18:00:15 <gouthamr> #startmeeting tc
18:00:15 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Tue Apr 23 18:00:15 2024 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gouthamr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:15 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:00:15 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
18:00:43 <gouthamr> hello everyone; welcome to the weekly meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee
18:01:19 <gtema> O/
18:01:21 <gouthamr> JayF kindly set me up with a bunch of notes to run this meeting; but he's here in person and i'll throw in a #chair just in case
18:01:21 <gmann> o/
18:01:25 <gouthamr> #chair JayF
18:01:25 <opendevmeet> Current chairs: JayF gouthamr
18:01:30 <gouthamr> A reminder that this meeting is held under the OpenInfra Code of Conduct available at https://openinfra.dev/legal/code-of-conduct
18:01:33 <dansmith> o/
18:01:36 <JayF> o/
18:01:38 <gouthamr> Today's meeting agenda can be found at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
18:01:46 <gouthamr> #topic Roll Call
18:02:17 <frickler> \o
18:02:17 <gouthamr> slaweq is away today
18:02:20 <JayF> o/
18:02:25 <gmann> o/
18:02:40 <gouthamr> i haven't seen any other absences here, on the ML or on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
18:03:09 <gouthamr> so a reminder, that you can use these forums to tell us you can't be here during these meetings
18:03:46 <noonedeadpunk> o/
18:05:39 * gouthamr does mental math..
18:05:40 <gouthamr> quorum checks out; lets continue
18:06:06 <gouthamr> #topic TC vPTG 2024.2
18:06:39 <gouthamr> thank you JayF for compiling a summary for the openstack-discuss mailing list
18:06:48 <gouthamr> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/MHP3MMS7Z6DJK7EAXAIDWDK3DU4ZXELK/ ([tc] TC vPTG 2024.2 Summary / Notes)
18:07:23 <gouthamr> we have identified several action items; and we can start checking on these during this meeting, and in future meetings
18:08:50 <gouthamr> several governance changes are being proposed, and many of these are follow ups from the TC discussions at the PTG..
18:09:14 <gouthamr> i'll take note to revisit this until we have ack'ed all our AIs
18:09:28 <gouthamr> does anyone want to bring up anything specific wrt $topic
18:09:52 <frickler> I want to mention the unmaintained transition for zed
18:10:10 <gouthamr> +1
18:10:18 <gouthamr> #link https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org/thread/WIEIJVVBD36RBHP2MP4BWW4F5SFPK4FA/ ([PTL][release][stable] Transition Zed to Unmaintained)
18:10:19 <frickler> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22zed-unmaintained%22
18:10:46 <frickler> didn't we want to decide about eoling the older branches first?
18:11:59 <spotz[m]> o/ Sorry!
18:12:00 <gmann> I think, we should but giving some time of around 1-2 months after the announcement in ML
18:12:10 <frickler> I haven't seen any response to elodille1's mail yet and my impression is that the current unmaintained team is too small to really get the current bunch of branches and repos into a good shape
18:12:27 <gmann> I think elodilles already made the ML announcement about that ?
18:12:39 <frickler> gmann: so should we delay transitioning zed until after that period?
18:12:40 <noonedeadpunk> we just started looking on current unmaintained branches after the ptg
18:12:57 <noonedeadpunk> s/we/in osa we/
18:12:58 <gmann> frickler: I am ok either way delay or go in parallel
18:13:17 <noonedeadpunk> and capacity of unmaintained team is also really a question
18:13:18 <fungi> it's still unclear to me why control of "unmaintained" branches would need to be so restricted
18:13:33 <fungi> thought that was part of the point of saying they're unmaintained
18:13:43 <dansmith> me too
18:13:48 <noonedeadpunk> +1
18:14:01 <frickler> the point is to eol them once they are no longer cared for
18:14:17 <noonedeadpunk> though, I also miss a process for teams to "subscribe" for caring for
18:14:18 <gouthamr> +1 i would support the idea that unmaintained-core can help push patches even when project maintainers are unresponsive in case we need security fixes in
18:14:26 <frickler> and thus to get rid of broken CI jobs and zuul config errors
18:14:27 <gmann> NOTE: these all old unmaintained branches we kept for migration to new model otherwise they have been in EM state for long right
18:14:43 <spotz[m]> I'm assuming because it has to pull off a list from somewhere?
18:14:52 <frickler> and I don't see that happening
18:15:28 <fungi> there still seems to be a hesitance to just eol things when nobody responds
18:15:32 <gmann> I am ok to get rid of these old EM->unmaintianed branches to EOL soon if no clear interestr
18:15:54 <noonedeadpunk> fungi: well, user survey is not least factor in that I guess
18:16:12 <JayF> fungi++
18:16:18 <gmann> and from SLURP moving to unmaintained we anyways will keep them for 1 year at least by default unless explicitly opt-out
18:16:56 <noonedeadpunk> Like Yoga is still one of the biggest used versions
18:17:03 <frickler> user survey says "yes, please keep giving us support for old branches, so we don't need to update", but who is doing that?
18:17:23 <fungi> branches lacking maintainers are dead. it's a question of officially acknowledging that by tagging them eol or pretending someone might still happen along and want to take them over (which clearly isn't happening)
18:17:33 <noonedeadpunk> with 2023.1 being jsut 7%
18:17:50 <JayF> We have to remember there's a supply/demand element to this. Many companies who consume OpenStack would still be using Kilo (or worse) if we didn't, at some point, force a move forward.
18:18:04 <gmann> we should modify this question now to convey the unmaintained model to them
18:18:11 <JayF> If we keep supplying the feeling of supported branches (even when, as fungi indicates, they are dead if unmaintained), we remove some of that pressure to upgrade from users.
18:18:11 <gouthamr> ^ +1
18:18:14 <noonedeadpunk> frickler: I guess I more meant - that we need more time to spread information about changed process
18:18:23 <gmann> and there is no such thing called 'community support' for older branches
18:18:33 <noonedeadpunk> Like 6 month ago we had rocky in EM and today we're EOLing Zed
18:18:40 <JayF> We are the leaders of OpenStack; sometimes that means leading by showing the good path and EOL'ing the bad paths.
18:19:02 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk: clarification, no we aren't EOLing Zed
18:19:05 <noonedeadpunk> Regular people not really reading all TC decisions
18:19:19 <noonedeadpunk> gouthamr: sorry, moving to unmaintaned
18:19:20 <JayF> noonedeadpunk++
18:19:41 <noonedeadpunk> Like for some it's still supririse that OOO died :D
18:20:03 <noonedeadpunk> (not saying we should care for those, jsut pointing out communication issues)
18:20:10 <gmann> whole idea of unmaintained model was interested people come forward to maintain them as long as they want. if no one is interested then no harm in EOL
18:20:41 <fungi> i agree that it's unlikely the broader userbase realizes we've basically started calling "extended maintenance" something else (to acknowledge the fact that its name was a bit of a lie)
18:20:52 <frickler> what I see is people saying "we want to maintain this" and then nothing happening in terms of actual work
18:21:00 <noonedeadpunk> there's not much point maintiaining Glance when Nova is EOLed
18:21:19 <gouthamr> true; can we make the call to EOL victoria atm? and put out a proposal suggesting a faster EOL for other branches?
18:21:31 <noonedeadpunk> Well, I guess I'm just saying we've become too agressive in eoling too quickly
18:21:51 <fungi> my expectation is that if nova's unmaintained/yoga branch doesn't have caretaker volunteers, it's unlikely glance will either
18:22:38 <noonedeadpunk> that's probably what I don't really like. As I personally still trying to establish a good process to move things I'm responsible for to unmaintained and document that and adopt basically
18:22:54 <fungi> and the new policy is to eol unmaintained branches with no explicit volunteer caretaker opt-in
18:22:57 <spotz[m]> I think it would be more a fly by fix from someone using it
18:23:47 <opendevreview> Ghanshyam proposed openstack/governance master: Add DPl model & liaison reset policy  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833
18:24:29 <gmann> ok, we have two quesions here
18:24:31 <JayF> spotz[m]: I think the idea of a fly-by maintenance of a project branch is not something that works out well in reality. Especially in light of what happend with Murano.
18:24:43 <JayF> spotz[m]: not to mention recurring items like CI maintenance :/
18:24:50 <gmann> 1. any objection to move zed to unmaintained
18:24:50 <gmann> 2. EOling the existing unmaintained
18:24:55 * gouthamr sets a ticker on this issue..
18:25:06 <noonedeadpunk> JayF: I have some doubts who outside of old Fuel-based Mirantis deployments were really using it...
18:25:25 <noonedeadpunk> Though 21% of deployments being on Yoga specifically is quite evidential data
18:25:29 <spotz> jayf Oh no I agree - I'm just thinking that's how a fix might get submitted in the Nova/Glance example given
18:25:52 <gmann> for 1 (moving zed to unmaintained ), i think there should not be any blocker as per the timelines
18:25:55 <spotz[m]> FYI Matrix and IRC are out of sync:)
18:26:11 * gouthamr ohmergod
18:26:20 <gmann> and whether we EOL older unmaintained or not can wait more if we see any response on elodilles email
18:26:56 <gouthamr> i like gmann's proposal here.. 1) moving zed to unmaintained follows our existing process since we have yet-another-stable-branch that showed up
18:27:31 <gouthamr> and i support disconnecting it from (2) - which is also an opportunity to give ourselves less work given we have a mess of unmaintained branches
18:27:45 <JayF> Something that might help bring clarity here
18:27:59 <JayF> we talk about EOL'ing older branches as a unified thing, but many projects may have already EOL'd them in some cases
18:28:19 <JayF> If we were explicit about what projects still had active branches, it might act as a stronger call to actions to contributors who affiliate closely with those projects
18:29:06 <noonedeadpunk> actually. talking about that. it;s also a bit annoying, that not all projects follow same releasing process despite being on the same release policy
18:29:31 <gouthamr> different problem?
18:29:41 <gmann> which has been case for long time or since starting
18:29:46 <noonedeadpunk> like one would expect to have EOM and EOL tags for, say, Yoga when no unmaintained/yoga exist? But it's not always a case
18:30:13 <gouthamr> ah; that seems like an omission..
18:30:57 <noonedeadpunk> nah, it's just project moved to EOL before we made EOM...
18:31:03 <gmann> and one thing I would like to see that TC less force/policy/discuss about unmaintained things :)  and leave it to unmantained liaisons or maintainers
18:31:14 <JayF> gmann++++++ extremely agree with that
18:31:28 <gouthamr> haha; that seems like a nice way to move on to other discussion items here and take this to long form
18:32:00 <gouthamr> frickler: we don't have a conclusion here, but, i would like to encourage a discussion on the channel or the ML once we wrap up
18:32:17 <gmann> I thought we wanted to setup the model/policy and hand over to unmaintained group/liaison and not decide when and which branch goes to unmaintained/EOL
18:32:42 <frickler> I would agree if there were no zuul config errors
18:32:58 <frickler> but I also agree that we should move on for now
18:33:00 <gouthamr> any other PTG concerns that can't wait? i promise a structured check-in on AIs soon; but anything else that you'd like to note?
18:33:31 <gouthamr> going once.. thrice..
18:33:39 <gouthamr> #topic 2024.2 TC Tracker
18:33:42 <gouthamr> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tc-2024.2-tracker (Technical Committee activity tracker)
18:33:53 <gouthamr> ^ the vast emptiness of our tracking :)
18:34:07 <gouthamr> /jk
18:34:30 <gouthamr> please help throw items in that we'd care about for this release cycle (and a bit beyond)
18:35:03 <gouthamr> i will take some items out of our PTG AIs as well, but feel free to correct things along the way; this will be a recurring item in our meetings
18:35:39 <gouthamr> since you'll share your thoughts directly on the etherpad
18:35:42 <gouthamr> #topic Ongoing business
18:35:50 <gmann> ++
18:36:04 <gouthamr> i'd like to close out on things that JayF (and others) kicked off a formal-vote on
18:36:26 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22formal-vote%22+status:open (Open Formal Vote items)
18:37:06 <gouthamr> i'd like us to tackle the attention that the freezer items have been getting
18:37:11 <spotz> I wouldn't mind working through https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915021 so we can move forward
18:37:22 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915727 (Assign Dmitriy Rabotyagov as Freezer PTL)
18:37:36 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/914911 (Transition Freezer project to DPL)
18:38:01 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk: would you like to share anything wrt these?
18:38:40 <gouthamr> are you leaning towards dropping https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915727 yourself?
18:38:43 <noonedeadpunk> well... I've discussed it for a while now
18:39:12 <gouthamr> yes, you have the plank for 30 more seconds :)
18:39:15 <noonedeadpunk> And I think that DPL model might be more beneficial right now to onboard new core team
18:39:29 <gmann> I prpoposed the DPL liaison monitoring things in this #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833/1
18:39:34 <gmann> noonedeadpunk: ++
18:39:37 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833/
18:39:50 <noonedeadpunk> though I see not everyone agree, so I did pushed alternative, that I don't like but for the sake of the progress ok with it as well
18:40:02 <gmann> but irrespective of that I do not see why we are not giving go ahead to freezer DPL mode
18:40:04 <gtema> I honestly doubt dpl have any impact on onboarding new cores, neither is ptl
18:40:08 <noonedeadpunk> I was just reading thorugh it
18:40:36 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk: ah; ty... i'm hoping JayF will pitch into gmann's proposal here: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/916833/
18:40:36 <noonedeadpunk> you can make ppl more important and repsonsible by giving them dedicated roles in project
18:40:39 <noonedeadpunk> and keep involved
18:40:41 <gmann> and having DPL model or PTL model does not means we can move it from Inactive state. that need a lot other activities to check
18:41:05 <JayF> Please don't not-merge a thing just because a single tc-member (me, in this case) has a -1 on it
18:41:14 <noonedeadpunk> (or me)
18:41:14 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk: you'll be first among equals whether you're PTL or leader of DPLs (lol, just introduced a new governance category)
18:41:29 <JayF> and I suspect, after reading gmann's proposal, that I'll likely flip the vote on that DPL proposal once his gets momentum and some feedback
18:41:40 <gtema> You can't motivate non existing ppl interested in project
18:41:44 <gouthamr> perfect; ty for looking
18:41:58 <noonedeadpunk> gtema: so who told you they're non-existent?
18:42:31 <gtema> Otherwise this would not end in the current situation
18:42:32 <noonedeadpunk> I do have communication with couple of orgs about their participation
18:43:07 <noonedeadpunk> not all of them just decided about migration to openstack. and having DR is quite a contributing factor to that decision
18:43:15 <gouthamr> noonedeadpunk++ good stuff; i understood gtema's remark to be general
18:43:16 <noonedeadpunk> It won't happen overnight, but well
18:43:42 <gouthamr> thanks for persisting..
18:43:44 <noonedeadpunk> there's interest at least
18:44:38 <gmann> noonedeadpunk: interesting. I have done PoC on freezer long back in 2018 i think. but that time it was not so ready or perfect
18:44:57 <gmann> and it did not fit in our customer requirements
18:45:20 <noonedeadpunk> I did around same time as well....
18:45:23 <gmann> but do not know the current status and seeing interest in this is good
18:45:43 <noonedeadpunk> Eventually, most "interest" is around some scheduler for cinder-backups more or less as well as lifecycle
18:45:51 <gouthamr> i suspect the rest of the open patches need some eyes.. tc-members, i'll expect us to look and timebox our reviews here.. if you think something shouldn't be merged, please let us know with a -1...
18:45:53 <JayF> gmann: that two lines, is exactly the reason I care so much about project activity: I've had many conversations where experiences like that have led people to be suspicious of all openstack projects being mature at the task they claim to do
18:45:54 <noonedeadpunk> not client agent part
18:46:15 <JayF> gmann: re: POC of a project just not fulfilling requirements
18:46:25 <gouthamr> if you intend to abstain from a vote, please let us know again by commenting as such
18:47:04 <gouthamr> if you don't already use it, there's a link to this useful dashboard in our TC documentation
18:47:06 <gmann> JayF: yeah but we should give new people chance or more time to see if things can be improved. but I got what you are pointing to which make sense too
18:47:17 <gouthamr> #link
18:47:17 <gouthamr> https://review.opendev.org/dashboard/?title=Technical+Committee+Inbox&foreach=project%3Aopenstack%2Fgovernance+is%3Aopen&My+proposals=owner%3Aself&Formal+Vote+Items+I+have+not+voted+on+yet=topic%3Aformal-vote+NOT+(+label%3ARollCall-Vote%2B1%2Cself+OR+label%3ARollCall-Vote-1%2Cself+)&Has+at+Least+One+Objection=(+label%3ARollCall-Vote%3C%3D-1+OR+label%3ACode-Review%3C%3D-1+)&Quickies=(+topic%3Atypo-fix+OR+topic%3Acode-change
18:47:17 <gouthamr> +OR+topic%3Adocumentation-change+OR+topic%3Aproject-update+)&Formal+Vote+Items=topic%3Aformal-vote&Goal+Items+I+Haven%27t+Voted+On=path%3A^goals%2F.*+NOT+(+label%3ARollCall-Vote%2B1%2Cself+OR+label%3ARollCall-Vote-1%2Cself+)&I+Haven%27t+Voted+on+this+Draft=NOT+(+label%3ARollCall-Vote%2B1%2Cself+OR+label%3ARollCall-Vote-1%2Cself+)&Everything= (Governance reviews dashboard)
18:47:20 <gouthamr> ugh
18:47:41 <fungi> that's one heck of a url
18:47:46 <spotz[m]> eww
18:47:49 <JayF> I'll note many of those dashboard links (even when not mangled by IRC) require login to work
18:47:59 <gmann> noonedeadpunk: ohk, I was looking more on client-agent things
18:48:32 <noonedeadpunk> this part is very questionable still....
18:48:40 <gouthamr> true
18:48:42 <gmann> k
18:49:18 <gouthamr> spotz[m]: i didn't ignore your link earlier
18:49:43 <spotz> I'm so out of sync following on IRC and Matrix:)
18:50:00 <gtema> Yeah, matrix today sucks
18:50:04 <gouthamr> #link https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/915021 (Update to include docs and miscellaneuos repos for AC status_
18:50:22 <gouthamr> ^ i'll copy some folks; but please ack this review as well..
18:50:45 <gmann> I think I left comment there which is still not answered or resolved
18:50:47 <gmann> ;et me check
18:50:48 <gmann> let
18:50:55 <gouthamr> i'll follow up on this channel with some more review concerns
18:51:20 <spotz> You were answering a lot of the concerns gmann so if I missed one you had let me know
18:51:31 <gouthamr> moving on..
18:51:33 <gouthamr> #topic 2025.1 Elections
18:51:34 <gmann> gouthamr: many of them might be eligible to merge
18:51:47 <gouthamr> gmann: ack; i'll catch up and help move these
18:52:01 <gouthamr> sooooo, sorry to drop this topic in this early
18:52:08 * JayF wonders if gouthamr has been introduced to `tox -echeck-review-status` :D
18:52:14 <gmann> spotz: I think discussion going on there. other also have some point. I need to check if anything pending on me answer/reply
18:52:35 <fungi> well, 2025.1 elections will be happening in 2024 ;)
18:52:38 <spotz> Yeah it's gotten a bit confusing
18:52:53 <gouthamr> but, i realized that a while ago frickler added election deadlines to the Caracal release schedule; and i thought, why don't we do this all the time
18:52:55 <gmann> JayF: I think yes. this is great help for chair and magic script
18:52:59 <gouthamr> but, we crawl before we walk
18:53:17 <JayF> gmann: did you make the magic script? If so consider this a belated thanks :D
18:53:21 <gouthamr> i was going to put out an early call seeking election officials for the 2025.1 elections
18:53:24 <fungi> the earlier the better with election scheduling
18:53:42 <spotz> So we can keep reminding folks to submit
18:53:48 <gouthamr> ++
18:53:55 <JayF> Are those election dates set yet? It's hard to know if I can volunteer without being able to compare to a calendar
18:54:12 <gmann> JayF: not me. I think doug or ttx or mnaser maybe and later on it was fixed/amend it to improve.
18:54:15 <gouthamr> or point them to it when they say they were only looking at the [$project] emails on openstack-discuss and missed [election]
18:54:21 <spotz> JayF: A lot of them are hard coded in with the release schedule
18:54:45 <JayF> ack, I'll check offline
18:54:47 <gmann> on election, we need TC member to liaison to monitor election deadlines/etc
18:55:01 <spotz> Well you have to tell the script the date to base it's dates off of but..
18:55:07 <JayF> I may be willing to be that volunteer need to check schedules as I have a busy second-half of the year
18:55:11 <mnaser> check-review-status was blessed to me by doug :)
18:55:12 <gmann> I am, not sure if anyone volunteer fot that
18:55:16 <gmann> ++
18:55:17 <JayF> spotz: even doing like "what were this election deadlines +6months)
18:55:35 <gmann> mnaser: ++. that is really helpful  to all chairs
18:55:56 <spotz> jayf yeah it should be able to, it won't send generate emails but we can get the dates from it to publish ourselves
18:57:16 <gouthamr> Elections last time were in the R-2 week
18:57:42 <gouthamr> and per our charter, its the latest we can hold them
18:57:50 <fungi> at least gives you an opportunity to see if it's falling across events or majoy holidays
18:57:52 <gmann> deadline as per charter is election to be held between R-3 to R-8 (i will confirm again)
18:57:59 <gouthamr> These elections are collectively held (from the nomination start date until the voting end date) no later than 2 weeks prior to each cycle final release date (on or before ‘R-2’ week)
18:58:26 <gouthamr> ^ excerpt from https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#election-for-ptl-seats
18:58:28 <gmann> (between ‘R-8’ and ‘R-2’ week). gouthamr ++
18:59:48 <gouthamr> So extrapolating that, Sep 16-Sep 20th can be a candidate for the election week; once we have election official volunteers we can finalize this
19:00:02 <gouthamr> we're T-1 minute to wrapping this up
19:00:13 <gouthamr> haha
19:00:45 <frickler> don't we have 2 week elections now?
19:00:55 <gouthamr> alright we're at time; but we can continue the after-discussions in this channel and ML
19:01:04 <gmann> yes, 2 week nomination and 2 week poll
19:01:10 <gouthamr> sorry we didn't have open discussion today
19:01:11 <spotz> Weel for campaigning and a week to vote
19:01:30 <gouthamr> thank you all for attending and for the spirited discussion
19:01:33 <gouthamr> #endmeeting