05:50 Is there any specific action we need to take or encourage other than constant vigilance? 18:06:14 I've been rechecking an upgrade fix series in nova for 24 hours already.. merged one piece, but 2/3 still waiting for rechecks 18:06:15 dansmith: was oom in import job or other glance job? 18:06:22 gmann: non-import 18:06:25 k 18:06:59 we also did merge the devstack change to use cached tokens, which is nice and reduced some of the keystone calls by a lot 18:07:08 ++ 18:07:15 still way too many of course, but it means we hit keystone less hard in the setup phase, which is good 18:07:26 nice 18:07:47 basically client-side optimization which helps overall, but doesn't solve the actual problem 18:08:45 anyway, nothing else specific to call out 18:09:10 Thanks for staying on top of that. 18:09:15 #topic Leaderless Projects 18:09:24 gmann: is there anythign worth chatting about here that is new since PTG? 18:09:40 nothing else from what we discussed on Thursady/friday 18:09:57 I will work on the action we discussed in PTG 18:09:58 Ack; please tc-members review the related PRs from the etherpad 18:10:01 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/2024.1-leaderless 18:10:07 yeah 18:10:09 #topic PTG Follow-ups 18:10:16 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-ptg-october-2023 18:10:21 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-leaders-interaction-2024-1 18:10:27 #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/oct2023-ptg-os-dbperf-crossproject 18:10:41 I have not had time to significantly sort through TC PTG notes and break out any specific action items 18:11:00 I wanted to have this agenda item in place for us to note the etherpads and mark any actions that may be seen as urgent 18:11:21 otherwise my goal will be to have actions broken out into the TC tracker in the next 2 weeks, including an email summary of TC PTG to the list this week. 18:14:41 Looks like no interest in more PTG talk, just days after the PTG. I'm stunned! :D 18:14:50 #topic Open Discussion and Reviews 18:15:12 Are there any topics for open discussion? Most of the reviews we discussed at the PTG, I will not re-enumerate them here -- please review things open in governance repo. 18:15:59 one topic: should yoga go into EM instead of Unmaintained? 18:17:23 I followed the discussion earlier, and I mainly wonder if it does any harm to delay action on yoga until documentation is completed? I know this has been pushed a couple times already in general (finalizing this documentation), so I'm not certain we should, but it's one possible option. 18:17:52 super unhelpful, but I don't have a strong opinion 18:17:59 it should not matter if we delay yoga to EM or now. question stay same 18:18:16 yoga and also for zed in future 18:18:20 well, the current EM branches will have to be moved to Unmaintained/deleted at some point, so might as well have yoga join them until we have a clear strategy 18:18:27 I don't have a strong opinion other than that it seems silly to ask the releases team to essentially do something 2x (automation -> EM, automation -> new UM process) 18:18:39 rosmaita: that's an extremely good point that cancels out mine entirely 18:19:06 :) 18:19:26 there is resolution passed to have no EM and move to Unmaintained so I think we should follow that even implementation of it in doc/policy is dleayed 18:19:30 I also think that from the perspective of what tonyb brought up at the PTG, about how/where decisions are made, that doing the thing in documentation until something else is in documentation seems to be the most consistent thing we can do. 18:19:56 hmm again a good point, same thought but different outcome 18:20:42 that does not stop us to discuss here right ? :) 18:20:58 No it doesn't, but it's extra awkward because we're in a middle ground 18:21:12 I think let's review p-t-g as soon as we can and if we can merge it before yoga EM time comes 18:21:21 where our written stuff says two things; our governance docs which are official say one, and the release docs which users/operators look to say another 18:21:58 Can someone ensure we get an ML thread started about this? frickler since you brought it up, would you be willing? 18:22:05 moving to Unmaintained is an optional process that needs to be documented and implemented, according to the resolution the default action would be to move yoga to EOL 18:22:06 yeah that we need to fix that is why I am saying let's do that as first step and as soon as we can 18:22:50 gmann: can you put a link to that change in here and put it in the minutes if you have it at hand? 18:23:06 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/project-team-guide/+/897505 18:23:10 here ^^ 18:23:23 yoga EM time is in two days according to the tentative schedule 18:23:42 so not much time for an ML thread 18:24:04 Is there anyone who would object to punting that a minimum of one week, so we can have an ML thread and an agenda item for next week about how to adjudicate this, and hopefully also potentially merge the p-t-g doc in the meantime to make the entire situation less sticky? 18:24:12 frickler: but we did not say about yoga or anything, resolution mentioned last 3 active EM to automatically move to Unmaintained and rest all to EOL https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20230724-unmaintained-branches.html#transition 18:24:13 also I don't like to send any mail to the list 18:24:40 if yoga moving to EM before we implement the policy I think it make yoga to fall into those last three EM 18:24:52 gmann: the resolution says: no more EM, to me that also says: no more projects transition to EM. right now. 18:25:30 gmann's interpretation more closely matches mine; but I also care more about ensuring we do the sensible thing than I do about following the exact letter of the rule down to the minute of when yoga's next phase should be acted upon. 18:25:47 keep in mind that the release team has taken em/eol dates on the schedule as "on or sometime as soon after this date as is convenient" 18:26:10 yeah but policy are not implemented yet so... do not know I think it applies when we implied it? 18:26:46 my point being, if there's a delay of a week or two in switching branches to em or eol, that's not unusual based on past transitions anyway 18:26:52 I propose that the TC request the releases team delay action on the yoga stable branches at least one week, and that in that week we attempt to get the p-t-g docs landed and start asynchronous communications about the implementation of unmaintained branch policy 18:27:32 that sounds reasonable to me 18:28:02 +1. if we are doing that let's delay till we merge p-t-g change just to avoid postponing it again 18:28:34 gmann: I do not want to say it that way because I think we've shown without a time pressure we may delay too much. I prefer feeling the pressure of needing to land that in a week, then dealing with it next week if it does not. 18:29:09 sure, if we deadline that change to merge it is great. agree 18:29:17 I'm trying to check to ensure we have consensus, frickler does not seem on board with this, and we are down 2 members for this meeting, that makes 3-1 essentially, with 7 people attending, I don't feel like this represents TC consensus yet. 18:29:24 ack. there's another related question: if we tell people now or in a week "speak up if you want to prevent stable/yoga for project xyz from going eol", how much time do we give for responses 18:29:32 I think knikolla fixed my comment there so will re-review today 18:29:43 I'm +1 on the delay 18:29:54 cool 18:29:55 frickler: thank you for being explicit; didn't want to stomp on your concern from earlier :) 18:29:58 delay is fine with me if it means we can move on 18:30:31 frickler: I was thinking about this that a 1 month period seems reasonable, we know from election nominations that 2 weeks can often miss people, and EOL'ing a branch is much more expensive to undo, technologically, than a late candidacy. 18:30:55 This is a detail we likely need documented in the p-t-g. I'll ensure that gets in my PR feedback. 18:31:05 (and IMO is best argued in that venue) 18:31:49 I already mentioned that there, just wanted to give it more visibility 18:31:52 Are there other comments on the topic in open discussion of stable/yoga branch adjudication, or generally on unmaintained branch support? 18:32:38 #info TC will request releases team delay at least 1 week in adjudication of stable/yoga branch to allow TC to complete documentation of unmaintained branch implementation. 18:32:49 Anything else, generally, for open discussion? 18:33:46 there is a reqs patch that may profit from tc feedback 18:34:22 Can you link it into the minutes? 18:34:22 https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/898699 18:34:33 #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/requirements/+/898699 18:35:19 Alright, that looks interesting for sure and has been added to my review queue. 18:35:41 Is there anything further to comment about that, or other topics for open discussion? 18:36:50 Last call for TC meeting? 18:37:32 #endmeeting