18:00:39 <gotmax> #startmeeting Ansible Community Meeting
18:00:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 26 18:00:39 2022 UTC.
18:00:39 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
18:00:39 <zodbot> The chair is gotmax. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
18:00:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:39 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_community_meeting'
18:00:43 <gotmax> #chair gotmax[m]
18:00:43 <zodbot> Current chairs: gotmax gotmax[m]
18:00:56 <gotmax> #topic Intro and Info
18:01:37 <cybette_> o/ (here and still jetlagged)
18:01:48 <gotmax> acozine andersson007_ baptistemm bcoca briantist cyberpear cybette dericcrago dmsimard felixfontein geerlingguy gundalow gwmngilfen ikhan_ jillr jtanner lmodemal misc nitzmahone resmo samccann tadeboro cidrblock thaumos zbr maxamillion: Community meeting is starting now
18:02:17 <gotmax> #chair cybette_
18:02:17 <zodbot> Current chairs: cybette_ gotmax gotmax[m]
18:02:39 <gotmax> #info Agenda: https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/645 / Topics: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics
18:02:45 <gotmax> #info Ansible 7.0.0a2 has been released: https://groups.google.com/g/ansible-announce/c/EI8cOKdBAxQ
18:03:14 <cyberpear> o/
18:03:28 <mariolenz[m]> o/
18:03:34 <cybette_> maxamillion chadmf meeting time!
18:03:42 <gotmax> #chair cyberpear mariolenz[m]
18:03:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: cyberpear cybette_ gotmax gotmax[m] mariolenz[m]
18:04:30 * gotmax gets his laptop charger
18:04:44 <maxamillion> .hello
18:04:44 <zodbot> maxamillion: (hello <an alias, 1 argument>) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1".
18:04:51 <maxamillion> .hello2
18:04:52 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
18:04:55 <maxamillion> there we go
18:04:59 <gotmax> #chair maxamillion
18:04:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: cyberpear cybette_ gotmax gotmax[m] mariolenz[m] maxamillion
18:05:05 <maxamillion> woot
18:05:13 <mariolenz[m]> Just FYI, I think cisco.nso is unmaintained: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/155
18:05:25 <gotmax> #link https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/155
18:06:29 <gotmax> Okay, I'll wait ~2 more minutes and then get started
18:06:59 <gotmax> Anyone have anything in particular they'd like to discuss?
18:08:07 <maxamillion> not at the moment :)
18:08:11 <jtanner> just want to remind folks about https://deploy-preview-1501--galaxyng.netlify.app/community/overview/
18:08:19 <cybette_> #info Thanks to everyone for participating in Ansible Contributor Summit (both virtually and in-person)! We will share links and more details about the event in the next Bullhorn issue.
18:08:26 <jtanner> we welcome feedback in any form on the galaxy beta
18:08:39 <gotmax> #chair jtanner
18:08:39 <zodbot> Current chairs: cyberpear cybette_ gotmax gotmax[m] jtanner mariolenz[m] maxamillion
18:09:01 <gotmax> jtanner: Feel free to #info your announcement so it shows up in the agenda
18:09:36 <jtanner> #info the galaxy_ng beta is live and docs can currently be found at https://deploy-preview-1501--galaxyng.netlify.app/community/overview/ we welcome any and all feedback
18:09:56 <gotmax> #topic Collections that don't tag releases
18:10:04 <gotmax> #link https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/148
18:10:27 <gotmax> We talked about this last meeting, but here's an update:
18:10:46 <gotmax> The changes to the collection requirements were merged earlier today
18:10:58 <jtanner> +1 for requiring tagging, regardless of language
18:10:59 <gotmax> I announced the issue on the bullhorn
18:11:26 <gotmax> And I still need to open issues against the offending collections
18:12:02 <gotmax> I put up a draft of what I would file against collections here: https://github.com/ansible-community/community-topics/issues/148#issuecomment-1292384067
18:12:53 <gotmax> It looks like mariolenz[m] already gave some feedback. Thanks!
18:13:16 <gotmax> I also opened a fixup pr that I need a review on: https://github.com/ansible-collections/overview/pull/219
18:13:21 <gotmax> I made a formatting oopsie
18:13:47 <gotmax> That's all from me about that :)
18:13:57 <gotmax> Any other comments :)?
18:14:29 <mariolenz[m]> As I've said in the issue, I would drop the "too much". What do the others think?
18:14:50 <maxamillion> looking
18:15:02 <remindbot[m]> @cybette:ansible.im cyb-clock chimes every 15 minutes during the community meeting
18:15:16 * gotmax pushes snooze
18:15:20 <jtanner> "but the substance has not changed too much" -> "but the intent has not changed"
18:15:34 <jtanner> i'm not a linguist
18:15:37 <maxamillion> mariolenz: I agree
18:15:50 <maxamillion> jtanner: +1
18:16:02 <gotmax> +1 to jtanner
18:17:24 * gotmax has edited his comment
18:19:00 <gotmax> #topic [WIP] removal_from_ansible.rst: add paragraph about removal collections violating the requirements
18:19:07 <gotmax> #link https://github.com/ansible-collections/overview/pull/217
18:19:47 <gotmax> andersson007__ is not here, but I figured I'd bring this up because there was some ongoing discussion
18:21:34 <gotmax> After we found so many collections violating the tagging requirement, mariolenz[m] (I think) suggested that we should update the removal process
18:21:37 <jtanner> sounds like someone needs a law degree to make an informed opinion on this language
18:21:50 <gotmax> to add a procedure for removing collections that violate the requirements
18:22:05 * gotmax notes that we already have one legal ticket open :D
18:22:31 <mariolenz[m]> Looks OK to me.
18:22:33 <jtanner> "making enough effort" ... pretty subjective
18:23:26 <maxamillion> "doesn't fulfill current requirements" .... ?
18:23:32 <maxamillion> would that be better or no
18:25:29 <gotmax> jtanner: Basically, someone points out a violation and explains what needs to be done to fix it, and the collection has 4 weeks (unless the circumstances merit more/less time) to fix it before being removed.
18:26:01 <jtanner> i get it
18:26:35 <gotmax> If anyone has changes, please suggest them on the PR so andersson007__ can apply them later
18:26:36 <jtanner> it's just that "effort" is arguable ... "i tried really hard, but our interns that wrote this collection have gone back to school"
18:27:36 <jtanner> "without making enough effort to mitigate these violations" -> "without resolving the violations within the time allowed"
18:27:41 <jtanner> or something like that
18:28:10 <gotmax> That's seems better
18:28:15 <jtanner> not language that gives them a change to make a sob story or deflect onto people who can't be responsible anymore
18:28:24 <maxamillion> +1
18:28:26 <jtanner> s/change/chance
18:30:01 <remindbot[m]> @cybette:ansible.im cyb-clock chimes every 15 minutes during the community meeting
18:30:03 <gotmax> So we agree that four weeks to resolve the issue is a reasonable default?
18:30:06 <mariolenz[m]> jtanner: I agree with gotmax, please add your suggestion to the PR.
18:30:19 <gotmax> The other question is how the process should look like
18:30:35 <mariolenz[m]> Sounds good to me, though.
18:30:48 <jtanner> done
18:31:11 <gotmax> Thanks jtanner
18:31:53 <mariolenz[m]> great!
18:33:22 <gotmax> Does anyone have anything else to add to this?
18:33:42 <mariolenz[m]> I think that 4 weeks sounds reasonable to fix (most) violations.
18:34:07 * gotmax notes that some of dmsimard's sanity check issues are still open
18:34:19 <gotmax> e.g. https://github.com/fortinet-ansible-dev/ansible-galaxy-fortios-collection/issues/181
18:34:41 <gotmax> That collection has had a lot more than four weeks
18:35:38 <maxamillion> ehhh, I was on a 6 week Parental Leave and wouldn't have fixed squat
18:36:35 <gotmax> That's a fair point
18:38:04 <maxamillion> 3 months? ... that's half an ansible-core dev cycle
18:38:46 <mariolenz[m]> gotmax: Good point. On the other hand, we didn't threaten them that we'll remove the collection from Ansible. Otherwise, they might have fixed this within 4 weeks.
18:39:40 <jtanner> in the case of interns, it might not happen till the next summer
18:39:59 <gotmax> The confusing part is that they have four weeks before the vote, but the collection isn't actually removed for months
18:40:30 <cybette_> 4 weeks is reasonable in general, but might be good to have flexibility and a way to extend the term. also to remind people to increase the bus factor :)
18:41:40 <gotmax> mariolenz[m]: Didn't you say something about the deprecation period being too long earlier?
18:43:21 <maxamillion> jtanner: good point :/
18:43:50 <gotmax> I'll add that the process is always subjective to the SC
18:43:59 <mariolenz[m]> There might be good reasons why people cant fix (every) violation within 4 weeks. I'm not for a hard cut after 4 weeks, we should allow to people to take longer. That is, if they can convince us that there is a really good reason ;-)
18:44:05 <gotmax> So we don't have to plan for every circumstance
18:44:09 <gotmax> Just the most likely ones :)
18:44:19 <jtanner> but maybe this is a good forcing function to get partners to stop only using interns as fulltime engineers on these projects
18:44:31 <maxamillion> cybette: +1 - increasing the redundancy is key, people should be able to take extended amounts of time off without impacting the overall project
18:44:36 <gotmax> mariolenz[m]: Exactly
18:45:05 <remindbot[m]> @cybette:ansible.im cyb-clock chimes every 15 minutes during the community meeting
18:45:11 <gotmax> And I also agree re. the bus factor issue :)
18:46:04 <gotmax> andersson007__ has an issue open about the inclusion process and felixfontein has one about c.g flatmapping and another about private modules/plugins
18:46:48 <gotmax> Do we want to discuss one of those, move to open floor, or stay on this?
18:50:55 <mariolenz[m]> c.g flatmaping is too special for me. Actually, I've never worked on or used c.g... looks like it should be renamed into c.leftovers or something. And I'm not sure if I really understand the private modules/plugins issue.
18:51:21 <gotmax> #topic Open Floor
18:51:42 <gotmax> mariolenz[m]: Yeah, there was some recent discussion about splitting c.g
18:52:37 <gotmax> There's some clusters of modules that are for the same product/service/website that I really think we should try to split out
18:53:35 <gotmax> But not without someone to actually maintain/administer/release the new collections
18:54:14 <jtanner> i don't see why any of these should be in c.g. https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.general/tree/main/plugins/modules/cloud
18:54:45 <jtanner> maybe community.cloud
18:55:10 <gotmax> Yeah
18:58:20 <gotmax> There's many ways to split up/extract parts from c.g. but we need to find existing contributors and/or onboard new people to do so
18:58:26 <mariolenz[m]> I'm sorry, but I have to go now. Thanks for the discussion!
18:58:36 <gotmax> Thank you mariolenz[m]
18:58:45 <zbr> not even cloud, they need to be standalone collection for each cloud.
18:59:29 <zbr> we do not want to penalize cloud foo for being in the same bucket with cloud bar, which may do nothing to maintain its collection.
19:00:06 <zbr> but it could be cool to spawn a new namespace named `cloud`.
19:00:17 <gotmax> zbr: Do you see any actively problematic content that needs to be dropped?
19:00:52 <gotmax> #endmeeting