On 03/07/2018 06:12 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > > HTML: https://anticdent.org/tc-report-18-10.html > > This is a TC Report, but since everything that happened in its window > of observation is preparing for the > [PTG](https://www.openstack.org/ptg), being at the PTG, trying to get > home from the PTG, and recovering from the PTG, perhaps think of this > as "What the TC talked about [at] the PTG". As it is impossible to be > everywhere at once (especially when the board meeting overlaps with > other responsibilities) this will miss a lot of important stuff. I > hope there are other summaries. > > As you may be aware, it [snowed in > Dublin](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23snowpenstack) causing plenty > of disruption to the > [PTG](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23openstackptg) but everyone > (foundation staff, venue staff, hotel staff, attendees, uisce beatha) > worked together to make a good week. > > # Talking about the PTG at the PTG > > At the [board > meeting](http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2018-March/002570.html), > > the future of the PTG was a big topic. As currently constituted it > presents some challenges: > > * It is difficult for some people to attend because of visa and other > travel related issues. > * It is expensive to run and not everyone is convinced of the return > on investment. > * Some people don't like it (they either miss the old way of doing the > design summit, or midcycles, or $OTHER). > * Plenty of other reasons that I'm probably not aware of. > > This same topic was reviewed at [yesterday's office > hours](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T09:19:32). > > > For now, the next 2018 PTG is going to happen (destination unknown) but > plans for 2019 are still being discussed. > > If you have opinions about the PTG, there will be an opportunity to > express them in a forthcoming survey. Beyond that, however, it is > important [that management at contributing > companies](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T22:29:24) > > hear from more people (notably their employees) than the foundation > about the value of the PTG. > > My own position is that of the three different styles of in-person > events for technical contributors to OpenStack that I've experienced > (design summit, mid-cycles, PTG), the PTG is the best yet. It minimizes > distractions from other obligations (customer meetings, presentations, > marketing requirements) while maximizing cross-project interaction. > > One idea, discussed > [yesterday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T22:02:24) > > and [earlier > today](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-07.log.html#t2018-03-07T05:07:20) > > was to have the PTG be open to technical participants of any sort, not > just so-called "OpenStack developers". Make it more of a place for > people who hack on and with OpenStack to hack and talk. Leave the > summit (without a forum) for presentations, marketing, pre-sales, etc. > > An issue raised with conflating the PTG and the Forum is that it would > remove the > [inward/outward > focus](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-07.log.html#t2018-03-07T08:20:17) > concept that is supposed to distinguish the two events. > > I guess it depends on how we define "we" but I've always assumed that > both events were for outward focus and that for any inward focussing > effort we ought to be able use asynchronous tools more. I tried bringing this up during the PTG feedback session last Thursday, but figured I would highlight it here (it also kinda resonates with Matt's note, too).
Several projects have suffered from aggressive attrition, where there are only a few developers from a few companies. I fear going back to midcycles will be extremely tough with less corporate sponsorship. The PTGs are really where smaller teams can sit down with developers from other projects and work on cross-project issues. > > # Foundation and OCI > > Thierry mentioned > [yesterday](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T09:08:04) > > that it is likely that the OpenStack Foundation will join the [Open > Container Initiative](https://www.opencontainers.org/) because of > [Kata](https://katacontainers.io/) and > [LOCI](https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/projects/loci.html). > > This segued into some brief concerns about the [attentions and > intentions of the > Foundation](http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-03-06.log.html#t2018-03-06T09:13:34), > > aggravated by the board meeting schedule conflict (there's agreement > that will never ever happen again), and the rumor milling about the > PTG. > > # Friday at the PTG with the TC > > The TC had scheduled a half day of discussion for Friday at the PTG. A > big [agenda](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PTG-Dublin-TC-topics), a > fun filled week, and the snow meant we went nearly all day (and since > there's no place to go, let's talk, let's talk, let's talk) with some > reasonable progress. Some highlights: > > * There was some discussion on trying to move forward with > constellations concept, but I don't recall specific outcomes from > that discussion. > > * The team diversity tags need to be updated to reflect adjustments in > the very high bars we set earlier in the history of OpenStack. We > agreed to not remove projects from the tc-approved tag, as that > could be taken the wrong way. Instead we'll create a new tag for > projects that are in the trademark program. > > * Rather than having Long Term Support, which implies too much, a > better thing to do is enable [extended > maintenance](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/548916/) for those > parties who want to do it. > > * Heat was approved to be a part of the trademark program, but then > there were issues with where to put their tests and the tooling used > to manage them. By the power of getting the right people in the room > at the same time, we reached some consensus which is being finalized > on a [proposed > resolution](https://review.openstack.org/#/c/521602/). > > * We need to make an official timeline for the deprecation (and > eventual removal) of support for Python 2, meaning we also need to > accelerate the adoption of Python 3 as the primary environment. > > * In a discussion about the availability of > [etcd](https://coreos.com/etcd/) it was decided that [tooz needs to > be > > finished](https://docs.openstack.org/tooz/latest/user/compatibility.html). > > See the > [etherpad](https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PTG-Dublin-TC-topics) for > additional details. > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
