DC: I was able to upgrade k8s to 1.30 in lima-kilo
DC: Some components need upgrading, including Kyverno and the bundle of metrics components
OKR/hypotheses progress
DC: Komla is working on the âsustainability scoreâ hypothesis
DC: On the UI side, not much progress. Sarai did 3 user interviews during the hackathon and got a lot of feedback.
DC: On Push to Deploy, we defined the minimal scope in T393564, if there is time we will work on the extended scope as well. I need to double check if all the information is in the task.
DC: There is nothing blocking the components API anymore, I will try to deploy it soon.
TV: Is there any risk of delays in the start of the push-to-deploy beta?
DC: Iâm 80% confident that we can follow the timeline for the minimal scope. The long-term timelines are more at risk in case of reorgs.
BD: Where can I learn more about the âsustainability scoreâ work?
DC: Working document is at Sustainability Score | Survey Results. Pain points were listed at Sustainabilty Score | User story refinement. The work is also tracked in Phabricator at T368600. This work was started by Slavina, after she left Seyram Komla Sapaty volunteered to continue that work, and gather feedback from the Toolforge admins. We have created a weighted score.
SKS: One change I did is to have the total score to have a picture of the entire sustainability score on a fixed scale. I also put together a table with the âdefinition of doneâ for all the categories. At the end of this quarter we will have something more concrete. We want to avoid ambiguous categories and have something that is measurable and actionable.
BD: Is the end goal to produce a number about the sustainability of Toolforge as a Platform, and not about the individual tools?
SKS: Yes, to have a sense of where the platform is. For example, the percentage of tools that have open source code. Itâs not about specific tools.
DC: It came out as a way to have a measurable unit of the work we are doing on Toolforge, and to decide what to work on next. It was also a push from Birgit to find areas to focus on (the ones with a low score). Thatâs why we asked Toolforge admins what they think has more impact or is more critical.
BD: Itâs just a roadmap in a weird suit, right? It was never clear to me what âsustainabilityâ means in this context. Looking at the doc it seems like itâs a list of features that we think Toolforge should have.
TV: Was the âconsultationâ the emails with a link to an etherpad?
DC: There were also some meetings.
SKS: There were also meetings at the hackathon and/or wikimania
DC: I agree sustainability is an ill-defined word, similar to the âtiger teamâ.
FN: I like Bryanâs definition that sustainability is just a âglorified roadmapâ, thatâs how I see it, but I havenât heard that explicitly from management.
Updates on toolforge (and toolsbeta) infrastructure using opentofu https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T390056
CO: The tofu-provisioning project is now completed. To create a new resource in the tools/toolsbeta projects, you can create a merge request in the repo, and when it is merged your resource gets created. I will do a presentation in the next WMCS team meeting.
Decision request - Tool account management and Striker https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T394035
Discussion is still ongoing in the task
BD: is it about whether the API should be separated from Striker?
TV: the idea is to move the LDAP credentials to a more isolated component, both for use from Striker and from other places (e.g. Toolforge CLI)
Istanbul Hackathon
BD: a number of the Toolforge Standards Committee were present. It seems there is some interest in that group for getting more involved with helping, maybe work on some initiatives. Just a reminder to keep the people in that group in mind as a potential resource.
FN: how do we get in touch with them?
BD: good question. they have a committee-only mailing list. One way could be phabricator (they have a tag), or you can also poke me or committee members individually. Thereâs also a tool for the committee, so you can add that to another tool for auditing, etc.
DC: There were some conversations at the hackathon about the âright to fork policyâ
BD: The committee are the right people to discuss that, itâs similar to the âabandoned tool policyâ. Anybody who is interested in a tool should be able to ask for the source code, even if they donât plan to become an official maintainer. There is not automatic enforcement, so somebody must care enough to ask and push the process forward. I donât know if we ever actually actioned a âright to forkâ request.
BD: I donât want to arbitrarily shut down tools just because they donât meet some rule.
FN: with the build service, you have to provide the source code to deploy a tool. Itâs a good example of designing things to nudge people into a desired behaviour.
