From thierry at openstack.org Mon Sep 1 13:00:47 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:00:47 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 2nd, 20:00 UTC Message-ID: <54046DFF.4040302@openstack.org> Hello everyone, We'll have a TC meeting tomorrow Tuesday at 20:00 UTC, with the following agenda: * Final selection of our User Committee nominee. Confirmed candidates: * Andrew Mitry * Beth Cohen * Chet Burgess * Jacob Walcik * Jonathan Proulx * Graduation review: Zaqar (ex-Marconi) (part 1) * Other governance changes * Propose guidelines for adopting new official projects [1] * Add reference to neutronincubator project [2] * Add a Mission Statement for Orchestration (Heat) [3] * Add oslo.log to the Oslo program [4] * The Oslo program is adopting pylockfile [5] * Add oslo.concurrency to the Oslo program [6] * Open discussion [1] https://review.openstack.org/116727 [2] https://review.openstack.org/117000 [3] https://review.openstack.org/116703 [4] https://review.openstack.org/116994 [5] https://review.openstack.org/117622 [6] https://review.openstack.org/117345 Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From joe.gordon0 at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 15:29:44 2014 From: joe.gordon0 at gmail.com (Joe Gordon) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:29:44 -0700 Subject: [openstack-tc] Kilo Cycle Goals Exercise Message-ID: TC, As you all know, there has recently been several very active discussions around how to improve assorted aspects of our development process. One idea that was brought up is to come up with a list of cycle goals/project priorities for Kilo [0]. I imagine this working by having the TC come up with the list of cycle goals and facilitating work towards those goals. To that end I think an interesting exercise would be: have each TC member come up with a list of what they think the Kilo cycle goals should be then compare and discuss the individual lists. As the TC consists of a wide range of community members, I hope this exercise would capture a wide range of opinions and would help get the ball rolling on a larger discussion where as a project we should be focusing more time. best, Joe Gordon [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/041929.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thierry at openstack.org Thu Sep 4 07:32:45 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:32:45 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] User committee nominee Message-ID: <5408159D.2040504@openstack.org> I stopped the poll this morning, and our user committee nominee is Jonathan Proulx: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_6af25893a15ee6ad Given the number of interested people, I'll reach out to the User Committee and ask them if they would like to extend the size of their membership, suggesting the other volunteers as good candidates. Regards, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From anteaya at anteaya.info Thu Sep 4 18:18:22 2014 From: anteaya at anteaya.info (Anita Kuno) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:18:22 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Concern about potential divisive nature of tc election call for questions Message-ID: <5408ACEE.2060809@anteaya.info> On June 3, 2014, I participated in the tc meeting and presented a report of the current status of election participation[0]. One of the items for discussion was increasing the percentage of active technical contributors who participate in the tc election. Several suggestions arose, some of which were acted upon, including posting blog entries to the openstack.org namespace to inform the electorate of tc activities[1]. Thanks to Anne, Russell and Thierry for composing and posting their blog entries. Thierry also blogged his analysis of the April election[2]. I have a concern to which I would like to draw your attention and hopefully get your feedback and guidance. At the same June 3 meeting an agreement was reached, Action Item #4 in [0], "election officials to call for questions at the same time they call for self-nominations, and curate a list of questions candidates will answer". I'm going to have to take liberties with the timing of that in order for Tristan and I to have time to curate and post questions for the candidates to have time to compose answers but the spirit is plain, to open a call for questions for tc candidates. Here is my concern, this potentially has the outcome of being divisive. Now at the time the idea was suggested and I did agree with the spirit of it (to better inform the electorate of the purpose of the tc as well as introduce them to candidates they may not know) I felt that the elements that bring us together were strong enough to weather a bit of divisiveness for the sake of trying a new direction to get our participation percentage up. Now I hesitate. Lately I have been more aware of those elements that separate us or try to draw us apart moreso than those qualities I have felt for so long in that they bring us together. My concern is that this well intended exercise may have negative consequences and I wanted to share my perspective with you prior to taking action. If I am to open a call for questions I would have to do it tomorrow, Friday Sept. 5, in order to have the questions open for a week and then give Tristan and myself a week to curate a list and have them posted with 2 weeks prior to the tc nomination period. A draft timetable (without specific timestamps, just days) follows: Sept. 5 - 11 - call for questions Sept. 12 - 18 - election officials curate submitted questions Sept. 19 - 25 (Friday-Thursday) PTL Nominations Open - questions for TC candidates posted Sept. 19 Sept. 26 - Oct. 2 (Friday - Thursday) PTL Election Oct. 3 - 9 (Friday - Thursday) TC Nominations Open - TC candidate questions due end of day Oct. 9 Oct. 10 - 16 (Friday - Thursday) TC Election - TC candidate question responses posted Oct. 10 This doesn't leave a lot of time for discussion and direction and I am sorry for that, I had hoped I would feel a clear direction on this without having to bother everyone during feature freeze week and I just don't. There is something else to consider. Joe has recently posted a thread[3] to solicit ideas (tc members are identified, but candidates I think would be welcome too) to identify areas where we agree. Personally I think this is a direction which has a greater chance of being a collaborative discussion and display of co-operation which I think the community needs, as opposed to something that could feel divisive. The email identifies September 10 as the cutoff for ideas, followed by discussion, which I really think is an exercise that deserves focus. It is possible that the objective for which the tc candidate questions were designed to achieve, greater awareness of the role of the tc and participation in the tc election, could be achieved by Joe's initiative. I welcome your thoughts. Thank you, Anita. References: [0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-06-03-20.03.html [1] http://www.openstack.org/blog/category/governance/ [2] http://fnords.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/analysis-of-april-2014-tc-election/ [3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/044766.html From thierry at openstack.org Fri Sep 5 08:42:15 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:42:15 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] Concern about potential divisive nature of tc election call for questions In-Reply-To: <5408ACEE.2060809@anteaya.info> References: <5408ACEE.2060809@anteaya.info> Message-ID: <54097767.6070902@openstack.org> Anita Kuno wrote: > Here is my concern, this potentially has the outcome of being divisive. > Now at the time the idea was suggested and I did agree with the spirit > of it (to better inform the electorate of the purpose of the tc as well > as introduce them to candidates they may not know) I felt that the > elements that bring us together were strong enough to weather a bit of > divisiveness for the sake of trying a new direction to get our > participation percentage up. Now I hesitate. Lately I have been more > aware of those elements that separate us or try to draw us apart moreso > than those qualities I have felt for so long in that they bring us > together. My concern is that this well intended exercise may have > negative consequences and I wanted to share my perspective with you > prior to taking action. Here is my thoughts on it: the TC members going for election will post a platform anyway, explaining why people should elect them. So divisive questions might emerge anyway. Having a set of "open questions" like "what are the three most important challenge OpenStack has to face within the Kilo cycle" limits the potential for division, it just structures what the candidates include in their nomination email. I think you and Tristan could come up with a short set of such open questions yourselves, but if you feel more comfortable asking for community input (making it clear that you're after open questions to build a template for candidates self-nomination emails), then you should pursue that. > If I am to open a call for questions I would have to do it tomorrow, > Friday Sept. 5, in order to have the questions open for a week and then > give Tristan and myself a week to curate a list and have them posted > with 2 weeks prior to the tc nomination period. A draft timetable > (without specific timestamps, just days) follows: > Sept. 5 - 11 - call for questions > Sept. 12 - 18 - election officials curate submitted questions > Sept. 19 - 25 (Friday-Thursday) PTL Nominations Open - questions for TC > candidates posted Sept. 19 > Sept. 26 - Oct. 2 (Friday - Thursday) PTL Election > Oct. 3 - 9 (Friday - Thursday) TC Nominations Open - TC candidate > questions due end of day Oct. 9 > Oct. 10 - 16 (Friday - Thursday) TC Election - TC candidate question > responses posted Oct. 10 > This doesn't leave a lot of time for discussion and direction and I am > sorry for that, I had hoped I would feel a clear direction on this > without having to bother everyone during feature freeze week and I just > don't. Looking at the timing (and Joe's recent call for Kilo challenges), I think if you ask for open questions the whole schedule can be pushed back one week. Sept. 5 - 11 - Joe gets feedback from his "challenges" question Sept. 12 - 18 - Ask for open questions for the TC template Sept. 19 - 25 - PTL Nominations Open - election officials curate submitted questions Sept. 26 - Oct. 2 (Friday - Thursday) PTL Election, questions for TC candidates posted Oct. 3 - 9 (Friday - Thursday) TC Nominations Open - TC candidate questions due end of day Oct. 9 Oct. 10 - 16 (Friday - Thursday) TC Election - TC candidate question responses posted Oct. 10 That still leaves on week for question curation and two weeks for the TC candidates to compose their responses, which sounds plenty enough. Your questions can also benefit from Joe questions answers. Regards, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From mikal at stillhq.com Fri Sep 5 23:09:31 2014 From: mikal at stillhq.com (Michael Still) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 09:09:31 +1000 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections Message-ID: Hi. I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, feel free to cc others. I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at least see a discussion on if it should. This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history from the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like to see those authors get ATC. Does anyone object to this? How do I make it happen? Michael -- Rackspace Australia From rbryant at redhat.com Fri Sep 5 23:44:26 2014 From: rbryant at redhat.com (Russell Bryant) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 19:44:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> > On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: > > Hi. > > I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and > I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, > feel free to cc others. > > I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at > least see a discussion on if it should. > > This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the > process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the > contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history from > the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like to > see those authors get ATC. I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. -- Russell Bryant From mikal at stillhq.com Sat Sep 6 03:38:54 2014 From: mikal at stillhq.com (Michael Still) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 13:38:54 +1000 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> Message-ID: If I knew when you were going to generate the list of voting ATCs, I would be happy to propose a review against extra-atcs which lists all the co-authored-bys for nova before then. It would require a TC review, but we're actually pretty fast at those for mechanical things. Michael On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 09/05/2014 07:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and >>> I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, >>> feel free to cc others. >>> >>> I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at >>> least see a discussion on if it should. >>> >>> This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the >>> process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the >>> contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history from >>> the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like to >>> see those authors get ATC. >> >> I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. >> > Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the script > that he uses to create the electoral roll: > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py > This script generates the list of emails I need to use for the poll to > add the emails of the electorate. > > So one option is to offer a patch to extend that script to include > co-authored by if we can find a gerrit query that will give results for > Co-Authored. (I'm working on it and have come up empty thus far: > https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html) If we did > this we should probably also ensure a governance resolution is merged > prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC identifying that the definition of > "members who committed a change to a repository" as outlined in the > charter is expanded to include co-authored by, just to dot all the i's > and cross all the t's. > > Another option is to submit a list of names of contributors that have > status by way of co-authored-by but not by owner of a commit as > extra-atc contributors. > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs > There is already a mechanism to include names in this file, both by > governance decision and the above script. This would require the list of > names to be compiled by nova, submitted to the tc and merged to the > extra-atc file prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC. There is time for > this to happen. > > My input is based on finding options to make the technical/governance > side of this work. I have no opinion on whether this should be > undertaken as that decision is up to the tc. > > Thanks, > Anita. -- Rackspace Australia From doug at doughellmann.com Sat Sep 6 04:46:30 2014 From: doug at doughellmann.com (Doug Hellmann) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 00:46:30 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> Message-ID: <1F3928F2-5FE9-4B63-8EBE-BA579EE96AC6@doughellmann.com> Would it make sense to count commits to the original repo as contributions under both nova and ironic instead of making a separate list? Doug > On Sep 5, 2014, at 11:38 PM, Michael Still wrote: > > If I knew when you were going to generate the list of voting ATCs, I > would be happy to propose a review against extra-atcs which lists all > the co-authored-bys for nova before then. It would require a TC > review, but we're actually pretty fast at those for mechanical things. > > Michael > >> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: >>> On 09/05/2014 07:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and >>>> I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, >>>> feel free to cc others. >>>> >>>> I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at >>>> least see a discussion on if it should. >>>> >>>> This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the >>>> process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the >>>> contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history from >>>> the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like to >>>> see those authors get ATC. >>> >>> I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. >> Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the script >> that he uses to create the electoral roll: >> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py >> This script generates the list of emails I need to use for the poll to >> add the emails of the electorate. >> >> So one option is to offer a patch to extend that script to include >> co-authored by if we can find a gerrit query that will give results for >> Co-Authored. (I'm working on it and have come up empty thus far: >> https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html) If we did >> this we should probably also ensure a governance resolution is merged >> prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC identifying that the definition of >> "members who committed a change to a repository" as outlined in the >> charter is expanded to include co-authored by, just to dot all the i's >> and cross all the t's. >> >> Another option is to submit a list of names of contributors that have >> status by way of co-authored-by but not by owner of a commit as >> extra-atc contributors. >> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs >> There is already a mechanism to include names in this file, both by >> governance decision and the above script. This would require the list of >> names to be compiled by nova, submitted to the tc and merged to the >> extra-atc file prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC. There is time for >> this to happen. >> >> My input is based on finding options to make the technical/governance >> side of this work. I have no opinion on whether this should be >> undertaken as that decision is up to the tc. >> >> Thanks, >> Anita. > > > > -- > Rackspace Australia > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc From mikal at stillhq.com Sat Sep 6 06:35:00 2014 From: mikal at stillhq.com (Michael Still) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 16:35:00 +1000 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: <1F3928F2-5FE9-4B63-8EBE-BA579EE96AC6@doughellmann.com> References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> <1F3928F2-5FE9-4B63-8EBE-BA579EE96AC6@doughellmann.com> Message-ID: Well, we were only counting commits to the nova _driver_, not to ironic over all. Michael On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Would it make sense to count commits to the original repo as contributions under both nova and ironic instead of making a separate list? > > Doug > >> On Sep 5, 2014, at 11:38 PM, Michael Still wrote: >> >> If I knew when you were going to generate the list of voting ATCs, I >> would be happy to propose a review against extra-atcs which lists all >> the co-authored-bys for nova before then. It would require a TC >> review, but we're actually pretty fast at those for mechanical things. >> >> Michael >> >>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: >>>> On 09/05/2014 07:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>>> I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and >>>>> I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, >>>>> feel free to cc others. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at >>>>> least see a discussion on if it should. >>>>> >>>>> This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the >>>>> process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the >>>>> contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history from >>>>> the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like to >>>>> see those authors get ATC. >>>> >>>> I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. >>> Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the script >>> that he uses to create the electoral roll: >>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py >>> This script generates the list of emails I need to use for the poll to >>> add the emails of the electorate. >>> >>> So one option is to offer a patch to extend that script to include >>> co-authored by if we can find a gerrit query that will give results for >>> Co-Authored. (I'm working on it and have come up empty thus far: >>> https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html) If we did >>> this we should probably also ensure a governance resolution is merged >>> prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC identifying that the definition of >>> "members who committed a change to a repository" as outlined in the >>> charter is expanded to include co-authored by, just to dot all the i's >>> and cross all the t's. >>> >>> Another option is to submit a list of names of contributors that have >>> status by way of co-authored-by but not by owner of a commit as >>> extra-atc contributors. >>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs >>> There is already a mechanism to include names in this file, both by >>> governance decision and the above script. This would require the list of >>> names to be compiled by nova, submitted to the tc and merged to the >>> extra-atc file prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC. There is time for >>> this to happen. >>> >>> My input is based on finding options to make the technical/governance >>> side of this work. I have no opinion on whether this should be >>> undertaken as that decision is up to the tc. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Anita. >> >> >> >> -- >> Rackspace Australia >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-TC mailing list >> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc -- Rackspace Australia From doug at doughellmann.com Sat Sep 6 11:28:22 2014 From: doug at doughellmann.com (Doug Hellmann) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 07:28:22 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> <1F3928F2-5FE9-4B63-8EBE-BA579EE96AC6@doughellmann.com> Message-ID: Ah, I didn't realize it was in the ironic repo. Doug > On Sep 6, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Michael Still wrote: > > Well, we were only counting commits to the nova _driver_, not to > ironic over all. > > Michael > >> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> Would it make sense to count commits to the original repo as contributions under both nova and ironic instead of making a separate list? >> >> Doug >> >>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 11:38 PM, Michael Still wrote: >>> >>> If I knew when you were going to generate the list of voting ATCs, I >>> would be happy to propose a review against extra-atcs which lists all >>> the co-authored-bys for nova before then. It would require a TC >>> review, but we're actually pretty fast at those for mechanical things. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>>>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: >>>>> On 09/05/2014 07:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi. >>>>>> >>>>>> I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and >>>>>> I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, >>>>>> feel free to cc others. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at >>>>>> least see a discussion on if it should. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the >>>>>> process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the >>>>>> contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history from >>>>>> the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like to >>>>>> see those authors get ATC. >>>>> >>>>> I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. >>>> Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the script >>>> that he uses to create the electoral roll: >>>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py >>>> This script generates the list of emails I need to use for the poll to >>>> add the emails of the electorate. >>>> >>>> So one option is to offer a patch to extend that script to include >>>> co-authored by if we can find a gerrit query that will give results for >>>> Co-Authored. (I'm working on it and have come up empty thus far: >>>> https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html) If we did >>>> this we should probably also ensure a governance resolution is merged >>>> prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC identifying that the definition of >>>> "members who committed a change to a repository" as outlined in the >>>> charter is expanded to include co-authored by, just to dot all the i's >>>> and cross all the t's. >>>> >>>> Another option is to submit a list of names of contributors that have >>>> status by way of co-authored-by but not by owner of a commit as >>>> extra-atc contributors. >>>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs >>>> There is already a mechanism to include names in this file, both by >>>> governance decision and the above script. This would require the list of >>>> names to be compiled by nova, submitted to the tc and merged to the >>>> extra-atc file prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC. There is time for >>>> this to happen. >>>> >>>> My input is based on finding options to make the technical/governance >>>> side of this work. I have no opinion on whether this should be >>>> undertaken as that decision is up to the tc. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Anita. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Rackspace Australia >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-TC mailing list >>> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > > > > -- > Rackspace Australia From anteaya at anteaya.info Fri Sep 5 19:25:33 2014 From: anteaya at anteaya.info (Anita Kuno) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:25:33 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Concern about potential divisive nature of tc election call for questions In-Reply-To: <54097767.6070902@openstack.org> References: <5408ACEE.2060809@anteaya.info> <54097767.6070902@openstack.org> Message-ID: <540A0E2D.9030603@anteaya.info> On 09/05/2014 04:42 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Anita Kuno wrote: >> Here is my concern, this potentially has the outcome of being divisive. >> Now at the time the idea was suggested and I did agree with the spirit >> of it (to better inform the electorate of the purpose of the tc as well >> as introduce them to candidates they may not know) I felt that the >> elements that bring us together were strong enough to weather a bit of >> divisiveness for the sake of trying a new direction to get our >> participation percentage up. Now I hesitate. Lately I have been more >> aware of those elements that separate us or try to draw us apart moreso >> than those qualities I have felt for so long in that they bring us >> together. My concern is that this well intended exercise may have >> negative consequences and I wanted to share my perspective with you >> prior to taking action. > > Here is my thoughts on it: the TC members going for election will post a > platform anyway, explaining why people should elect them. So divisive > questions might emerge anyway. Having a set of "open questions" like > "what are the three most important challenge OpenStack has to face > within the Kilo cycle" limits the potential for division, it just > structures what the candidates include in their nomination email. > > I think you and Tristan could come up with a short set of such open > questions yourselves, but if you feel more comfortable asking for > community input (making it clear that you're after open questions to > build a template for candidates self-nomination emails), then you should > pursue that. > >> If I am to open a call for questions I would have to do it tomorrow, >> Friday Sept. 5, in order to have the questions open for a week and then >> give Tristan and myself a week to curate a list and have them posted >> with 2 weeks prior to the tc nomination period. A draft timetable >> (without specific timestamps, just days) follows: >> Sept. 5 - 11 - call for questions >> Sept. 12 - 18 - election officials curate submitted questions >> Sept. 19 - 25 (Friday-Thursday) PTL Nominations Open - questions for TC >> candidates posted Sept. 19 >> Sept. 26 - Oct. 2 (Friday - Thursday) PTL Election >> Oct. 3 - 9 (Friday - Thursday) TC Nominations Open - TC candidate >> questions due end of day Oct. 9 >> Oct. 10 - 16 (Friday - Thursday) TC Election - TC candidate question >> responses posted Oct. 10 >> This doesn't leave a lot of time for discussion and direction and I am >> sorry for that, I had hoped I would feel a clear direction on this >> without having to bother everyone during feature freeze week and I just >> don't. > > Looking at the timing (and Joe's recent call for Kilo challenges), I > think if you ask for open questions the whole schedule can be pushed > back one week. > > Sept. 5 - 11 - Joe gets feedback from his "challenges" question > Sept. 12 - 18 - Ask for open questions for the TC template > Sept. 19 - 25 - PTL Nominations Open - election officials curate > submitted questions > Sept. 26 - Oct. 2 (Friday - Thursday) PTL Election, questions for TC > candidates posted > Oct. 3 - 9 (Friday - Thursday) TC Nominations Open - TC candidate > questions due end of day Oct. 9 > Oct. 10 - 16 (Friday - Thursday) TC Election - TC candidate question > responses posted Oct. 10 > > That still leaves on week for question curation and two weeks for the TC > candidates to compose their responses, which sounds plenty enough. Your > questions can also benefit from Joe questions answers. > > Regards, > Thanks Thierry, I appreciate your thoughts. I have posted the timeline for elections: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/045201.html folks were asking. I mentioned that a question template would be posted, in the tc candidate wikipage: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TC_Elections_October_2014#Candidates I gave no details as to how the question template would be composed so thoughts are still welcome here, if others care to share. Thanks, if others have ideas I am still open to them. Thanks, Anita. From anteaya at anteaya.info Sat Sep 6 02:03:53 2014 From: anteaya at anteaya.info (Anita Kuno) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 22:03:53 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> Message-ID: <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> On 09/05/2014 07:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > >> On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and >> I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, >> feel free to cc others. >> >> I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at >> least see a discussion on if it should. >> >> This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the >> process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the >> contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history from >> the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like to >> see those authors get ATC. > > I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. > Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the script that he uses to create the electoral roll: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py This script generates the list of emails I need to use for the poll to add the emails of the electorate. So one option is to offer a patch to extend that script to include co-authored by if we can find a gerrit query that will give results for Co-Authored. (I'm working on it and have come up empty thus far: https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html) If we did this we should probably also ensure a governance resolution is merged prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC identifying that the definition of "members who committed a change to a repository" as outlined in the charter is expanded to include co-authored by, just to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. Another option is to submit a list of names of contributors that have status by way of co-authored-by but not by owner of a commit as extra-atc contributors. http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs There is already a mechanism to include names in this file, both by governance decision and the above script. This would require the list of names to be compiled by nova, submitted to the tc and merged to the extra-atc file prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC. There is time for this to happen. My input is based on finding options to make the technical/governance side of this work. I have no opinion on whether this should be undertaken as that decision is up to the tc. Thanks, Anita. From anteaya at anteaya.info Sun Sep 7 00:28:01 2014 From: anteaya at anteaya.info (Anita Kuno) Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 20:28:01 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> Message-ID: <540BA691.8020004@anteaya.info> On 09/05/2014 11:38 PM, Michael Still wrote: > If I knew when you were going to generate the list of voting ATCs, I > would be happy to propose a review against extra-atcs which lists all > the co-authored-bys for nova before then. It would require a TC > review, but we're actually pretty fast at those for mechanical things. > > Michael This seems to be the easiest/fastest way to accomplish your goal. The electoral rolls will be generated after September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC, so please have any and all changes merged to the extra-atcs file prior to that date/time to ensure those names are included in the intended projects for the ptl and tc electoral rolls. (The cut off date for eligibility is the same for both elections.) Thanks, let me know if there are any other questions/details I can help with, Anita. > > On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: >> On 09/05/2014 07:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and >>>> I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, >>>> feel free to cc others. >>>> >>>> I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at >>>> least see a discussion on if it should. >>>> >>>> This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the >>>> process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the >>>> contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history from >>>> the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like to >>>> see those authors get ATC. >>> >>> I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. >>> >> Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the script >> that he uses to create the electoral roll: >> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py >> This script generates the list of emails I need to use for the poll to >> add the emails of the electorate. >> >> So one option is to offer a patch to extend that script to include >> co-authored by if we can find a gerrit query that will give results for >> Co-Authored. (I'm working on it and have come up empty thus far: >> https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html) If we did >> this we should probably also ensure a governance resolution is merged >> prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC identifying that the definition of >> "members who committed a change to a repository" as outlined in the >> charter is expanded to include co-authored by, just to dot all the i's >> and cross all the t's. >> >> Another option is to submit a list of names of contributors that have >> status by way of co-authored-by but not by owner of a commit as >> extra-atc contributors. >> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs >> There is already a mechanism to include names in this file, both by >> governance decision and the above script. This would require the list of >> names to be compiled by nova, submitted to the tc and merged to the >> extra-atc file prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC. There is time for >> this to happen. >> >> My input is based on finding options to make the technical/governance >> side of this work. I have no opinion on whether this should be >> undertaken as that decision is up to the tc. >> >> Thanks, >> Anita. > > > From mikal at stillhq.com Sun Sep 7 23:38:21 2014 From: mikal at stillhq.com (Michael Still) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:38:21 +1000 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: <540BA691.8020004@anteaya.info> References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> <540BA691.8020004@anteaya.info> Message-ID: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119666/ is the first pass, I'll do a catch up closer to the election if its required. Michael On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 09/05/2014 11:38 PM, Michael Still wrote: >> If I knew when you were going to generate the list of voting ATCs, I >> would be happy to propose a review against extra-atcs which lists all >> the co-authored-bys for nova before then. It would require a TC >> review, but we're actually pretty fast at those for mechanical things. >> >> Michael > This seems to be the easiest/fastest way to accomplish your goal. > > The electoral rolls will be generated after September 26, 2014 05:59 > UTC, so please have any and all changes merged to the extra-atcs file > prior to that date/time to ensure those names are included in the > intended projects for the ptl and tc electoral rolls. (The cut off date > for eligibility is the same for both elections.) > > Thanks, let me know if there are any other questions/details I can help > with, > Anita. >> >> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: >>> On 09/05/2014 07:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>>> I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and >>>>> I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, >>>>> feel free to cc others. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at >>>>> least see a discussion on if it should. >>>>> >>>>> This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the >>>>> process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the >>>>> contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history from >>>>> the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like to >>>>> see those authors get ATC. >>>> >>>> I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. >>>> >>> Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the script >>> that he uses to create the electoral roll: >>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py >>> This script generates the list of emails I need to use for the poll to >>> add the emails of the electorate. >>> >>> So one option is to offer a patch to extend that script to include >>> co-authored by if we can find a gerrit query that will give results for >>> Co-Authored. (I'm working on it and have come up empty thus far: >>> https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html) If we did >>> this we should probably also ensure a governance resolution is merged >>> prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC identifying that the definition of >>> "members who committed a change to a repository" as outlined in the >>> charter is expanded to include co-authored by, just to dot all the i's >>> and cross all the t's. >>> >>> Another option is to submit a list of names of contributors that have >>> status by way of co-authored-by but not by owner of a commit as >>> extra-atc contributors. >>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs >>> There is already a mechanism to include names in this file, both by >>> governance decision and the above script. This would require the list of >>> names to be compiled by nova, submitted to the tc and merged to the >>> extra-atc file prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC. There is time for >>> this to happen. >>> >>> My input is based on finding options to make the technical/governance >>> side of this work. I have no opinion on whether this should be >>> undertaken as that decision is up to the tc. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Anita. >> >> >> > -- Rackspace Australia From mikal at stillhq.com Mon Sep 8 02:21:38 2014 From: mikal at stillhq.com (Michael Still) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:21:38 +1000 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> <540BA691.8020004@anteaya.info> Message-ID: That's what I did. The script is at: https://github.com/rcbau/hacks/blob/master/tools/extra-atcs.py Michael On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: > If we are using Co-Authored-By tags why not add something to automatically > look for them in the git logs, I have a hunch other projects will have > similar cases? > > git log --grep=Co-Authored-By --since=6.months | grep "Co-Authored-By" | > sort | uniq > > Gives a quick and dirty list that can be compared to the regular author > list. > > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Michael Still wrote: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119666/ is the first pass, I'll do a >> catch up closer to the election if its required. >> >> Michael >> >> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: >> > On 09/05/2014 11:38 PM, Michael Still wrote: >> >> If I knew when you were going to generate the list of voting ATCs, I >> >> would be happy to propose a review against extra-atcs which lists all >> >> the co-authored-bys for nova before then. It would require a TC >> >> review, but we're actually pretty fast at those for mechanical things. >> >> >> >> Michael >> > This seems to be the easiest/fastest way to accomplish your goal. >> > >> > The electoral rolls will be generated after September 26, 2014 05:59 >> > UTC, so please have any and all changes merged to the extra-atcs file >> > prior to that date/time to ensure those names are included in the >> > intended projects for the ptl and tc electoral rolls. (The cut off date >> > for eligibility is the same for both elections.) >> > >> > Thanks, let me know if there are any other questions/details I can help >> > with, >> > Anita. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Anita Kuno >> >> wrote: >> >>> On 09/05/2014 07:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, >> >>>>> and >> >>>>> I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, >> >>>>> feel free to cc others. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at >> >>>>> least see a discussion on if it should. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the >> >>>>> process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the >> >>>>> contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history >> >>>>> from >> >>>>> the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like >> >>>>> to >> >>>>> see those authors get ATC. >> >>>> >> >>>> I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. >> >>>> >> >>> Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the script >> >>> that he uses to create the electoral roll: >> >>> >> >>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py >> >>> This script generates the list of emails I need to use for the poll to >> >>> add the emails of the electorate. >> >>> >> >>> So one option is to offer a patch to extend that script to include >> >>> co-authored by if we can find a gerrit query that will give results >> >>> for >> >>> Co-Authored. (I'm working on it and have come up empty thus far: >> >>> https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html) If we did >> >>> this we should probably also ensure a governance resolution is merged >> >>> prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC identifying that the definition >> >>> of >> >>> "members who committed a change to a repository" as outlined in the >> >>> charter is expanded to include co-authored by, just to dot all the i's >> >>> and cross all the t's. >> >>> >> >>> Another option is to submit a list of names of contributors that have >> >>> status by way of co-authored-by but not by owner of a commit as >> >>> extra-atc contributors. >> >>> >> >>> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs >> >>> There is already a mechanism to include names in this file, both by >> >>> governance decision and the above script. This would require the list >> >>> of >> >>> names to be compiled by nova, submitted to the tc and merged to the >> >>> extra-atc file prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC. There is time >> >>> for >> >>> this to happen. >> >>> >> >>> My input is based on finding options to make the technical/governance >> >>> side of this work. I have no opinion on whether this should be >> >>> undertaken as that decision is up to the tc. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Anita. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Rackspace Australia >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-TC mailing list >> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > > -- Rackspace Australia From joe.gordon0 at gmail.com Mon Sep 8 01:40:51 2014 From: joe.gordon0 at gmail.com (Joe Gordon) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 18:40:51 -0700 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> <540BA691.8020004@anteaya.info> Message-ID: If we are using Co-Authored-By tags why not add something to automatically look for them in the git logs, I have a hunch other projects will have similar cases? git log --grep=Co-Authored-By --since=6.months | grep "Co-Authored-By" | sort | uniq Gives a quick and dirty list that can be compared to the regular author list. On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Michael Still wrote: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/119666/ is the first pass, I'll do a > catch up closer to the election if its required. > > Michael > > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: > > On 09/05/2014 11:38 PM, Michael Still wrote: > >> If I knew when you were going to generate the list of voting ATCs, I > >> would be happy to propose a review against extra-atcs which lists all > >> the co-authored-bys for nova before then. It would require a TC > >> review, but we're actually pretty fast at those for mechanical things. > >> > >> Michael > > This seems to be the easiest/fastest way to accomplish your goal. > > > > The electoral rolls will be generated after September 26, 2014 05:59 > > UTC, so please have any and all changes merged to the extra-atcs file > > prior to that date/time to ensure those names are included in the > > intended projects for the ptl and tc electoral rolls. (The cut off date > > for eligibility is the same for both elections.) > > > > Thanks, let me know if there are any other questions/details I can help > > with, > > Anita. > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Anita Kuno > wrote: > >>> On 09/05/2014 07:44 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi. > >>>>> > >>>>> I bring this up because Nova has a large example of this in Juno, and > >>>>> I want to make sure we handle it nicely. If this is the wrong list, > >>>>> feel free to cc others. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd like to see co-authored-by confer ATC status. Or, I'd like to at > >>>>> least see a discussion on if it should. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is of interest for me because the ironic nova driver is in the > >>>>> process of merging, and we've used co-authored-by to acknowledge the > >>>>> contributions of the various authors when we lose the git history > from > >>>>> the remote repository. It think its a nice touch, but I'd also like > to > >>>>> see those authors get ATC. > >>>> > >>>> I thought this was already the case, actually. Absolutely +1 if not. > >>>> > >>> Jeremy can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the script > >>> that he uses to create the electoral roll: > >>> > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/config/tree/tools/atc/email_stats.py > >>> This script generates the list of emails I need to use for the poll to > >>> add the emails of the electorate. > >>> > >>> So one option is to offer a patch to extend that script to include > >>> co-authored by if we can find a gerrit query that will give results for > >>> Co-Authored. (I'm working on it and have come up empty thus far: > >>> https://review.openstack.org/Documentation/user-search.html) If we did > >>> this we should probably also ensure a governance resolution is merged > >>> prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC identifying that the definition > of > >>> "members who committed a change to a repository" as outlined in the > >>> charter is expanded to include co-authored by, just to dot all the i's > >>> and cross all the t's. > >>> > >>> Another option is to submit a list of names of contributors that have > >>> status by way of co-authored-by but not by owner of a commit as > >>> extra-atc contributors. > >>> > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/extra-atcs > >>> There is already a mechanism to include names in this file, both by > >>> governance decision and the above script. This would require the list > of > >>> names to be compiled by nova, submitted to the tc and merged to the > >>> extra-atc file prior to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC. There is time for > >>> this to happen. > >>> > >>> My input is based on finding options to make the technical/governance > >>> side of this work. I have no opinion on whether this should be > >>> undertaken as that decision is up to the tc. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Anita. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Rackspace Australia > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thierry at openstack.org Mon Sep 8 13:34:04 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:34:04 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 9th, 20:00 UTC Message-ID: <540DB04C.4070509@openstack.org> Hello everyone, We'll have a busy TC meeting tomorrow Tuesday at 20:00 UTC, with the following agenda: * Graduation review: Zaqar (ex-Marconi) (final decision) [1] * Graduation review: Ironic (part 1) * Other governance changes * The Oslo program is adopting pylockfile [2] * Add a Mission Statement for Orchestration (Heat) [3] * Propose guidelines for adopting new official projects [4] * Add reference to neutronincubator project [5] * Add openstack/designate-dashboard to the DNS Services program [6] * Add Juno Nova co-authored-by authors to extra-atcs. [7] * Open discussion [1] https://review.openstack.org/118592 [2] https://review.openstack.org/117622 [3] https://review.openstack.org/116703 [4] https://review.openstack.org/116727 [5] https://review.openstack.org/117000 [6] https://review.openstack.org/119549 [7] https://review.openstack.org/119666 Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From thierry at openstack.org Mon Sep 8 13:40:39 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:40:39 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> <540BA691.8020004@anteaya.info> Message-ID: <540DB1D7.8060801@openstack.org> Michael Still wrote: > That's what I did. The script is at: > > https://github.com/rcbau/hacks/blob/master/tools/extra-atcs.py Is there a way to make sure that those people have signed the CLA ? Maybe we could map most of them to Gerrit accounts and manually investigate the others ? -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From anne at openstack.org Mon Sep 8 13:46:37 2014 From: anne at openstack.org (Anne Gentle) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:46:37 -0500 Subject: [openstack-tc] Handling co-authored-by in PTL elections In-Reply-To: <540DB1D7.8060801@openstack.org> References: <6F3572BB-FA55-413D-8D4B-30F16EF4F54C@redhat.com> <540A6B89.3090400@anteaya.info> <540BA691.8020004@anteaya.info> <540DB1D7.8060801@openstack.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Michael Still wrote: > > That's what I did. The script is at: > > > > https://github.com/rcbau/hacks/blob/master/tools/extra-atcs.py > > Is there a way to make sure that those people have signed the CLA ? > Maybe we could map most of them to Gerrit accounts and manually > investigate the others ? > For the Documentation program I just proposed https://review.openstack.org/119757. In my case, I do know each individual's reasons for not having a Gerrit patch, and these cases had not come up in previous releases. I'll follow up with each to ensure they've signed the CLA, it's a good point. Anne > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eglynn at redhat.com Mon Sep 8 14:43:00 2014 From: eglynn at redhat.com (Eoghan Glynn) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 10:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [openstack-tc] Concern about potential divisive nature of tc election call for questions In-Reply-To: <5408ACEE.2060809@anteaya.info> References: <5408ACEE.2060809@anteaya.info> Message-ID: <1742114553.2982720.1410187380379.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> > On June 3, 2014, I participated in the tc meeting and presented a report > of the current status of election participation[0]. One of the items for > discussion was increasing the percentage of active technical > contributors who participate in the tc election. Several suggestions > arose, some of which were acted upon, including posting blog entries to > the openstack.org namespace to inform the electorate of tc > activities[1]. Thanks to Anne, Russell and Thierry for composing and > posting their blog entries. Thierry also blogged his analysis of the > April election[2]. > > I have a concern to which I would like to draw your attention and > hopefully get your feedback and guidance. At the same June 3 meeting an > agreement was reached, Action Item #4 in [0], "election officials to > call for questions at the same time they call for self-nominations, and > curate a list of questions candidates will answer". I'm going to have to > take liberties with the timing of that in order for Tristan and I to > have time to curate and post questions for the candidates to have time > to compose answers but the spirit is plain, to open a call for questions > for tc candidates. > > Here is my concern, this potentially has the outcome of being divisive. > Now at the time the idea was suggested and I did agree with the spirit > of it (to better inform the electorate of the purpose of the tc as well > as introduce them to candidates they may not know) I felt that the > elements that bring us together were strong enough to weather a bit of > divisiveness for the sake of trying a new direction to get our > participation percentage up. Now I hesitate. Lately I have been more > aware of those elements that separate us or try to draw us apart moreso > than those qualities I have felt for so long in that they bring us > together. My concern is that this well intended exercise may have > negative consequences and I wanted to share my perspective with you > prior to taking action. > > If I am to open a call for questions I would have to do it tomorrow, > Friday Sept. 5, in order to have the questions open for a week and then > give Tristan and myself a week to curate a list and have them posted > with 2 weeks prior to the tc nomination period. A draft timetable > (without specific timestamps, just days) follows: > Sept. 5 - 11 - call for questions > Sept. 12 - 18 - election officials curate submitted questions > Sept. 19 - 25 (Friday-Thursday) PTL Nominations Open - questions for TC > candidates posted Sept. 19 > Sept. 26 - Oct. 2 (Friday - Thursday) PTL Election > Oct. 3 - 9 (Friday - Thursday) TC Nominations Open - TC candidate > questions due end of day Oct. 9 > Oct. 10 - 16 (Friday - Thursday) TC Election - TC candidate question > responses posted Oct. 10 > This doesn't leave a lot of time for discussion and direction and I am > sorry for that, I had hoped I would feel a clear direction on this > without having to bother everyone during feature freeze week and I just > don't. > > There is something else to consider. > > Joe has recently posted a thread[3] to solicit ideas (tc members are > identified, but candidates I think would be welcome too) to identify > areas where we agree. Personally I think this is a direction which has a > greater chance of being a collaborative discussion and display of > co-operation which I think the community needs, as opposed to something > that could feel divisive. The email identifies September 10 as the > cutoff for ideas, followed by discussion, which I really think is an > exercise that deserves focus. It is possible that the objective for > which the tc candidate questions were designed to achieve, greater > awareness of the role of the tc and participation in the tc election, > could be achieved by Joe's initiative. > > I welcome your thoughts. Thanks for raising this Anita, my initial thought would be ... Not intending to cast aspersions in any way at any existing or future officials (all of whom I'm sure have the utmost integrity). IMO the role of election official is best served if it's seen as being completely "above the fray" in terms of the campaign issues of the day. In that sense, I'd be wary of too direct an involvement by the officials in the selection/curation of questions to put to the candidates, lest this is seen to stray a bit too much into the "cut & thrust" of debate during the campaign. Just my $0.02 ... OTOH that recent ML thread from Joe doesn't explicitly seek to frame debate around the TC election either. Personally I'm not really sure an election debate needs such explicit framing with a thread weeks in advance of voting, but if it does, then that should be clearly signaled. Cheers, Eoghan > Thank you, > Anita. > > References: > [0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-06-03-20.03.html > [1] http://www.openstack.org/blog/category/governance/ > [2] > http://fnords.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/analysis-of-april-2014-tc-election/ > [3] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/044766.html > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > From thierry at openstack.org Tue Sep 9 21:45:09 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 23:45:09 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] Briefing on bylaws changes Message-ID: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> Hi TC members, Mark Radcliffe reached out to provide the same presentation on proposed bylaws changes to the Technical Committee that was presented to the Board. It would be a conference call. The proposed time is Thursday, Sept. 18 at 15:00 UTC (8am Pacific). I know it sucks for mikal, but I'm pretty sure the documents will be communicated in advance and the phone call is just package padding. Let me know if that works for most of you. Regards, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From doug at doughellmann.com Tue Sep 9 21:48:15 2014 From: doug at doughellmann.com (Doug Hellmann) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:48:15 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Briefing on bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> References: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> Message-ID: <5835661F-0D32-4CE0-BB8B-77B13A12110B@doughellmann.com> On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi TC members, > > Mark Radcliffe reached out to provide the same presentation on proposed > bylaws changes to the Technical Committee that was presented to the > Board. It would be a conference call. > > The proposed time is Thursday, Sept. 18 at 15:00 UTC (8am Pacific). I > know it sucks for mikal, but I'm pretty sure the documents will be > communicated in advance and the phone call is just package padding. Let > me know if that works for most of you. > > Regards, > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc I can make that time. It would be good if we could get a copy of the proposed changes a few days in advance to make sure we have time to read them carefully. Doug From devananda.vdv at gmail.com Tue Sep 9 22:11:05 2014 From: devananda.vdv at gmail.com (Devananda van der Veen) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 15:11:05 -0700 Subject: [openstack-tc] Briefing on bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <5835661F-0D32-4CE0-BB8B-77B13A12110B@doughellmann.com> References: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> <5835661F-0D32-4CE0-BB8B-77B13A12110B@doughellmann.com> Message-ID: Works for me. On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Hi TC members, >> >> Mark Radcliffe reached out to provide the same presentation on proposed >> bylaws changes to the Technical Committee that was presented to the >> Board. It would be a conference call. >> >> The proposed time is Thursday, Sept. 18 at 15:00 UTC (8am Pacific). I >> know it sucks for mikal, but I'm pretty sure the documents will be >> communicated in advance and the phone call is just package padding. Let >> me know if that works for most of you. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-TC mailing list >> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > > I can make that time. > > It would be good if we could get a copy of the proposed changes a few days in advance to make sure we have time to read them carefully. > > Doug > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc From mikal at stillhq.com Tue Sep 9 22:22:06 2014 From: mikal at stillhq.com (Michael Still) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:22:06 +1000 Subject: [openstack-tc] Briefing on bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> <5835661F-0D32-4CE0-BB8B-77B13A12110B@doughellmann.com> Message-ID: Nothing in PST AM will work for me, but so be it. Michael On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > Works for me. > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> >>> Hi TC members, >>> >>> Mark Radcliffe reached out to provide the same presentation on proposed >>> bylaws changes to the Technical Committee that was presented to the >>> Board. It would be a conference call. >>> >>> The proposed time is Thursday, Sept. 18 at 15:00 UTC (8am Pacific). I >>> know it sucks for mikal, but I'm pretty sure the documents will be >>> communicated in advance and the phone call is just package padding. Let >>> me know if that works for most of you. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-TC mailing list >>> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc >> >> I can make that time. >> >> It would be good if we could get a copy of the proposed changes a few days in advance to make sure we have time to read them carefully. >> >> Doug >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-TC mailing list >> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc -- Rackspace Australia From anne at openstack.org Tue Sep 9 22:29:16 2014 From: anne at openstack.org (Anne Gentle) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:29:16 -0500 Subject: [openstack-tc] Briefing on bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> References: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> Message-ID: Rats, I have a conflict but I'll try to rearrange. Anne On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi TC members, > > Mark Radcliffe reached out to provide the same presentation on proposed > bylaws changes to the Technical Committee that was presented to the > Board. It would be a conference call. > > The proposed time is Thursday, Sept. 18 at 15:00 UTC (8am Pacific). I > know it sucks for mikal, but I'm pretty sure the documents will be > communicated in advance and the phone call is just package padding. Let > me know if that works for most of you. > > Regards, > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbryant at redhat.com Tue Sep 9 22:29:46 2014 From: rbryant at redhat.com (Russell Bryant) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 18:29:46 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Briefing on bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <5835661F-0D32-4CE0-BB8B-77B13A12110B@doughellmann.com> References: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> <5835661F-0D32-4CE0-BB8B-77B13A12110B@doughellmann.com> Message-ID: <540F7F5A.7090102@redhat.com> On 09/09/2014 05:48 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Hi TC members, >> >> Mark Radcliffe reached out to provide the same presentation on proposed >> bylaws changes to the Technical Committee that was presented to the >> Board. It would be a conference call. >> >> The proposed time is Thursday, Sept. 18 at 15:00 UTC (8am Pacific). I >> know it sucks for mikal, but I'm pretty sure the documents will be >> communicated in advance and the phone call is just package padding. Let >> me know if that works for most of you. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-TC mailing list >> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > > I can make that time. Same here. I have a conflict, but I'm sure someone has a conflict for every possible time, so I'll make it work to be there. > It would be good if we could get a copy of the proposed changes a few days in advance to make sure we have time to read them carefully. Big +1 to this. -- Russell Bryant From thierry at openstack.org Wed Sep 10 14:44:19 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:44:19 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] Briefing on bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <303BE8DD-7262-40FD-B2A4-27FC74636833@mcclain.xyz> References: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> <303BE8DD-7262-40FD-B2A4-27FC74636833@mcclain.xyz> Message-ID: <541063C3.3030706@openstack.org> Mark McClain wrote: > On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Hi TC members, >> >> Mark Radcliffe reached out to provide the same presentation on proposed >> bylaws changes to the Technical Committee that was presented to the >> Board. It would be a conference call. >> >> The proposed time is Thursday, Sept. 18 at 15:00 UTC (8am Pacific). I >> know it sucks for mikal, but I'm pretty sure the documents will be >> communicated in advance and the phone call is just package padding. Let >> me know if that works for most of you. >> >> Regards, >> > > I can make it. OK, looks like we have critical mass at this proposed time, so I confirmed it. I insisted that we should get the supporting materials ASAP in order to prepare for the call, and the discussion on the proposed changes is likely to happen on the -tc ML rather than during the phone "briefing" anyway, so it's not a big deal if some of you can't make it to the call. I'll keep you posted. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From thierry at openstack.org Fri Sep 12 07:56:31 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:56:31 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] Briefing on CLA In-Reply-To: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> References: <540F74E5.50104@openstack.org> Message-ID: <5412A72F.8070606@openstack.org> Oops, I completely misunderstood the topic of the call that Mark Radcliffe wanted to set up. It's not about bylaws changes at all. It's about contribution license (CLA / DCO). Some of us already saw that presentation at the board meeting in Portland. For the others, if you are interested, join the call on Thursday, Sept. 18, 15:00 UTC (8am PST): International callers dial +1-303-248-9125 United States callers dial 1-888-472-4293 Access Code is 8332266# Sorry for the confusion, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From thierry at openstack.org Fri Sep 12 15:24:39 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:24:39 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] Briefing on CLA (presentation attached) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54131037.7080108@openstack.org> Please find attached the presentation that Mark Radcliffe will talk us through on the call next Thursday. The following email was sent with it: *From:*Radcliffe, Mark I am enclosing my presentation which provides an overview of the issues, both legal and prudential, on the proposal to move from the current process in obtaining a license to contributions (the OpenStack Foundation currently uses ?Contributor License Agreements? in a process described in Slide 5) to a Developer Certificate of Origin. I have included copies of the current CLAs. The text of the Development Certificate of Origin is set forth on slide 8. I have purposely not included a recommendation because the decision will depend on the degree of risk that the Foundation wishes to undertake. I have been asked by Jonathan to provide a neutral framework to consider this change rather than an advocacy draft (such as Mark McLoughlin?s memo). This decision will be a dialog and will depend on a consideration of both the legal issues and the ?prudential? issues. Mark McLouglin mentioned a draft ?legal framework? memo which I prepared for the Board but which has not been distributed. This delay is because I have been trying to get additional information from the Apache Software Foundation about the drafting of the ASLv2: the drafting occurred in 2002-2004 and it has been challenging to find the persons involved (one lawyer was married, changed her name and changed jobs). I agree with some of the points raised by Mark McLoughlin and disagree with others and will provide a summary of these points. The context for the decision is summarized in my introductory paragraph in the legal framework memo: /This memo will provide a framework of the legal issues and does not provide recommendations because such recommendations will be subject to consideration of prudential issues (see below). The memo also notes that the effect of these legal issues may vary dependent on the identity of the contributors (i.e. individual or corporate and Delaware or Japanese corporation). However, the decision should not be based solely on minimizing legal risks, but should include a weighing of the legal risks against the potential advantages to the community and the project (such non-legal issues will be referred to as ?prudential? issues). ?Prudential issues? could include (a) the potential to increase the number of contributors (either individual or corporate), (b) the potential to simplify the contribution process, (c) the potential to increase the risk that a contributor is not ?legally? bound by the process and may reject the agreement, (d) the potential unfairness of treating new contributors differently from existing contributors, and (e) the potential concern by existing and future community members, distributors and users of the OpenStack Project that they are taking on risk by using the OpenStack Project because the legal ?title? to the OpenStack Project is uncertain. This approach is illustrated by the OSF?s adoption of electronic signatures for the CLA: the legal risk would have been minimized by obtaining ?written signatures? for the CLA. However, the OSF has chosen to use electronic signatures for efficiency reasons (a prudential issue) even though their validity of in some countries is still uncertain/. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Contribution License Agreement.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 267045 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thierry at openstack.org Mon Sep 15 09:19:02 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:19:02 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 16th, 20:00 UTC Message-ID: <5416AF06.7070102@openstack.org> Hello everyone, Again a busy TC meeting tomorrow Tuesday at 20:00 UTC. I pushed back several items to next week, so that we cover all we need to cover before the PTL election season starts (later this week). That said, if we can't get the first 3 items covered tomorrow we may have to schedule an extra meeting... In order to avoid that as much as possible, please raise all major objections you have on Zaqar / Ironic on the relevant -dev ML threads, so that we can focus on a final decision, rather than uncovering new last-minute objections. Our agenda is the following: * Graduation review: Zaqar (ex-Marconi) (final decision) [1] * Graduation review: Ironic (final decision) [2] * Extra ATC patches * Add Juno co-authored-by authors to extra-atcs. [3] * Adds Telemetry Juno co-authors as ATCs [4] * Adds Documentation co-authors as ATCs. [5] * Project Testing interface description update * Import the Project Testing Interface description [6] * Two minor style cleanups [7] * Update testing interface to reflect reality [8] * Add a docs environment to the testing interface [9] * Other governance changes * The Oslo program is adopting pylockfile [10] * Add keystoneclient-kerberos repo to Keystone [11] * Add tempest-lib to the QA Program [12] * Add reference to neutronincubator project [13] * Open discussion [1] https://review.openstack.org/118592 [2] https://review.openstack.org/120225 [3] https://review.openstack.org/119666 [4] https://review.openstack.org/119794 [5] https://review.openstack.org/119757 [6] https://review.openstack.org/119872 [7] https://review.openstack.org/119873 [8] https://review.openstack.org/119874 [9] https://review.openstack.org/119875 [10] https://review.openstack.org/117622 [11] https://review.openstack.org/120310 [12] https://review.openstack.org/119935 [13] https://review.openstack.org/117000 Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From jaypipes at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 15:34:53 2014 From: jaypipes at gmail.com (Jay Pipes) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:34:53 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 16th, 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <5416AF06.7070102@openstack.org> References: <5416AF06.7070102@openstack.org> Message-ID: <5417071D.8040904@gmail.com> Hi Thierry, a number of us are going to be at the OpenStack Silicon Valley event [1] during the TC meeting time :( I will try to provide votes on all of the reviews below but just wanted to give you a heads up. Best, -jay [1] http://openstacksv.com/ On 09/15/2014 05:19 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Again a busy TC meeting tomorrow Tuesday at 20:00 UTC. I pushed back > several items to next week, so that we cover all we need to cover before > the PTL election season starts (later this week). > > That said, if we can't get the first 3 items covered tomorrow we may > have to schedule an extra meeting... In order to avoid that as much as > possible, please raise all major objections you have on Zaqar / Ironic > on the relevant -dev ML threads, so that we can focus on a final > decision, rather than uncovering new last-minute objections. > > Our agenda is the following: > > * Graduation review: Zaqar (ex-Marconi) (final decision) [1] > * Graduation review: Ironic (final decision) [2] > * Extra ATC patches > * Add Juno co-authored-by authors to extra-atcs. [3] > * Adds Telemetry Juno co-authors as ATCs [4] > * Adds Documentation co-authors as ATCs. [5] > * Project Testing interface description update > * Import the Project Testing Interface description [6] > * Two minor style cleanups [7] > * Update testing interface to reflect reality [8] > * Add a docs environment to the testing interface [9] > * Other governance changes > * The Oslo program is adopting pylockfile [10] > * Add keystoneclient-kerberos repo to Keystone [11] > * Add tempest-lib to the QA Program [12] > * Add reference to neutronincubator project [13] > * Open discussion > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/118592 > [2] https://review.openstack.org/120225 > [3] https://review.openstack.org/119666 > [4] https://review.openstack.org/119794 > [5] https://review.openstack.org/119757 > [6] https://review.openstack.org/119872 > [7] https://review.openstack.org/119873 > [8] https://review.openstack.org/119874 > [9] https://review.openstack.org/119875 > [10] https://review.openstack.org/117622 > [11] https://review.openstack.org/120310 > [12] https://review.openstack.org/119935 > [13] https://review.openstack.org/117000 > > Cheers, > From devananda.vdv at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 16:14:21 2014 From: devananda.vdv at gmail.com (Devananda van der Veen) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:14:21 -0700 Subject: [openstack-tc] Ironic graduation review, part two Message-ID: Hi all, In last week's meeting [0] two concerns were raised regarding Ironic's graduation readiness: * An API proxy for nova-baremetal This was discussed on the ML [1] and it has been approved and merged in Nova [2] * Missing documentation on the sideways migration to Ironic We have prepared a wiki with some guidance here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ironic/NovaBaremetalIronicMigration If this is insufficient for some reason (don't like the format? think it should be on docs.openstack.org/developer/?) please let me know, and I'll be happy to address it. Regards, Devananda [0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-09-09-20.01.log.html [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/045489.html [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120433/ ... and just for reference: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IronicGraduationDiscussion From thierry at openstack.org Mon Sep 15 16:18:46 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:18:46 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 16th, 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <5417071D.8040904@gmail.com> References: <5416AF06.7070102@openstack.org> <5417071D.8040904@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54171166.3090604@openstack.org> Jay Pipes wrote: > Hi Thierry, a number of us are going to be at the OpenStack Silicon > Valley event [1] during the TC meeting time :( I will try to provide > votes on all of the reviews below but just wanted to give you a heads up. ...but it should be during lunch time if my TZ arithmetic is correct, so maybe some of you can still join :) Thanks for the warning. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From jaypipes at gmail.com Mon Sep 15 16:23:55 2014 From: jaypipes at gmail.com (Jay Pipes) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:23:55 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 16th, 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <54171166.3090604@openstack.org> References: <5416AF06.7070102@openstack.org> <5417071D.8040904@gmail.com> <54171166.3090604@openstack.org> Message-ID: <5417129B.1060308@gmail.com> On 09/15/2014 12:18 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Jay Pipes wrote: >> Hi Thierry, a number of us are going to be at the OpenStack Silicon >> Valley event [1] during the TC meeting time :( I will try to provide >> votes on all of the reviews below but just wanted to give you a heads up. > > ...but it should be during lunch time if my TZ arithmetic is correct, so > maybe some of you can still join :) Oh, yes, sorry, I was in EST still :) Yeah, I believe 1pm-2pm PST is indeed during the lunch break. Best, -jay From mordred at inaugust.com Mon Sep 15 16:11:02 2014 From: mordred at inaugust.com (Monty Taylor) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:11:02 -0700 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 16th, 20:00 UTC Message-ID: Speaking of, who's up for dinner and evil scheming? On Sep 15, 2014 8:34 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > Hi Thierry, a number of us are going to be at the OpenStack Silicon > Valley event [1] during the TC meeting time :( I will try to provide > votes on all of the reviews below but just wanted to give you a heads up. > > Best, > -jay > > [1] http://openstacksv.com/ > > On 09/15/2014 05:19 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Again a busy TC meeting tomorrow Tuesday at 20:00 UTC. I pushed back > > several items to next week, so that we cover all we need to cover before > > the PTL election season starts (later this week). > > > > That said, if we can't get the first 3 items covered tomorrow we may > > have to schedule an extra meeting... In order to avoid that as much as > > possible, please raise all major objections you have on Zaqar / Ironic > > on the relevant -dev ML threads, so that we can focus on a final > > decision, rather than uncovering new last-minute objections. > > > > Our agenda is the following: > > > > * Graduation review: Zaqar (ex-Marconi) (final decision) [1] > > * Graduation review: Ironic (final decision) [2] > > * Extra ATC patches > >??? * Add Juno co-authored-by authors to extra-atcs. [3] > >??? * Adds Telemetry Juno co-authors as ATCs [4] > >??? * Adds Documentation co-authors as ATCs. [5] > > * Project Testing interface description update > >??? * Import the Project Testing Interface description [6] > >??? * Two minor style cleanups [7] > >??? * Update testing interface to reflect reality [8] > >??? * Add a docs environment to the testing interface [9] > > * Other governance changes > >??? * The Oslo program is adopting pylockfile [10] > >??? * Add keystoneclient-kerberos repo to Keystone [11] > >??? * Add tempest-lib to the QA Program [12] > >??? * Add reference to neutronincubator project [13] > > * Open discussion > > > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/118592 > > [2] https://review.openstack.org/120225 > > [3] https://review.openstack.org/119666 > > [4] https://review.openstack.org/119794 > > [5] https://review.openstack.org/119757 > > [6] https://review.openstack.org/119872 > > [7] https://review.openstack.org/119873 > > [8] https://review.openstack.org/119874 > > [9] https://review.openstack.org/119875 > > [10] https://review.openstack.org/117622 > > [11] https://review.openstack.org/120310 > > [12] https://review.openstack.org/119935 > > [13] https://review.openstack.org/117000 > > > > Cheers, > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > From rbryant at redhat.com Mon Sep 15 19:11:03 2014 From: rbryant at redhat.com (Russell Bryant) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:11:03 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Ironic graduation review, part two In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <541739C7.2060407@redhat.com> On 09/15/2014 12:14 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote: > Hi all, > > In last week's meeting [0] two concerns were raised regarding Ironic's > graduation readiness: > > * An API proxy for nova-baremetal > > This was discussed on the ML [1] and it has been approved and merged in Nova [2] > > * Missing documentation on the sideways migration to Ironic > > We have prepared a wiki with some guidance here: > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ironic/NovaBaremetalIronicMigration > > If this is insufficient for some reason (don't like the format? think > it should be on docs.openstack.org/developer/?) please let me know, > and I'll be happy to address it. > > > Regards, > Devananda > > > [0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tc/2014/tc.2014-09-09-20.01.log.html > > [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/045489.html > > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/120433/ > > > ... and just for reference: > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IronicGraduationDiscussion Nice work! Thanks for doing this and for providing a reference in advance for review. -- Russell Bryant From mikal at stillhq.com Mon Sep 15 23:13:28 2014 From: mikal at stillhq.com (Michael Still) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:13:28 +1000 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 16th, 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <5416AF06.7070102@openstack.org> References: <5416AF06.7070102@openstack.org> Message-ID: I've attempted to generate extra-atcs from co-authored-by for all incubated / graduated projects, so reviews 4 and 5 should be obsolete (I hope). Michael On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Again a busy TC meeting tomorrow Tuesday at 20:00 UTC. I pushed back > several items to next week, so that we cover all we need to cover before > the PTL election season starts (later this week). > > That said, if we can't get the first 3 items covered tomorrow we may > have to schedule an extra meeting... In order to avoid that as much as > possible, please raise all major objections you have on Zaqar / Ironic > on the relevant -dev ML threads, so that we can focus on a final > decision, rather than uncovering new last-minute objections. > > Our agenda is the following: > > * Graduation review: Zaqar (ex-Marconi) (final decision) [1] > * Graduation review: Ironic (final decision) [2] > * Extra ATC patches > * Add Juno co-authored-by authors to extra-atcs. [3] > * Adds Telemetry Juno co-authors as ATCs [4] > * Adds Documentation co-authors as ATCs. [5] > * Project Testing interface description update > * Import the Project Testing Interface description [6] > * Two minor style cleanups [7] > * Update testing interface to reflect reality [8] > * Add a docs environment to the testing interface [9] > * Other governance changes > * The Oslo program is adopting pylockfile [10] > * Add keystoneclient-kerberos repo to Keystone [11] > * Add tempest-lib to the QA Program [12] > * Add reference to neutronincubator project [13] > * Open discussion > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/118592 > [2] https://review.openstack.org/120225 > [3] https://review.openstack.org/119666 > [4] https://review.openstack.org/119794 > [5] https://review.openstack.org/119757 > [6] https://review.openstack.org/119872 > [7] https://review.openstack.org/119873 > [8] https://review.openstack.org/119874 > [9] https://review.openstack.org/119875 > [10] https://review.openstack.org/117622 > [11] https://review.openstack.org/120310 > [12] https://review.openstack.org/119935 > [13] https://review.openstack.org/117000 > > Cheers, > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc -- Rackspace Australia From markmc at redhat.com Wed Sep 17 12:39:03 2014 From: markmc at redhat.com (Mark McLoughlin) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:39:03 +0100 Subject: [openstack-tc] [Fwd: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Updated Bylaws] Message-ID: <1410957543.7225.47.camel@sorcha> Hey I think TC members should be paying closer attention to proposed bylaws changes. See my concerns below. I've uploaded what I think are the latest proposed changes to here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/File:Change-Pro_Redline_-_233015232-v15-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_%28as_amended_September_7,_2012%29_and_233015232-v24-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_.pdf Mark. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Mark McLoughlin Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Updated Bylaws Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:22:14 +0100 Size: 9098 URL: From thierry at openstack.org Wed Sep 17 13:03:16 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:03:16 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] Final decision on Zaqar in Kilo Message-ID: <54198694.7000403@openstack.org> The missing vote was cast on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/118592/ Zaqar will stay in incubation in the Kilo cycle. I posted a few thoughts on why we came to this point, and the next steps for zaqar: http://ttx.re/next-steps-for-zaqar.html -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From sean at dague.net Wed Sep 17 13:34:40 2014 From: sean at dague.net (Sean Dague) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:34:40 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] [Fwd: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Updated Bylaws] In-Reply-To: <1410957543.7225.47.camel@sorcha> References: <1410957543.7225.47.camel@sorcha> Message-ID: <54198DF0.7080802@dague.net> On 09/17/2014 08:39 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hey > > I think TC members should be paying closer attention to proposed bylaws > changes. See my concerns below. I've uploaded what I think are the > latest proposed changes to here: > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/File:Change-Pro_Redline_-_233015232-v15-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_%28as_amended_September_7,_2012%29_and_233015232-v24-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_.pdf > > Mark. > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > I'm not on the defcore list so I didn't see this. Is there a reason this didn't go to the foundation list? I'm actually quite concerned by the removal of the TC authority to define the integrated release in a downwards direction without board approval. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net From markmc at redhat.com Wed Sep 17 15:59:16 2014 From: markmc at redhat.com (Mark McLoughlin) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:59:16 +0100 Subject: [openstack-tc] [Fwd: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Updated Bylaws] In-Reply-To: <54198DF0.7080802@dague.net> References: <1410957543.7225.47.camel@sorcha> <54198DF0.7080802@dague.net> Message-ID: <1410969556.8806.52.camel@sorcha> On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 09:34 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 09/17/2014 08:39 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hey > > > > I think TC members should be paying closer attention to proposed bylaws > > changes. See my concerns below. I've uploaded what I think are the > > latest proposed changes to here: > > > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/File:Change-Pro_Redline_-_233015232-v15-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_%28as_amended_September_7,_2012%29_and_233015232-v24-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_.pdf > > > I'm not on the defcore list so I didn't see this. Is there a reason this > didn't go to the foundation list? Josh dragged it from a private thread onto defcore. My guess is it was intended to be sent to the foundation list *after* the board had discussed it? That would not be my preferred approach. > I'm actually quite concerned by the removal of the TC authority to > define the integrated release in a downwards direction without board > approval. The only *intended* change in TC authority AFAICT is that we would have to get sign-off from the board to remote Core modules from the Integrated Release. I understand the intent with that, but it smells of "we can't trust the TC to make good decisions" oversight. Mark. From jaypipes at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 19:07:43 2014 From: jaypipes at gmail.com (Jay Pipes) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:07:43 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] [Fwd: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Updated Bylaws] In-Reply-To: <1410957543.7225.47.camel@sorcha> References: <1410957543.7225.47.camel@sorcha> Message-ID: <5419DBFF.5050607@gmail.com> On 09/17/2014 08:39 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hey > > I think TC members should be paying closer attention to proposed bylaws > changes. See my concerns below. I've uploaded what I think are the > latest proposed changes to here: > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/File:Change-Pro_Redline_-_233015232-v15-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_%28as_amended_September_7,_2012%29_and_233015232-v24-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_.pdf Basic question: why are any of these changes necessary or being pushed? -jay From markmc at redhat.com Wed Sep 17 19:46:47 2014 From: markmc at redhat.com (Mark McLoughlin) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:46:47 +0100 Subject: [openstack-tc] [Fwd: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Updated Bylaws] In-Reply-To: <5419DBFF.5050607@gmail.com> References: <1410957543.7225.47.camel@sorcha> <5419DBFF.5050607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1410983207.8806.73.camel@sorcha> On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 15:07 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 09/17/2014 08:39 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hey > > > > I think TC members should be paying closer attention to proposed bylaws > > changes. See my concerns below. I've uploaded what I think are the > > latest proposed changes to here: > > > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/File:Change-Pro_Redline_-_233015232-v15-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_%28as_amended_September_7,_2012%29_and_233015232-v24-OpenStackFoundation_Bylaws_FINAL_.pdf > > Basic question: why are any of these changes necessary or being pushed? It's mostly triggered by defcore, hence it supposedly being a subcommittee of the defcore comittee. The defcore changes are the ones related to trademark policy, changing the definition of the "Core OpenStack project" and distinguishing between the Integrated Release and the OpenStack Project. The ATC related changes are in response to feedback from the TC? The changes to the Legal Affairs Committee are because its current de-facto structure differs from what's defined in the bylaws. In summary, "defcore stuff with some scope creep". That said, the defcore committee proper seems to recommend not proceeding with any bylaws changes at this time. Mark. From anteaya at anteaya.info Wed Sep 17 20:39:17 2014 From: anteaya at anteaya.info (Anita Kuno) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] Concerns about foundation membership and voter eligibility - solved Message-ID: <5419F175.50404@anteaya.info> I am following the currently thread about the call with Mark Radcliffe happening tomorrow and was reading the background material. Shame on me for not reading it before. It turns out that should a contributor resign their foundation membership it will not affect their eligibility to vote. http://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/ 3.(b)(i) An Individual Member is an ATC who has had a software contribution approved for inclusion in any of the modules of the Core OpenStack Project during one of the two prior release cycles of the Core OpenStack Project (?Approved Contribution?). Such Individual Member shall remain an ATC for three hundred and sixty five days after the date of acceptance of such Approved Contribution. So any person who gerrit considers to be the owner of a merged patch in the specified timeframe* doesn't have to have their foundation membership confirmed in order to be eligible to vote. This makes me so happy. I still would appreciate anyone putting names forward for extra-atcs to continue to confirm those names having foundation membership by hand. Thank you, I recognize what a pain it is to do. Thanks, Anita. * September 26, 2013 06:00 UTC to September 26, 2014 05:59 UTC https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PTL_Elections_September/October_2014#Electorate From thierry at openstack.org Thu Sep 18 07:50:35 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:50:35 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] Concerns about foundation membership and voter eligibility - solved In-Reply-To: <5419F175.50404@anteaya.info> References: <5419F175.50404@anteaya.info> Message-ID: <541A8ECB.5060800@openstack.org> Anita Kuno wrote: > [...] > It turns out that should a contributor resign their foundation > membership it will not affect their eligibility to vote. > [...] Great, a solution that is both convenient *and* in line with the current wording of the bylaws :) Thanks for looking into that and keeping us honest, Anita! -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From fontana at sharpeleven.org Fri Sep 19 07:04:49 2014 From: fontana at sharpeleven.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:04:49 -0700 Subject: [openstack-tc] July paper on CLA/DCO issue Message-ID: <20140919070449.GA21772@sharpeleven.org> Hi TC, At the time of the July OpenStack Foundation board meeting I was a lawyer for Red Hat and as part of my work for my then-client I substantially prepared a paper on the CLA/DCO issue. That paper was provided to the Board, and some slides summarizing some points in the paper were presented at the Board meeting. As some of you may know I left Red Hat in August and recently started a job as a lawyer at HP. It was my expectation in July that the paper and/or the slides would be published more widely (cf.: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2014-July/001718.html). This apparently was not done. A senior employee of my former client has asked that I post the paper to this list. The paper (as a form of property) properly belongs to Red Hat but was stored in a personal Google Drive account. It's here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17aY-R4I_-JE7Lg5Z3VCjdAxIjNRiXZKUaDGBwFq266U/ +edit?usp=sharing I wish to make absolutely clear I am not posting this for my current client, but at the request of my former client, and I emphasize again that posting it now merely belatedly satisfies an expectation of publication that existed in July. Absence of publication would seem to be in conflict with at least the spirit of the Foundation's Transparency Policy (http://www.openstack.org/legal/transparency-policy/). The paper makes some references to a draft memo prepared by the Foundation's counsel which itself was not published (so far as I know) beyond the OpenStack Foundation Legal Affairs Committee, though it may be fair to regard it as a partial basis for the PowerPoint slides that were posted on this list recently. It should be borne in mind that some of the points referenced in that memo may not reflect the current views of the Foundation's counsel. - RF From anne at openstack.org Fri Sep 19 13:21:04 2014 From: anne at openstack.org (Anne Gentle) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:21:04 -0500 Subject: [openstack-tc] July paper on CLA/DCO issue In-Reply-To: <20140919070449.GA21772@sharpeleven.org> References: <20140919070449.GA21772@sharpeleven.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > Hi TC, > > At the time of the July OpenStack Foundation board meeting I was a > lawyer for Red Hat and as part of my work for my then-client I > substantially prepared a paper on the CLA/DCO issue. That paper was > provided to the Board, and some slides summarizing some points in the > paper were presented at the Board meeting. > > As some of you may know I left Red Hat in August and recently started > a job as a lawyer at HP. > Congrats! > > It was my expectation in July that the paper and/or the slides would > be published more widely (cf.: > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2014-July/001718.html). > This > apparently was not done. > > A senior employee of my former client has asked that I post the paper > to this list. The paper (as a form of property) properly belongs to > Red Hat but was stored in a personal Google Drive account. It's > here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/17aY-R4I_-JE7Lg5Z3VCjdAxIjNRiXZKUaDGBwFq266U/ > +edit?usp=sharing > > I'm using Gmail on the web on Chrome for email, and when I click this link or the attachment, I see"Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist." Anyone else have this problem? Thanks Richard for the post, Anne > I wish to make absolutely clear I am not posting this for my current > client, but at the request of my former client, and I emphasize again > that posting it now merely belatedly satisfies an expectation of > publication that existed in July. Absence of publication would seem to > be in conflict with at least the spirit of the Foundation's > Transparency Policy > (http://www.openstack.org/legal/transparency-policy/). > > The paper makes some references to a draft memo prepared by the > Foundation's counsel which itself was not published (so far as I know) > beyond the OpenStack Foundation Legal Affairs Committee, though it may > be fair to regard it as a partial basis for the PowerPoint slides that > were posted on this list recently. It should be borne in mind that > some of the points referenced in that memo may not reflect the current > views of the Foundation's counsel. > > - RF > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fontana at sharpeleven.org Fri Sep 19 14:14:12 2014 From: fontana at sharpeleven.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 07:14:12 -0700 Subject: [openstack-tc] July paper on CLA/DCO issue In-Reply-To: References: <20140919070449.GA21772@sharpeleven.org> Message-ID: <20140919141412.GA8377@sharpeleven.org> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 08:21:04AM -0500, Anne Gentle wrote: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/17aY-R4I_-JE7Lg5Z3VCjdAxIjNRiXZKUaDGBwFq266U/ > > +edit?usp=sharing > > > > > I'm using Gmail on the web on Chrome for email, and when I click this link > or the attachment, I see"Sorry, the file you have requested does not > exist." Anyone else have this problem? Sorry if there was any problem accessing it - I've exported it as a PDF and attached the PDF to this message. - Richard -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenStack-DCO-2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 276811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thierry at openstack.org Fri Sep 19 14:32:52 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:32:52 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] [Fwd: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Updated Bylaws] In-Reply-To: <1410957543.7225.47.camel@sorcha> References: <1410957543.7225.47.camel@sorcha> Message-ID: <541C3E94.6060507@openstack.org> Mark McLoughlin wrote: > I think TC members should be paying closer attention to proposed bylaws > changes. See my concerns below. Fully agree with your analysis. Posted my reply directly on defcore: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/2014-September/000393.html -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From doug at doughellmann.com Fri Sep 19 14:42:49 2014 From: doug at doughellmann.com (Doug Hellmann) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:42:49 -0400 Subject: [openstack-tc] July paper on CLA/DCO issue In-Reply-To: References: <20140919070449.GA21772@sharpeleven.org> Message-ID: <4C2F0D5C-C559-47D2-A246-745684612D5C@doughellmann.com> On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > Hi TC, > > At the time of the July OpenStack Foundation board meeting I was a > lawyer for Red Hat and as part of my work for my then-client I > substantially prepared a paper on the CLA/DCO issue. That paper was > provided to the Board, and some slides summarizing some points in the > paper were presented at the Board meeting. > > As some of you may know I left Red Hat in August and recently started > a job as a lawyer at HP. > > Congrats! > > > It was my expectation in July that the paper and/or the slides would > be published more widely (cf.: > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2014-July/001718.html). This > apparently was not done. > > A senior employee of my former client has asked that I post the paper > to this list. The paper (as a form of property) properly belongs to > Red Hat but was stored in a personal Google Drive account. It's > here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/17aY-R4I_-JE7Lg5Z3VCjdAxIjNRiXZKUaDGBwFq266U/ > +edit?usp=sharing > > > I'm using Gmail on the web on Chrome for email, and when I click this link or the attachment, I see"Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist." Anyone else have this problem? When my phone wrapped the link, it stripped some of the trailing bits. This link works: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17aY-R4I_-JE7Lg5Z3VCjdAxIjNRiXZKUaDGBwFq266U/edit Doug > > Thanks Richard for the post, > Anne > > I wish to make absolutely clear I am not posting this for my current > client, but at the request of my former client, and I emphasize again > that posting it now merely belatedly satisfies an expectation of > publication that existed in July. Absence of publication would seem to > be in conflict with at least the spirit of the Foundation's > Transparency Policy > (http://www.openstack.org/legal/transparency-policy/). > > The paper makes some references to a draft memo prepared by the > Foundation's counsel which itself was not published (so far as I know) > beyond the OpenStack Foundation Legal Affairs Committee, though it may > be fair to regard it as a partial basis for the PowerPoint slides that > were posted on this list recently. It should be borne in mind that > some of the points referenced in that memo may not reflect the current > views of the Foundation's counsel. > > - RF > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thierry at openstack.org Mon Sep 22 12:15:23 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:15:23 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 23rd, 20:00 UTC Message-ID: <542012DB.1090308@openstack.org> Hello everyone, We'll have a TC meeting tomorrow at 20:00 UTC. Note that we need to come back to Zaqar next week to discuss an aligned plan moving forward. There are a number of threads on-going, so please participate to that in the mean time. Also note that we have 2 Juno meetings left (including tomorrow) before TC election season starts. If we decide to maintain TC meetings during election season, we have 4 Juno meetings left before the Kilo members replace some of us. Our agenda for tomorrow is the following: * Final pass on extra-atcs before PTL election roll generation * Add Juno Compute co-authored-by authors to extra-atcs. [1] * Adds Documentation co-authors as ATCs. [2] * Adds Telemetry Juno co-authors as ATCs [3] * Script to automate adding extra-atcs [4] * Naive script to verify extra-atc foundation status [5] * Recommendation to Adopt DCO as CLA [6] * Testing interface update * Import the Project Testing Interface description [7] * Two minor style cleanups [8] * Update testing interface to reflect reality [9] * Add a docs environment to the testing interface [10] * Other governance changes * Propose guidelines for adopting new official projects [11] * Add openstack/designate-dashboard to the DNS Services program [12] * Add keystoneclient-kerberos repo to Keystone [13] * Add ha-guide to Documentation program [14] * Add reference to neutronincubator project [15] * Open discussion [1] https://review.openstack.org/119666 [2] https://review.openstack.org/119757 [3] https://review.openstack.org/119794 [4] https://review.openstack.org/121730 [5] https://review.openstack.org/121696 [6] https://review.openstack.org/120260 [7] https://review.openstack.org/119872 [8] https://review.openstack.org/119873 [9] https://review.openstack.org/119874 [10] https://review.openstack.org/119875 [11] https://review.openstack.org/116727 [12] https://review.openstack.org/119549 [13] https://review.openstack.org/120310 [14] https://review.openstack.org/121643 [15] https://review.openstack.org/117000 Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) From anne at openstack.org Mon Sep 22 22:44:31 2014 From: anne at openstack.org (Anne Gentle) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:44:31 -0500 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 23rd, 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <542012DB.1090308@openstack.org> References: <542012DB.1090308@openstack.org> Message-ID: Hi all, I'm out tomorrow at an internal conference. On Docs. Imagine that. :) I think I'm up-to-date on all the governance votes, so I don't think I'll need a proxy attender, but let me know if I should identify someone. Thanks, Anne On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We'll have a TC meeting tomorrow at 20:00 UTC. Note that we need to come > back to Zaqar next week to discuss an aligned plan moving forward. There > are a number of threads on-going, so please participate to that in the > mean time. Also note that we have 2 Juno meetings left (including > tomorrow) before TC election season starts. If we decide to maintain TC > meetings during election season, we have 4 Juno meetings left before the > Kilo members replace some of us. > > Our agenda for tomorrow is the following: > > * Final pass on extra-atcs before PTL election roll generation > * Add Juno Compute co-authored-by authors to extra-atcs. [1] > * Adds Documentation co-authors as ATCs. [2] > * Adds Telemetry Juno co-authors as ATCs [3] > * Script to automate adding extra-atcs [4] > * Naive script to verify extra-atc foundation status [5] > * Recommendation to Adopt DCO as CLA [6] > * Testing interface update > * Import the Project Testing Interface description [7] > * Two minor style cleanups [8] > * Update testing interface to reflect reality [9] > * Add a docs environment to the testing interface [10] > * Other governance changes > * Propose guidelines for adopting new official projects [11] > * Add openstack/designate-dashboard to the DNS Services program [12] > * Add keystoneclient-kerberos repo to Keystone [13] > * Add ha-guide to Documentation program [14] > * Add reference to neutronincubator project [15] > * Open discussion > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/119666 > [2] https://review.openstack.org/119757 > [3] https://review.openstack.org/119794 > [4] https://review.openstack.org/121730 > [5] https://review.openstack.org/121696 > [6] https://review.openstack.org/120260 > [7] https://review.openstack.org/119872 > [8] https://review.openstack.org/119873 > [9] https://review.openstack.org/119874 > [10] https://review.openstack.org/119875 > [11] https://review.openstack.org/116727 > [12] https://review.openstack.org/119549 > [13] https://review.openstack.org/120310 > [14] https://review.openstack.org/121643 > [15] https://review.openstack.org/117000 > > Cheers, > > -- > Thierry Carrez (ttx) > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikal at stillhq.com Mon Sep 22 23:14:53 2014 From: mikal at stillhq.com (Michael Still) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:14:53 +1000 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 23rd, 20:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <542012DB.1090308@openstack.org> Message-ID: I have to miss tomorrow as well for a kid's school commitment (yes, at 6am). I'll make an effort to have reviewed all the governance changes before tomorrow though. Michael On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Anne Gentle wrote: > Hi all, > I'm out tomorrow at an internal conference. On Docs. Imagine that. :) > > I think I'm up-to-date on all the governance votes, so I don't think I'll > need a proxy attender, but let me know if I should identify someone. > Thanks, > Anne > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> We'll have a TC meeting tomorrow at 20:00 UTC. Note that we need to come >> back to Zaqar next week to discuss an aligned plan moving forward. There >> are a number of threads on-going, so please participate to that in the >> mean time. Also note that we have 2 Juno meetings left (including >> tomorrow) before TC election season starts. If we decide to maintain TC >> meetings during election season, we have 4 Juno meetings left before the >> Kilo members replace some of us. >> >> Our agenda for tomorrow is the following: >> >> * Final pass on extra-atcs before PTL election roll generation >> * Add Juno Compute co-authored-by authors to extra-atcs. [1] >> * Adds Documentation co-authors as ATCs. [2] >> * Adds Telemetry Juno co-authors as ATCs [3] >> * Script to automate adding extra-atcs [4] >> * Naive script to verify extra-atc foundation status [5] >> * Recommendation to Adopt DCO as CLA [6] >> * Testing interface update >> * Import the Project Testing Interface description [7] >> * Two minor style cleanups [8] >> * Update testing interface to reflect reality [9] >> * Add a docs environment to the testing interface [10] >> * Other governance changes >> * Propose guidelines for adopting new official projects [11] >> * Add openstack/designate-dashboard to the DNS Services program [12] >> * Add keystoneclient-kerberos repo to Keystone [13] >> * Add ha-guide to Documentation program [14] >> * Add reference to neutronincubator project [15] >> * Open discussion >> >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/119666 >> [2] https://review.openstack.org/119757 >> [3] https://review.openstack.org/119794 >> [4] https://review.openstack.org/121730 >> [5] https://review.openstack.org/121696 >> [6] https://review.openstack.org/120260 >> [7] https://review.openstack.org/119872 >> [8] https://review.openstack.org/119873 >> [9] https://review.openstack.org/119874 >> [10] https://review.openstack.org/119875 >> [11] https://review.openstack.org/116727 >> [12] https://review.openstack.org/119549 >> [13] https://review.openstack.org/120310 >> [14] https://review.openstack.org/121643 >> [15] https://review.openstack.org/117000 >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-TC mailing list >> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-TC mailing list > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc > -- Rackspace Australia From thierry at openstack.org Mon Sep 29 10:09:34 2014 From: thierry at openstack.org (Thierry Carrez) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:09:34 +0200 Subject: [openstack-tc] TC Meeting tomorrow Tue September 30th, 20:00 UTC Message-ID: <54292FDE.2040107@openstack.org> Hello everyone, We'll have a TC meeting tomorrow at 20:00 UTC. This will be the last meeting of the Juno membership, unless we decide we need to gather during TC reelection season to discuss urgent matters (see open discussion below). Our agenda for tomorrow is the following: * Recommendation to Adopt DCO as CLA [1] * Add a docs environment to the testing interface [2] * Remove support for specific public cloud implementations from our code [3] * Other governance changes * Add tripleo-puppet-elements in programs.yaml [4] * Add python-keystoneclient-federation to the Identity program [5] * Add two new repos to infra program [6] * Open discussion * Layer #1 and the big tent - Shelved discussions while we figure it out: . Deeper dive into Swift "differences" . Kilo plan for Zaqar * Need for TC meetings during TC election season (next two weeks) ? - Gap coverage plans final status ? [1] https://review.openstack.org/120260 [2] https://review.openstack.org/119875 [3] https://review.openstack.org/122968 [4] https://review.openstack.org/123826 [5] https://review.openstack.org/123786 [6] https://review.openstack.org/124238 Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)