June 2025 - openstack-discuss - lists.openstack.org

October 2025 PTG Team Signup Kickoff
by Kendall Nelson 10 Jun '25

10 Jun '25

Hello Everyone! The next OpenInfra PTG[1] will take place October 27-31, 2025 and registration for the event is now open[2]! To sign your team up, you must complete the survey[3] by September 14th at 19:00 UTC. If your team is not interested in participating, there is no need to fill out the survey. The contact information (email and preferably also IRC nickname) in the form will be used to share important details with moderators about team signup and further logistics. To ensure you receive all communications please double check and submit *ACCURATE* information! If you are not on IRC, please get on the OFTC network[4] and join #openinfra-events as much of the coordination for the event will be done in the #openinfra-events channel. You are also encouraged to familiarize yourself with the PTGBot documentation[5] as well. If you have any questions, please reach out to ptg(a)openinfra.org! Information about signing up for time slots will be sent to moderators after the team signup deadline. -Kendall (diablo_rojo) [1] PTG Site: https://openinfra.org/ptg/ [2] PTG Registration: http://ptg.openinfra.org/ [3] Team Survey: https://openinfrafoundation.formstack.com/forms/oct2025_ptg_survey [4] Setup IRC: https://docs.openstack.org/contributors/common/irc.html [5] PTGBot README: https://opendev.org/openstack/ptgbot/src/branch/master/README.rst

1 0

[all] Submit Your OpenInfra Summit Talk This Week!
by Jeremy Stanley 10 Jun '25

10 Jun '25

Are you working on something exciting with OpenStack? This is your last chance to share it with the global OpenInfra community at the OpenInfra Summit Europe in Paris[0]! The CFP[1] closes this Friday, June 13, and the Summit organizers are especially looking for talks related to OpenStack. Whether you're operating production deployments, contributing upstream, or building new tools, this is the place to share your story. Sponsoring the Summit[2]? If you'd like to be part of the schedule launch marketing happening at the end of June, this Friday is also the deadline to confirm your sponsorship. Don’t miss the chance to highlight your work and connect with the global open source community. [0] My beloved French colleagues would want me to clarify that this is actually "Paris-Saclay" (but it's still very close to Paris!) [1] Sponsorship: https://summit2025.openinfra.org/sponsor [2] CFP: https://summit2025.openinfra.org/cfp -- Jeremy Stanley

1 0

[tacker] Proposal for changing IRC timeslot
by Yasufumi Ogawa 09 Jun '25

09 Jun '25

Hi tacker team, For some members joined our team recently, it's not convenient to attend the IRC meeting since they have another regular meeting at the same time. So I'd like to propose to change the meeting time from Tuesday 8:00 UTC to Monday 8:00 UTC. Let me know if you guys are not convenient, or we'll change the time from next week (16th June). Thanks, Yasufumi

1 0

[tc][all] OpenStack Technical Committee Weekly Summary and Meeting Agenda (2025.2/R-16)
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 09 Jun '25

09 Jun '25

Hello Stackers, We're 16 weeks away from the date earmarked for the coordinated 2025.2 "Flamingo" release of OpenStack [1]. OpenStack project teams are wrapping up design specifications and gearing up to land feature changes. In the past week, the OpenInfra Foundation officially joined the Linux Foundation [2]. This is a significant move for OpenStack and other projects under the OIF. I join you in hoping that this means greater acceleration for OpenStack and broader avenues to collaborate with other open source projects under the Linux Foundation. In the same week, the OpenStack Technical Committee also passed a few important resolutions. The primary one was to adopt the "Developer Certificate of Origin" [3] for contributor sign-offs beginning July 1, 2025. What does this mean for you? This means that any new patch uploaded to the OpenStack review system (https://review.opendev.org) on or after July 1, 2025, will require a "Signed-off-by" line in the commit message. Doing so indicates that you are submitting this code in adherence to the DCO, which replaces the Contributor License Agreement that we have long required. Adding a DCO sign-off can be done by using "git commit -s" when your username and email are properly configured in your Git environment. The TC encourages PTLs, project liaisons, and all maintainers to help other contributors become familiar with this change and assist anyone who may be confused by the new requirement. If you have any questions, please join us in #openstack-dev or #openstack-tc on OFTC, or ask away on this mailing list. Alongside this significant change, the TC also clarified the actions that the Election Officials will take when there is no need for an election [4]. The next elections for Project Team Leads and a portion of the OpenStack Technical Committee will occur between Aug 27, 2025, and Sep 17, 2025. The official nomination window opens at 23:45 UTC on Aug 06, 2025. However, you're welcome to submit your nomination at any time before this date. Doing so may be helpful if you plan to be away during the nomination window. OpenDev Infrastructure Administrators have now enabled all registered users to add or edit hashtags on the code review system [5]. Some project teams have long found this useful for linking related changes—hashtags in Gerrit are more versatile than topics. I hope you'll find this helpful! === Weekly Meeting === On Jun 3, 2025, the OpenStack Technical Committee held its weekly meeting as both a video conference [6] and over IRC in OFTC's #openstack-tc channel [7]. The meeting was well attended and primarily focused on the DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) implementation, contributor experience challenges, and other open governance proposals. A key decision was to separate translation-related concerns from the main DCO implementation. The i18n SIG has been migrating from Zanata to Weblate and will explore how the DCO can be prominently enforced via Weblate. The discussion then moved on to the findings from the maintainer and contributor surveys for the Epoxy release cycle. The survey results [8] indicated that 73% of maintainers reported difficulty getting review attention, while 68% of non-maintainer contributors faced challenges in having their reviews completed. TC members brainstormed potential reasons, and some key concerns identified include: - Inconsistent review prioritization across projects - Poor visibility into project-specific review processes - Heavy reliance on Etherpads for tracking priorities - Underutilization of review priority labels in projects that have enabled them A couple of minor action items were identified for the TC and project maintainers. Project maintainers are expected to audit their CONTRIBUTING.rst files and clearly indicate how contributors can get their changes reviewed and merged. The TC also plans to enforce more structured cross-project discussions at the October PTG. As a tangential concern, we supported the idea of hosting an ops meetup at the upcoming OpenInfra Summit in Paris-Saclay [9]. The next meeting of the OpenStack TC is today, 2025-06-09, at 17:00 UTC. This meeting will be held over IRC in the #openstack-tc channel on OFTC. Please find the agenda on the meeting's wiki page [10]. I hope you'll be able to join us. === Governance Proposals === ==== Merged ==== - Replace CLA with DCO for all contributions | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/950463 - Add nova-contrib repository | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/951569 - Clarify actions when no elections are required | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949431 ==== Open for review ==== - Require declaration of affiliation from TC Candidates | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949432 === Upcoming Events === - 2025-06-13: CFP Closes for the OpenInfra Summit EU: https://summit2025.openinfra.org/cfp/ - 2025-06-28: OpenInfra+Cloud Native Day, Vietnam: https://www.vietopeninfra.org/void2025 - 2025-07-19: OpenInfra Days Indonesia: https://2025.openinfra.id/ Thank you very much for reading! On behalf of the OpenStack TC, Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr) OpenStack TC Chair [1] 2025.2 "Flamingo" Release Schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html [2] OIF joins Linux Foundation: https://openinfra.org/blog/openinfra-joins-linux-foundation [3] DCO enforcement from July 1, 2025: https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20250520-replace-the-cla-wi… [4] Election amendment: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949431 [5] Hashtags on review.opendev.org: https://lists.opendev.org/archives/list/service-announce@lists.opendev.org/… [6] TC Meeting Video Recording, 2025-06-03: https://youtu.be/y0BwG8TadVk [7] TC Meeting IRC Log 2025-06-03: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-06-03-17.00.html [8] Contributor and Maintainer Survey: https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack… [9] OpenInfra Summit 2025: https://summit2025.openinfra.org/ [10] TC Meeting Agenda, 2025-06-10: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting

1 1

Api routes
by engineer2024 09 Jun '25

09 Jun '25

In openstack, is there a feature to list all the available routes for the rest api servers, instead of checking and referring the documentation? Thanks elinux

1 0

[designate] Support for quorum queues
by Thomas Goirand 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Hi, When setting-up Designate with quorum queues, when designate-central starts, I get: Queue.declare: (406) PRECONDITION_FAILED - invalid property 'non-durable' for queue 'central' in vhost '/' Does Designate support quorum queues? If so, how com it's trying to set 'non-durable', which doesn't exist as attribute, at least with RabbitMQ 4.0.5? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

6 6

[release] Release countdown for week R-16
by Thierry Carrez 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Development Focus ----------------- The Flamingo-2 milestone will happen in next month, on July 3rd, 2025. 2025.2 Flamingo-related specs should now be finalized so that teams can move to implementation ASAP. Some teams observe specific deadlines on the second milestone (mostly spec freezes): please refer to https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html for details. General Information ------------------- Please remember that libraries need to be released at least once per milestone period. At milestone 2, the release team will propose releases for any library that has not been otherwise released since milestone 1. Other non-library deliverables that follow the cycle-with-intermediary release model should have an intermediary release before milestone-2. Those who haven't will be proposed to switch to the cycle-with-rc model, which is more suited to deliverables that are released only once per cycle. At milestone-2 we also freeze the contents of the final release. If you have a new deliverable that should be included in the final release, you should make sure it has a deliverable file in: https://opendev.org/openstack/releases/src/branch/master/deliverables/flami… You should request a beta release (or intermediary release) for those new deliverables by milestone-2. We understand some may not be quite ready for a full release yet, but if you have something minimally viable to get released it would be good to do a 0.x release to exercise the release tooling for your deliverables. See the MembershipFreeze description for more details: https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html#f-mf Finally, now may be a good time for teams to check on any stable releases that need to be done for your deliverables. If you have bugfixes that have been backported, but no stable release getting those. If you are unsure what is out there committed but not released in the openstack/releases repo, running the command "tools/list_stable_unreleased_changes.sh <cycle_name>" gives a nice report. Upcoming Deadlines & Dates -------------------------- Flamingo-2 Milestone: July 3rd, 2025 -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)

1 0

Networking design for two external networks
by Andrei RADU 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Hello guys, This is obviously a noob question but here goes: We want to link our openstack cloud with the rest of the network with two separate external physical routers, for redundancy. These will also be the BGP peers declared in openstack for advertising internal routes. We could do VRRP and have a shared IP between the two external routers but I understand that if we make a bgp adjacency with a VIP between the two external routers, when this will move from one router to the other in case of failure, there will be a period of outage on the BGP. So in order to avoid that, in openstack we were thinking to have two external provider network vlans, one for each external router, which will handle connectivity with the exterior. What would be the best network design to link the tenant networks to these two networks in a HA mode? Where would be best place to do the “smart” routing to direct the traffic one way or the other. Or is there a more elegant solution? Thank you and sorry if the question is too basic or too general, hopefully if someone used this design can share their experience. All the best, Andrei <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-pictet-group" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/pictetgroup/" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://twitter.com/PictetGroup" target="_blank"></a> This message is not intended for persons who are citizens of, domiciled or resident in, or entities registered in a country or jurisdiction in which its distribution, publication, provision or use would violate current laws and regulations. The content of this message is confidential and may be read and/or used only by the recipient of this message. For information about personal data protection, please refer to the Pictet Group’s Privacy Notice available at www.pictet.com/privacynotice. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please destroy it and delete it from your computer. The Pictet Group may not be held liable for the use, transmission or treatment of the content of this message. The recipient of this message remains solely liable for any form of reproduction, copying, disclosure, modification and/or publication of the content. No liability whatsoever will be incurred by the Pictet Group. The recipient of this message agrees to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdictions where they use the information contained herein.<br>

1 0

[CINDER] Abandon old patches
by Harsh Ailani 06 Jun '25

06 Jun '25

Hi reviewers, Some of my team members are no longer contributors and have left the company as well. I need to abandon a few active patches which they raised earlier. How do I abandon someone else's patches? Patches to be abandoned: 871257: [SVf] Adding support of clone operation for volumegroup | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/871257 880518: [SVf] Adding support of extend operation for volumegroup | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/880518 869999: Allow Volume Migration with additional extra specs to enter driver code | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cinder/+/869999 Thanks and Regards, Harsh Ailani

2 2

October 2025 PTG Dates & Registration
by Kendall Nelson 05 Jun '25

05 Jun '25

Hello Everyone! The next PTG[1] will take place October 27-31, 2025! Registration is now open[2] and free for all to attend, as per usual. Shortly, I will send along the team sign up to collect groups interested in participating. -- Kendall Nelson *Senior Upstream Developer Advocate* OpenInfra Foundation <https://openinfra.org/> [1] https://openinfra.dev/ptg/ [2] https://ptg.openinfra.org/

1 0

[neutron][ops] pre-created port remains in use after instance is deleted
by Eugen Block 04 Jun '25

04 Jun '25

Hello again, this is version Caracal, recently upgraded from Antelope. We're currently facing an issue with pre-created ports. This used to work just fine for years, now we have to delete the port, recreate it and try again. For example, we launch an instance with a pre-created port, notice that something is wrong and delete the instance. Previously, we could just launch a new instance and use the same port-id, but now we get this error: # openstack server create --image <image> --flavor 1 --port d10298ea-6dd9-40af-af7e-507f4d83a8cf test-port4 Port d10298ea-6dd9-40af-af7e-507f4d83a8cf is still in use. (HTTP 409) (Request-ID: req-e6cef8b4-d8af-4312-852b-d44ec92cf27a) I noticed that the device_id was still pointing to the previous instance, so I tried a couple of things to clear the port state, but to no avail. I tried: - openstack port set --device None d10298ea-6dd9-40af-af7e-507f4d83a8cf - openstack port set --device "" d10298ea-6dd9-40af-af7e-507f4d83a8cf and a couple of more set commands. I also don't see any option for port creation to allow reusing a pre-created port. Am I missing something? Thanks! Eugen

3 7

[Octavia] - Loadbalancer appear offline but are running
by Karl Kloppenborg 04 Jun '25

04 Jun '25

Hi Octavia Team. We’ve been recently running Octavia in our lab and despite load balancers creating and running correctly, status of them always reports offline, see attached screenshot.[cid:47E71115-B565-4330-8878-4E74F1BD57AF] Does anyone have any clues towards this? All the housekeeping and other processes seem to be working fine… Does anyone maybe have more information on how this telemetry is reported? Maybe that might send me down the correct rabbit hole. Thanks, Karl. Karl Kloppenborg Chief Technology Officer m: +61 437 239 565 resetdata.com<https://resetdata.com/> [cid:reset_69557fc2-1d63-4932-b5fd-93bd4f39ca7b.png] ResetData supports Mandatory Client Related Financial Disclosures – Scope 3 Emissions Reporting For more information on the phasing of these requirements for business please visit; https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/c2024-466491-policy-sta…<https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/c2024-466491-policy-sta…> This email transmission is intended only for the addressee / person responsible for delivery of the message to such person and may contain confidential or privileged information. Confidentiality and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you, nor may you use, review, disclose, disseminate or copy any information contained in or attached to it. Whilst this email has been checked for viruses, the sender does not warrant that any attachments are free from viruses or other defects. You assume all liability for any loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening or using the attachments. If you received this e-mail in error please delete it and any attachments and kindly notify us by immediately sending an email to contact(a)resetdata.com.au<mailto:contact@resetdata.com.au>

1 0

[neutron] Approach to a spec for OVN BGP integration (RFE 2111276)
by Frode Nordahl 04 Jun '25

04 Jun '25

Hello, Jakub, Thank you for filing the RFE for Neutron support for OVN native support for route exchange, which includes BGP. We appear to have a common goal of making use of this with OpenStack, and we have time set aside this cycle to work towards this goal. Communication through IRC and e-mail often has limited bandwidth, and I wonder if you would be interested in participating in a A/V sync on some cadence to get us off the ground with the initial spec work. We have good experience with how the core OVN A/V sync is organized and we could do something similar for this. WDYT? -- Frode Nordahl

6 9

[cinder]How do I configure Cinder to recognize free space in the data pool when using a Ceph Erasure Coded Pool?
by Yuta Kambe (Fujitsu) 04 Jun '25

04 Jun '25

Hi everyone, I'm using a Ceph Erasure Coded pool as the backend for OpenStack Cinder. I've created a replicated pool (volumes_meta) for metadata and an erasure-coded pool (volumes_data) for data, following the documentation here: https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/erasure-code/ When I set rbd_pool to volumes_meta in cinder.conf, I receive an "Insufficient free virtual space" error, even though volumes_data has ample free space. This is because Cinder is calculating free space based on the metadata pool. When rbd_pool is set to volumes_data, Cinder correctly calculates free space based on the data pool. However, I then encounter an "RBD operation not supported" error during volume creation. I need Cinder to recognize the free space available in volumes_data while avoiding the "RBD operation not supported" error. I'm unsure how to configure this correctly and would appreciate any advice. The following is supplemental information. cinder.conf is: [ceph] volume_driver = cinder.volume.drivers.rbd.RBDDriver volume_backend_name = ceph rbd_pool = volumes_meta rbd_ceph_conf = /etc/ceph/ceph.conf rbd_flatten_volume_from_snapshot = false rbd_max_clone_depth = 5 rbd_store_chunk_size = 4 rados_connect_timeout = -1 rbd_user = cinder rbd_secret_uuid = <uuid> For example, if the pool usage is as follows, Cinder gets 1.6TiB as the pool free space: $ ceph df --- POOLS --- POOL ID PGS STORED OBJECTS USED %USED MAX AVAIL volumes_meta 4 32 40 KiB 24 189 KiB 0 1.6 TiB volumes_data 7 32 61 GiB 15.67k 92 GiB 2.80 2.1 TiB $ cinder get-pools --detail +-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Property | Value | +-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | allocated_capacity_gb | 523 | | backend_state | up | | driver_version | 1.3.0 | | filter_function | None | | free_capacity_gb | 1592.07 <-★free capacity of volumes_meta | | goodness_function | None | | location_info | ceph:/etc/ceph/ceph.conf:<uuid>:cinder:volumes_meta | | max_over_subscription_ratio | 20.0 | | multiattach | True | | name | <hostname>@ceph#ceph | | qos_support | True | | replication_enabled | False | | reserved_percentage | 0 | | storage_protocol | ceph | | thin_provisioning_support | True | | timestamp | 2025-05-29T07:44:17.903149 | | total_capacity_gb | 1592.07 | | vendor_name | Open Source | | volume_backend_name | ceph | +-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ OpenStack and Ceph versions are: $ ceph -v ceph version 17.2.8 (f817ceb7f187defb1d021d6328fa833eb8e943b3) quincy (stable) $ dnf list --installed | grep openstack-cinder openstack-cinder.noarch 1:21.3.2-1.el9s @centos-openstack-zed

4 4

[kolla] Weekly meeting 04/06/2025 cancelled
by Michał Nasiadka 04 Jun '25

04 Jun '25

Hello Koalas, Due to clashes with other meetings from my side and majority of core reviewers - I’m cancelling the meeting tomorrow. See you next week Michal

1 0

[cyborg][nova][tc] cyborg support for pyproject.toml and failing ci jobs.
by Sean Mooney 04 Jun '25

04 Jun '25

hi everyone, tl;dr can anyone form the cyborg team approve https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cyborg/+/949772 As you all are likely aware when we updated the testing runtime for 2025.2 and unfroze the setuptool version by the removal of python 3.9 support setuptools 80 became available in ci. this resulted in any project that still religed on PBRs `wsgi_scripts` extension failing to deploy under devstack if they had note converted to providing a pyproject.toml Stephen finucan and i started trying to prepare openstack for this change 18 months ago but with the release of setup-tools 80 it became much more important given it blocked gates. while there are a lot of patches still in flight for other project https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:%22pip-23.1-support%22 im reaching out specifically related to https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cyborg/+/949772 because the cyborg job on the nova repo has been failing for several weeks now. this change should fix the failing jobs on the cyborg repo too but the nova team does still check the status of the non voting job in our check pipeline too. i pushed https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cyborg/+/949772 for review 20 days ago and i have a follow up to remove the jammy jobs https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cyborg/+/949777/1 to align cyborgs testing to the testing runtime for this release. in general the cyborg repo seam to have a number of bot and procedural patches open for the last few release https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/cyborg+status:open so its not clear if any of the current core team member are active with that said there have been a few patches merged in the last 6 months https://review.opendev.org/q/project:openstack/cyborg+status:merged so the cyborg team does not seam to be entirely inactive currently. if anyone form the cyborg team sees this could you please review those patches to unblock the cyborg gate. if we don't see movent on this after m2 ill probably propose removing the cyborg job form the nova check line since its currently just wasting ci time given it always fails. regard sean. ps note for the cyborg team https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/cyborg/+/949772 also complete the cyborg part of https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/goals/proposed/migrate-… as that is the general approach we had selected to addressing the packaging issue sand adopting pyporejct.toml was required to make that possible since it was not merged before the setuptool changes.

1 0

[glance] pushing image to all stores upon creation
by Can Özyurt 03 Jun '25

03 Jun '25

Hi everyone, AFAIK the procedure to make an image available in all the stores is: 1) Create an image (on a selected/default store) 2) Import the image with all_stores option I am looking for ways to eliminate the second step and make uploading to all stores the default behaviour. 1) Is there a config for this? 2) If not, can glance plugins/flows be used to implement this behaviour? Both sync and async approaches are fine as long as images created via dashboard are pushed to all stores all well. Looking forward to your guidance. Thanks in advance. Regards, Can

2 6

Wallaby: Password rotation
by Albert Braden 03 Jun '25

03 Jun '25

I've been asked to rotate passwords in our Wallaby clusters. I found this document for zed: https://docs.openstack.org/kolla-ansible/zed/admin/password-rotation.html When I tried it in the lab I ended up with a broken cluster. Is it possible to rotate passwords in Wallaby?

1 0

[publiccloud-sig] Next meeting of Public Cloud SIG - June 4th at 0700 UTC
by Felix Kronlage-Dammers 03 Jun '25

03 Jun '25

Hi everyone, This upcoming Wednesday (June 4th - this is tomorrow :) the next meeting of the publiccloud-sig is going to happen. We’ll be meeting at 0700 UTC here: https://meetpad.opendev.org/publiccloud-sig See also here for all other details: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PublicCloudSIG As I'm participating in the ALASCA Hackathon, I will not be able to join the SIG call myself. Have fun! cheers felix -- Felix Kronlage-Dammers Open Source Business Alliance - Bundesverband für digitale Souveränität e.V. Tel.: +49-30-206539-205 | Matrix: @fkronlage:matrix.org | fkr(a)osb-alliance.com

1 0

[tc][all] OpenStack Technical Committee Weekly Summary and Meeting Agenda (2025.2/R-17)
by Goutham Pacha Ravi 03 Jun '25

03 Jun '25

Hello Stackers, We're 17 weeks away from the release date for OpenStack 2025.2 "Flamingo" [1]. All projects following the cycle-trailing release model [2] will release their 2025.1 Epoxy deliverables by 2025-06-05, i.e., Thursday this week. The OpenStack Technical Committee is close to merging a resolution to require "Developer Certificate of Origin" [3] sign-offs from committers starting 2025-07-01. This will affect committers across the community. We request that you review what the DCO signifies [4] and how OpenStack governance plans to enforce it [3], and be prepared for the change. You can add "Signed-off-by" in your commit messages today. Project maintainers are requested to encourage this sign off, and spread the word to contributors via review comments and project team meetings. When Git is properly configured with your username and email, commit with the "-s" option to include the sign-off line in the commit message. In the past week, the TC didn't merge any new governance proposals; however, several, including the proposal to transition from the CLA to the DCO, are under review. === Weekly Meeting === Last week's meeting of the OpenStack Technical Committee occurred on 2025-05-27 on OFTC's #openstack-tc channel [5]. We covered a range of topics, including DCO implementation, the OpenInfra User Survey, and gate health. The primary focus was on the transition from CLA (Contributor License Agreement) to DCO. Many tooling changes are under review to facilitate this transition. Discussions also clarified that all new patches after July 1st will require a DCO sign-off, and existing patches can be rebased and signed off in Gerrit. There was a brief discussion about potentially abandoning patches in merge-conflict without a sign-off after July 1st, but the consensus was to instead add a comment to inform contributors about the need for the DCO with the updated patchset. The 2025 OpenInfra User Survey is currently live and will close in August [6]. Foundation staff will collate responses and share them with project leads/liaisons and the OpenStack TC in September. The TC reviewed the existing questions and decided not to make changes to avoid confusing the summarization of responses. There was also an update regarding the 2024 user survey, with clarification that anonymized raw data will be shared with PTLs and the TC, and that an NDA may be required for access. The next meeting of the OpenStack TC is on 2025-06-03. This meeting will be hosted simultaneously over video and IRC. You're welcome to join through any platform that you prefer. The agenda and call details are posted to the meeting's wiki page [7]. I hope that you'll be able to join us. === Governance Proposals === ==== Merged ==== - Fix outdated info on the tc-guide | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/950446 ==== Open for review ==== - Require declaration of affiliation from TC Candidates | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949432 - [resolution] Replace CLA with DCO for all contributions | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/950463 - Clarify actions when no elections are required | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/949431 - Add nova-contrib repository | https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/951569 === Upcoming Events === - 2025-06-03: 15 ans d'OpenStack - OpenInfra UG, Paris: https://www.meetup.com/openstack-france/events/307492285 - 2025-06-05: OpenStack 15 ans! - OpenInfra UG, Rennes: https://www.meetup.com/openstack-rennes/events/306903998 - 2025-06-28: OpenInfra+Cloud Native Day, Vietnam: https://www.vietopeninfra.org/void2025 Thank you very much for reading! On behalf of the OpenStack TC, Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr) OpenStack TC Chair [1] 2025.2 "Flamingo" Release Schedule: https://releases.openstack.org/flamingo/schedule.html [2] "cycle-trailing": https://releases.openstack.org/reference/release_models.html#cycle-trailing [3] TC resolution to replace CLA with DCO for all contributions: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/950463 [4] Developer Certificate of Origin: https://developercertificate.org/ [5] TC Meeting IRC Log 2025-05-27: https://meetings.opendev.org/meetings/tc/2025/tc.2025-05-27-17.00.html [6] Take the 2025 OpenStack User Survey: https://www.openstack.org/user-survey/survey-2025/ [7] TC Meeting Agenda, 2025-06-03: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Next_Meeting

1 0

[ops][largescale-sig][scientific-sig] Ops Radio Hour on May 30, 2025
by Ildiko Vancsa 03 Jun '25

03 Jun '25

Hi OpenStack Community, I'm reaching out to you to draw your attention to a new online gathering called Ops Radio Hour. The call series is a casual setting for operators, engineers, and contributors to come together, share knowledge, and collaborate on the complexities of managing and deploying OpenStack environments. The first meeting is scheduled to May 30, 2025 at 1400UTC [1]. The call will happen on Meetpad, and you can find the agenda on the etherpad[2] created for the series. See You there! Best Regards, Ildikó [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Meetups#2025_Ops_Radio_Hour_Seri… [2] https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/openstack_ops_radiohour

2 4

[nova][horizon] VNC console policy
by Eugen Block 02 Jun '25

02 Jun '25

Hi *, I'm a bit confused regarding the policy requirements to grant a user access to the vnc console via horizon dashboard. Since we have 10 years of history in our cloud, I tried to remove legacy stuff, e.g. old policy files and try with the defaults to see what we're missing. I recently upgraded this cloud to Caracal. It seems like currently, only a user with the admin role has access. Searching for some hints, I found the deprecated policies in (everything is commented): /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/conf/nova_policy.yaml And then the defaults here: /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/conf/default_policies/nova.yaml In the code I found two checks for "os_compute_api:os-consoles:show": class ConsoleTab(policy.PolicyTargetMixin, tabs.Tab): name = _("Console") slug = "console" template_name = "project/instances/_detail_console.html" preload = False policy_rules = (("compute", "os_compute_api:os-consoles:show"),) class InstanceDetailTabs(policy.PolicyTargetMixin, tabs.DetailTabsGroup): slug = "instance_details" tabs = (OverviewTab, InterfacesTab, LogTab, ConsoleTab, AuditTab) sticky = True policy_rules = (("compute", "os_compute_api:os-consoles:show"),) from /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/dashboards/project/instances/tabs.py. But I don't find any policy like that in the defaults. So I'm wondering what the current recommendation would be. Should I add only "os_compute_api:os-consoles:show" to /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/conf/default_policies/nova.yaml? I'm not sure if that would override the other defaults (because of one entry only) or if this would be an additional policy (haven't been playing with those for some time now). Could anyone point me to the best approach? Thanks! Eugen

1 0

[Neutron] Bug deputy - summary from week of May 26th
by Sławek Kapłoński 02 Jun '25

02 Jun '25

Hi, I was bug deputy last week and here is short summary: ### Critical None ### High None ### Medium - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2111660 - OVN_AGENT_NEUTRON_SB_CFG_KEY doesn't set when Neutron OVN Agent starts - I marked it as Medium but I don't really have env to confirm it currently, - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2111908 - [FT] ``test_subport_delete`` fails - fix proposed already by Rodolfo, - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2112110 - [ovn-octavia-provider] LoadBalancer member not coming back after disable-enable - fix already proposed by Fernando, ### Low - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2112123 - Functional: privsep helper command exited non-zero test_trunk_creation_with_no_subports - opened by Lajos to track failiure with some functional test, ### RFE - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2111899 - [RFE] Use stateless NAT rules for FIPs - proposed by Rodolfo - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2111891 - IPv6 Subnet-Router anycast address inappropriately used for gateway_ip when specifying --subnet-range - unassigned, - https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/2112297 - [RFE] Support Policy Based Routing for LRs in Neutron OVN driver ### To triage - https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-helm/+bug/2112130 - No port found in network None with IP address 169.254.169.254 - Brian already started looking into this, it seems for me that it is more OpenStack Helm issue rather than Neutron so I added Helm project to it too. -- Slawek Kaplonski Principal Software Engineer Red Hat

1 0

[telemetry] Nominate Jaromír Wysoglad to Telemetry Core
by Juan Larriba 02 Jun '25

02 Jun '25

Hi, One of the things I wanted to do when becoming PTL of telemetry was to revive the interest in the community as I sensed that telemetry had been left a little bit behind from the rest of the projects. Since then, there has been a lot of movement: new Ceilometer features were added and even new projects (aethos, a prometheus-keystone proxy and grian-ui, a new metric displaying dashboard for Horizon) which has showed that the interest in gathering and displaying better and more scalable metrics is only growing. In these circumstances, the very small core contributor team needs to grow to keep up with all the influx of new features coming from the amazing community and I cannot think of anyone better than Jaromír Wysoglad to fulfill that role. Jaromír has been involved in the telemetry upstream community for years, tirelessly working to, among other things, make the whole telemetry suite to be compatible with Prometheus storage. He has implemented Prometheus compatibility with aodh, python-observabilityclient and many other things, including maintaining and improving the telemetry tempest test suite. Recently he created and is writing from scratch aetos, the new openstack-prometheus compatibility layer. I can't see a better contributor to the core group. If I don't hear any objections for one week, I'll add Jaromír to the group. Best Regards, Juan Larriba

3 3