On 07/03/18 20:24, Lance Bragstad wrote: > > > 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.
This ^ . If we go back to the Design Summits, where these small projects would get 3 or 4 40min slots, and very little chance of a mid-cycle, it will cause teams 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 > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
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