Thursday, 2011-06-02

*** yamahata_lt has quit IRC00:00
*** adjohn has quit IRC00:01
*** heckj has quit IRC00:01
*** eperdomo has quit IRC00:24
*** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting00:29
*** vladimir3p has quit IRC00:30
*** yamahata__ has joined #openstack-meeting00:31
*** rnirmal has quit IRC00:31
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk00:32
*** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting00:43
*** dragondm has quit IRC00:47
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates00:54
*** Binbin has joined #openstack-meeting01:20
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting01:32
*** littleidea has quit IRC01:45
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting02:01
*** errr has left #openstack-meeting02:11
*** littleidea has quit IRC02:18
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting02:38
*** mattray has quit IRC02:53
*** sandywalsh has quit IRC03:24
*** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting03:56
*** Binbin is now known as Binbin_afk03:57
*** vladimir3p has quit IRC04:45
*** Binbin_afk is now known as Binbin04:54
*** Arminder-Office has quit IRC05:40
*** Binbin is now known as Binbin_afk05:57
*** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting06:42
*** vladimir3p has quit IRC06:47
*** Binbin_afk has quit IRC07:20
*** littleidea has quit IRC07:25
*** adjohn has quit IRC09:43
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting11:07
*** littleidea has quit IRC11:18
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting11:21
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting11:47
*** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting12:05
*** littleidea has quit IRC12:53
*** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting13:24
*** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman13:41
*** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting13:41
*** edconzel has quit IRC13:43
*** edconzel has joined #openstack-meeting13:43
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting13:56
*** jkoelker has joined #openstack-meeting14:32
*** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting14:47
*** gelbuhos has quit IRC14:47
*** vladimir3p has quit IRC14:48
*** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting15:03
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk15:20
*** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away15:21
*** heckj has joined #openstack-meeting15:46
*** dprince has quit IRC15:59
*** med_out is now known as medberry16:17
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates17:15
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting17:33
*** JordanRinke_afk is now known as JordanRinke18:29
*** jbryce has joined #openstack-meeting18:52
*** markvoelker1 has joined #openstack-meeting19:00
notmynameppb meeting now?19:00
jbrycewho's here?19:00
jbryceno joke19:02
* heckj lurking19:02
notmynameso this meeting was bumped up? perhaps people think it's later19:03
jbryceit's been at 2:00 on thursdays for about a month19:03
jbrycei'll send another reminder to the list19:04
sorenI thought it was cancelled?19:04
jbrycethat was last week's19:04
dendrobatesis the meeting mow?19:04
sorenI thought this one was, too.19:04
jbrycenope. thierry and john said they couldn't make it, but i didn't see anything about canceling this one19:05
dendrobatesso is there a meeting?19:05
jbrycewe're one short of a quorum right now19:06
jbrycewhat i'd really like to do is vote on the incubation process so we can get that kicked off19:06
jbrycei suppose with thierry and john's absentee ballot approvals and 6 of us we can proceed19:06
openstackMeeting started Thu Jun  2 19:06:48 2011 UTC.  The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at
openstackUseful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.19:06
jbryce - agenda is listed there19:07
jbrycemost of this has already been discussed on the list so we should be able to move pretty quickly through it19:07
jbryce#topic core project promotion only for releases19:08
*** openstack changes topic to "core project promotion only for releases"19:08
jbryceThierry's proposal was that projects can only be promoted to core for the following release cycle rather than allowing it in the middle of a cycle. Seemed like most people agreed with that19:08
dendrobates+1 to thierry's recommendation19:08
jbryceI updated the new project process to include the following language to make this the policy:19:09
jbryce"Once a project is approved for addition as an core project, it will be promoted in the next release cycle. All projects must be approved for promotion to core 6 weeks before a release cycle's design summit. After approval, a new PTL will be elected for the project in the regular PTL election cycle."19:09
jbryce+1 from me as well19:09
jbryce#agreed Projects will only be promoted to core for the following release cycle as stated in the updated new project process19:10
jbryce#topic incubation process policies19:10
*** openstack changes topic to "incubation process policies"19:10
jbryceThose 3 documents together lay out the purpose and process for a project applying and being approved to be an official incubation project19:11
dendrobatesjbryce: has you discussed the incubation process with RS legal.  At some point we need to make sure all previous contributers have signed the CLA, right?19:11
jbrycewe've discussed most of them but have made a number of iterative changes over the past few weeks and i'd like to actually get a vote on them on record19:12
jbrycedendrobates: good point. i will make sure that is part of the process.19:12
jbryce#action Make sure incubation projects follow CLA procedures and previous contributors have agreed to CLA19:12
vishyIf the project is not approved, it may continue as an incubated project?19:13
jbryceif the project is not approved for core? we previously said yes19:13
vishyno that is on incubation page19:13
jbryceahh...that's in reference to step for--the application for core promotion19:14
jbrycei will make that more clear19:14
vishy+1 from me19:15
notmynameseems to me that there should be some explicit provision for removing an incubated project19:15
notmynameis that "If the project fails to make progress..."?19:15
jbryceit's basically PPB discretion19:16
notmynameso what are the changes you are making?19:16
* jaypipes reading back..19:16
jbrycei changed #519:16
jbrycefrom "If the project is not approved, it may continue as an incubated project" to "If the project is not approved by the Policy Board to be promoted to a core project, it may continue as an incubated project"19:17
jaypipesjbryce: typo on #6: s/may remove is/may remove it/19:17
sorenSorry, just catching up a bit here.19:18
jbrycejaypipes: thanks. fixed.19:18
sorenThe CLA is an agreement between the contributor and who else?19:18
jaypipesI think it would be useful to mention what the *benefit* of being in an incubated status is on that document19:18
sorenI don't remember and don't have a copy at hand.19:18
dendrobatessoren: rackspace19:19
notmyname+1 on the docs19:19
notmynamejaypipes: that's covered in
jaypipesnotmyname: oh, doh. thx :)19:19
sorenSo if some other entity (be it corporate or otherwise) has a project that ends up in openstack, their contributors have to sign an agreement with *Rackspace* because...19:19
dendrobatessoren: patent protections mainly, I believe19:20
jaypipesIs there going to be a wiki or web page that lists projects that are in incubated status?19:20
jbrycesoren: it's between the contributor and OpenStack LLC (owned by Rackspace right now) because OpenStack LLC is the Project Manager who is actually granting the Apache License on OpenStack projects19:20
notmynamesoren: OpenStack, LLC19:20
sorendendrobates: So why don't we sign a similar agreement with everyone else involved?19:20
jbrycejaypipes: yes. i will add a section to
notmynamedendrobates: patents are covered in the apache license19:20
jaypipesjbryce: coolio.19:20
dendrobatesnotmyname: but that is not valid in every country unless specifically agreed to, hence the CLA19:21
dendrobatesor so I understand from the lawyers19:21
jbrycethe CLA explicitly grants OpenStack LLC the write to perpetually release the code under Apache for all contributions the contributor makes19:21
jaypipesjbryce: one more typo on last paragraph: s/have successfully release/have successfully released/19:21
sorenI don't think it's clear at all that OpenStack is a legal entity.19:21
jbrycedendrobates: correct19:21
sorenand even less so that it's owned by Rackspace.19:21
notmynameI felt that was pretty explicitly talked about in the initial business sessions at the summit19:22
jbrycejaypipes: thanks for the proofreading. i'm usually the grammar nazi. = )19:22
jaypipes:) np19:22
dendrobatessoren: I agree that should be more clear in the doc, but it is referred to as a LLc which is a legal entity19:22
sorenBut I guess that's a discussion for another day. It just seems weird to require legally binding agreements to add code to openstack.19:22
sorendendrobates: I don't just mean in the agreement, but more generally.19:23
notmyname+1 that it could be made more clear in official docs19:23
notmynamealso +1 that it's a discussion for a different day :-)19:23
dendrobatesis it another day yet?  :)19:24
jaypipesthis last line: "In general, a project will need to have successfully release at least two milestones before it will be considered as a core project." I think it may be better to be more specific on that. Perhaps something like: "Project must have made at least 2 consistent, regular milestone releases. Project must participate in an integration release (6 month release cycle), the first of which will be considered19:24
jaypipes alpha-quality)" Or something like that?19:24
jaypipesbasically, I'm keen to make more specific the way the incubated project treats *the first integrated release*19:25
jaypipesand how the other core projects treat the incubated project during the integrated release...19:25
jbrycebecause the integrated releases only happen every 6 months, that would push core promotion out an additional 6 months if they have to go through an entire integrated release as well, right?19:26
jaypipeswhat are the specific expectations for each of the parties involved? Is the release manager responsible for treating incubated projects differently during integration release time?19:26
jaypipesjbryce: well, I guess I'm saying that if Lunr releases 2 milestone releases, but doesn't participate in the integration release, I don't think they should become core. But if they *do* participate in the integration release, I think they would..19:27
jbryceas laid out currently, they would have to meet all requirements for promotion and be approved by the ppb 6 weeks before a release cycle design summit19:27
jaypipesLunr is just an example here of course, nothing more.19:27
jbrycethen, starting the next release cycle, they would be core and in the process through the entire 6 months19:27
jbryceso taking lunr, they would not be able to be in diablo and would need to be approved 6 months before the design summit this fall19:28
jaypipesjbryce: yeah, I'm trying to suggest one of those PPB promotion requirements is participation in the integration release process :)19:28
jbryceif approved, their first core release would be e next spring which would be managed by the release manager through the entire 6 months cycle19:28
jaypipesjbarratt_: in other words, how can we promote a project to core that hasn't demonstrated "integratability"19:28
jmckentyah, gotcha19:28
jmckentyjaypipes: do we need a "transitional" state?19:29
jbryceso you're saying they couldn't be core until F, but we would treat them as core from a release perspective in e?19:29
jmckentywhere the project is pending-core, but does not have an integrated release out yet?19:29
jaypipesjmckenty: maybe, but I don't necessarily think so. I just think one of the promotion requirements should be a plan for integration and demonstrated participation in the area of integration.19:29
notmynamejmckenty: isn't that incubator?19:29
jmckentyI think a lot of incubated projects might never become core19:30
jbrycei think with 6 month releases, this pushes it out too far19:30
jbrycei'd rather put a specific requirement in like jaypipes says around integration19:30
jbrycebut not necessarily make it a requirement that they go through an entire integration release before they get promoted19:30
jaypipesjbryce: I'm just saying that "Integration with OpenStack processes around testing, releases, and community management" may be a bit vague and proposed projects might appreciate a bit more detail on what we expect from them regarding integration.19:31
jaypipesjbryce: sure.19:31
jmckentywell, I can see confusion if they're listed as an openstack core project, but they're not yet available in an official release19:31
jmckentyor am I misreading that19:32
jbrycejmckenty: i think we can make that clear in the messaging around the releases19:32
jaypipesjmckenty: How can a project be core that hasn't demonstrated its ability to be integrated into the official distribution?19:32
jmckentyjaypipes: which official distribution? ;)19:32
jbrycejaypipes: something like this: "In general, a project will need to have successfully released at least two milestones and demonstrated a satisfactory level of integration with existing core projects before it will be considered as a core project."19:32
jaypipesjbryce: good.19:33
jmckentysure. Maybe we can use that to promote openstack-common ;)19:33
jaypipesjbryce: of course "what is a satisfactory level of integration" is the next question a project lead will ask ;)19:33
jaypipesjbryce: so we should spend some time over the next few months to brainstorm what we mean by that.19:34
jbrycei think there will be a lot of variance between different types of projects. some of it will have to just be PPB discretion.19:34
jaypipesjbryce: but leaving it right now with that language is good for me.19:34
jaypipesgood with me...19:34
jbryceagreed that we should flesh out more of an evaluation checklist for core consideration19:34
jbrycerevote on the 3 incubation documents?19:34
jmckenty#vote +119:34
jaypipes#vote +119:34
dendrobates#vote +119:35
notmyname#vote +119:35
ewanmellor#vote +119:35
vishy#vote +119:35
sorenSorry, got distracted.19:36
jbryce#agreed Approved incubation project documents19:36
jbryce#action jbryce to notify list of incubation process19:36
jbryce#topic Addition of Dashboard for OpenStack and Scalr as core projects19:37
*** openstack changes topic to "Addition of Dashboard for OpenStack and Scalr as core projects"19:37
jmckentyooh, fun19:37
jmckentyDo we have an application that matches the new process?19:37
jmckentyOr can we push back and ask for that?19:37
jmckentyI'm assuming devcamcar is proposed PTL for dashboard19:38
jmckentyand stadil is proposed PTL for Scalr19:38
jmckentybut I'd love docs around license, codebase and repo, etc19:38
jbrycebased off that and the earlier decision to not promote projects in the middle of a release cycle, it seems like we should defer for now and request them to either enter incubation or to apply towards the end of the cycle?19:38
jmckentyWell, I can see Scalr taking a substantial amount of debate19:39
vishyi thought dash was applying for incubation19:39
jmckentyboth on the language issues and the guest agent aspects19:39
dendrobatesjmckenty: me too19:39
jmckentyso I would recommend they apply early19:39
jmckentyif dashboard is applying for incubation, I think we could get devcamcar to fill out the app pretty quickly19:40
jbrycevishy: according to his openstack list email, it sounds like he wanted to move to core19:40
jbrycei can respond to both and ask them to fill out incubation application. i'm sure they'll respond pretty quickly.19:40
jbryceis that the route we want to go?19:40
jmckentyI think so19:41
vishyI think incubation is the best for both19:41
notmynameapplication for incubation :-)19:41
jbryce#action jbryce to contact dashboard and scalr and request they apply for incubation19:41
jbryce#topic Meeting schedule19:42
*** openstack changes topic to "Meeting schedule"19:42
jmckentycan we wait19:42
jmckentylast comment on that19:42
jmckentycan we make sure we have a separate agenda item for each application in the future19:42
vishythe incubation process wasn't totally clear before, but now that we have agreed on it, they should follow it...19:42
jmckentywe may also want to limit the number of apps we consider per meeting, otherwise we could get buried before summits19:43
jbrycejmckenty: agreed19:43
jbryce#info currently the meeting schedule is everything Thursday at 1900UTC/2:00 PM central19:43
jmckentyThat still works well for me, mostly19:44
jmckentyAre there concerns?19:44
jbrycei've had a few requests to decrease frequency, which i am ok with19:44
jbryceit seems like we don't always have a full agenda so we've been ad hoc skipping them19:44
jmckentybi-weekly for 1.5-2 hours?19:44
jmckentyI don't mind ending early, but I would hate to not have enough time19:44
jbrycei'd rather have a fixed schedule that we stick to and have good attendance19:44
jbrycewhat do others think? bi-weekly? 1-1.5 hours?19:45
jmckentynotmyname: what's the thinking?19:45
jmckentytoo slow to respond?19:45
notmynameI'd prefer shorter meetings (as needed) normally scheduled weekly as we are currently doing instead of long bi-weekly meetings19:46
dendrobatesI'd rather do it every week and have it be shorter19:46
jmckentyside note if anyone wants an irccloud invite, I'm loving it.19:47
ewanmellorI'm OK with this slot, and either weekly or biweekly, as long as we get the calendar entries straight.19:47
jmckentyI'd prefer an iCal feed19:47
jbrycei'm fine with that as well19:47
jmckentythat way I can track cancellations19:47
jbrycethere is an ical feed from the google calendar19:47
jmckentyoh, nice :)19:47
jbryceand the google calendar is correct on the time19:47
jaypipesprefer biweekly, but I'm flexible on it :)19:48
sorenI don't particularly enjoy this time slot, fwiw.19:48
ewanmellorI ended up with two entries, one after the other, when the time changed.  I presume that feed didn't cancel the first one, or something.19:48
jbryce#info ical feed:
notmynameewanmellor: now you have a free hour!19:48
jbryce#info html:
sorenI have much more interesting things I could do on a Thursday evening.19:49
jmckentysoren: tmi19:49
soren(9-10 PM)19:49
sorenjmckenty: You ain't seen nothing yet.19:49
jbrycei'm a little offended that soren doesn't find us interesting. = )19:49
jmckentywe could go to 12pm Central (1700UTC) as far as I'm concerned19:49
jmckentyEarlier than that is evil19:49
sorenthat's even worse.19:50
jmckentylater, then?19:50
jbrycei am completely flexible on timing and happy to try a different time slot if there's one that works, but we haven't seemed to come up with something better19:50
sorenMaybe an hour before the weekly openstack meeting?19:50
jmckentythat's Tuesday, right?19:50
sorenIt is.19:50
jbryceso 2000 UTC / 3:00 PM central on tuesdays?19:50
sorenI'm working then anyway, because that evening is screwed.19:51
jmckentyrunning away now, sorry.19:51
jbrycei'll send a note to the list suggesting that19:51
dendrobatesme too, another meeting to prepare for.19:51
jbrycethat's all i've got for today anyway19:51
ewanmellorThat slot is fine by me.19:52
jbryceany last pressing issues from anyone?19:52
jbryce#action jbryce to send email about new potential PPB meeting time of 2000 UTC on tuesdays19:52
jbryceall right. thanks everyone!19:52
*** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: | Minutes:"19:52
openstackMeeting ended Thu Jun  2 19:52:38 2011 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at . (v 0.1.4)19:52
openstackMinutes (text):
*** ewanmellor has quit IRC19:53
*** jbryce has quit IRC19:54
*** dprince has quit IRC19:54
*** dprince has joined #openstack-meeting20:13
*** blamar__ has joined #openstack-meeting20:13
*** dprince has quit IRC20:14
*** troytoman-away is now known as troytoman20:24
*** heckj_ has joined #openstack-meeting20:35
*** heckj has quit IRC20:38
*** heckj_ has quit IRC20:41
*** markvoelker1 has left #openstack-meeting20:54
*** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk21:09
*** blamar__ has quit IRC21:17
*** troytoman is now known as troytoman-away21:26
*** mattray has quit IRC22:18
*** edconzel_ has joined #openstack-meeting22:25
*** edconzel has quit IRC22:27
*** edconzel_ has quit IRC22:30
*** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates22:49
*** jkoelker has quit IRC22:52
*** jaypipes is now known as jaypipes-afk23:01
*** medberry is now known as med_out23:24
*** dragondm has quit IRC23:47

Generated by 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!