17:00:49 #startmeeting third-party 17:00:50 Meeting started Tue Nov 15 17:00:49 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mmedvede. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:51 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 17:00:54 The meeting name has been set to 'third_party' 17:01:06 hi 17:01:08 o/ 17:01:21 hi asselin krtaylor 17:01:21 waves 17:01:38 and ja3 17:02:00 hello 17:02:52 I've added one topic to agenda today https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty 17:03:04 #topic Future of the meeting 17:03:45 asselin brought up an idea of not having this meeting, and using Monday slot instead 17:03:56 The proposal is to merge the two meetings back together? 17:04:23 which monday slot? 17:04:27 yes, I think we should reevaluate if we still need two meetings. 17:04:41 Mondays at 1500 UTC 17:05:13 ok, that would be doable for me 17:05:37 how well is it attended? would that effectively kill this working group? 17:05:44 the attendance of this meeting was going down steadily 17:06:36 probably both 17:07:02 but I have no facts to back that up 17:07:17 tbh, the meeting is not required to have a wg 17:07:24 people who do work are required :) 17:07:32 +1 17:08:11 I see the attendance of both meetings declining. I see this a result of 3rd party ci stabilization and less issues than previously. 17:08:35 exactly, and fewer teams needing to get started 17:08:47 but one item remains, the dashboard 17:08:58 * mmedvede hides 17:09:12 I propose that the current hosting be shut down 17:09:19 but that is a new topic 17:09:21 I am assigned to this item 17:09:30 * krtaylor waits until open discussion 17:09:46 ok, let's do official vote 17:10:19 I wonder if patrickeast ans wznoinsk want to participate 17:10:54 asselin, are you running the Monday meetings? 17:11:16 krtaylor, anteaya is still running them AFAIK. 17:11:27 ok, cool 17:11:52 just wanted to make sure there was a meeting there to catch this one :) 17:13:30 yes, the idea is to reduce to 1, not 0 :) 17:13:52 #startvote Have only one third party meeting on Mondays 15:00 UTC 17:13:53 Unable to parse vote topic and options. 17:13:58 hehe 17:13:59 and also free up calendar meeting space for other teams that are looking for a timeslot 17:14:13 #startvote "Have only one third party meeting on Mondays 15:00 UTC" 17:14:14 Unable to parse vote topic and options. 17:14:57 ok, lets vote without the meetbot 17:15:01 mmedvede, don't feel bad, I always have trouble with the vote syntax :-P 17:15:02 +1 from me 17:15:06 +1 17:15:19 +1 17:15:38 +1 17:16:46 it is decided, we would free up this slot, and move to Mondays 15:00 UTC 17:17:32 do we need a ML announcement? 17:18:02 +1 17:18:33 I assume this means that today is the final meeting in this slot. I haven't been to the Monday mtg, is that also bi-weekly? we probably want to be concrete in the announcement when the first meeting date in the new slot is. as well as the channel. 17:19:25 ja3, it's a weekly meeting. That's the 'original' one that's been around for a very long time. 17:19:36 ja3: the monday meeting is weekly, it was more of an "office hours" got get questions answered for new CI operators 17:20:10 well that at least makes the "first meeting date in new location" unambiguous 17:20:35 #link third party meeting wiki page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ThirdParty 17:21:52 the confusing part is weekly vs biweekly 17:23:10 I'll work on the announcement and patch to free up the slot 17:23:20 meh, worst that happens is you miss every other one until your brain stretches to fit the new info. 17:24:27 #topic Open Discussion 17:25:36 anything to discuss here? 17:25:45 * asselin pokes krtaylor 17:25:52 oops 17:26:05 yeah, so we should get the current hosting stopped 17:26:15 that will sour the mils so-to-speak 17:26:20 milk 17:26:25 why? 17:26:33 and force an infra hosting 17:26:45 it needs to be hosted by openstack 17:26:56 it is a valuable dashboard 17:27:08 I agree that it would force it to get done. although it is a harsh way of achieving it 17:27:14 I prefer an infra hosting first and have the current hosting redirected. Maybe we can revisit what needs to be done for infra hosting? 17:27:26 that has been proposed 17:27:40 and it never gets traction 17:28:03 * krtaylor looks back at his patch log 17:28:09 yes, you always need to bump the patches, I was not doing that 17:28:22 now they probably need updating 17:29:23 everything is in merge conflict? https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:ci-dashboard+status:open,n,z 17:29:57 I found the original from 2014, but looking for the follow-on 17:30:02 asselin: that is refactor patches, not on master branch 17:30:11 asselin: we can proceed without that 17:30:13 anyway, it is old for sure 17:30:30 so then there are no open patches? 17:31:27 no 17:31:31 nevermind, i see 2 now: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack-infra/ciwatch+branch:master+topic:jenkins2zuul 17:32:22 these are not blockers 17:32:53 all the puppet changes are merged. 17:32:57 basically, what needs to happen is this: make sure puppet deployment still works, and ask infra if they have servers available to deploy there 17:33:29 I've been told it is ok to deploy code that is not "perfect" 17:33:50 code? perfect? :) 17:33:55 ok, I will propose some system-config patches to get it deployed in infra. 17:34:30 perfect for me is when the rate of "what the hell does this mean" while you read code is below 1 a minute 17:35:52 this is not a critical service. We should try to get what we have deployed and iterate from there. The current dashboard is working fine. 17:36:13 +1 17:36:36 no objections 17:37:02 +1 17:38:09 any other topics to discuss? 17:38:49 Maybe we can discuss the puppet-jenkins patches. There's quite a few and getting stuck 17:38:57 sure 17:39:12 I updated one yesterday: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/366803/ 17:39:13 #topic Jenkins Security-170 17:39:41 per clarkb's comments to use puppet archive. 17:40:16 this is -1, and disabling security isn't great idea anyway: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/334400/ 17:40:56 seems like this is the best choice for customizing security: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/262787/ 17:41:05 +1 on this ^ 17:41:58 but we probably need to ask for reviews in infra 17:43:39 so 2 patches + update the puppet-openstackci to allow those 2 to be used: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/367232/ 17:46:07 infra doesn't use jenkins anymore. Maybe they would let new core members join? 17:46:42 puppet-jenkins-core 17:48:00 that is a reasonable idea 17:48:29 because infra is not consuming it any longer, they have less incentive to review it 17:49:14 asselin: so is this a topic for infra team meeting? 17:49:45 we could ask there or in channel. I cannot attend today. 17:51:13 +1 17:51:29 mmedvede: asselin ya I had suggested that at one point, I am in favor 17:52:37 clarkb: should we bring it up during infra meeting? 17:53:24 or just ping fungi about it as ptl 17:53:53 got it, thanks clarkb 17:56:14 anything else? 17:57:07 not from me 17:57:11 hi sayalilunkad, just noticed you joined 17:57:15 indeed 17:57:40 nuttin honey 17:57:52 i doubt there's any need for an infra meeting topic there 17:58:30 i was actually just looking at that change since i saw the gerrit notification for asselin's last comment 17:59:01 fungi: so should we look for people to add to the puppet-jenkins-core? 17:59:22 if we do, need to discuss that 17:59:42 meeting time is up. move to #openstack-infra? 17:59:44 yeah, if you have reviewers you want to nominate, give me a heads up 17:59:44 ok, it is time 17:59:48 yes 17:59:51 thanks everyone 17:59:56 #endmeeting