16:00:46 <elmiko> #startmeeting api-sig
16:00:47 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Sep 21 16:00:46 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is elmiko. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:48 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:50 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'api_sig'
16:00:54 <cdent> o/
16:00:56 <elmiko> #chair cdent edleafe
16:00:57 <openstack> Current chairs: cdent edleafe elmiko
16:00:58 <elmiko> hi
16:01:14 <elmiko> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-SIG#Agenda
16:01:31 <elmiko> #topic previous meeting action items
16:01:42 <elmiko> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_sig/2017/
16:02:13 <cdent> just to note: I’ve got a hard stop at the end of the meeting so need to leave myself out of the running for the newsletter
16:02:15 <elmiko> edleafe had an action, and he did in fact freeze that review
16:02:21 <elmiko> ack
16:02:50 * edleafe is half-paying attention
16:03:19 <elmiko> hmm, so there is no -1 on that review, but there is a comment for clarification
16:03:50 <elmiko> #topic open mic and new biz
16:04:04 <elmiko> one topic there, Review the discussion from PTG, make sure we're up to date on the actions
16:04:11 <elmiko> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-ptg-queens
16:04:23 <cdent> stepping back one, yeah, I’m not sure what, if anything, to do about that comment
16:04:42 <elmiko> oops, sorry
16:05:07 <elmiko> yeah, me neither, i figured we'd circle back to it during the guidelines topic
16:05:13 <cdent> k
16:05:20 <elmiko> i probably should have said that though
16:05:36 <edleafe> frankly, I don't understand the confusion
16:06:14 <cdent> re etherpad: I thought we should see if there was anything we needed to clarify in the etherpad. I’m intending to do my own write up on “what happened at the ptg”, which will probalby do some of that thinking, but if there’s anything to say here that’s cool too
16:06:29 <elmiko> cool
16:06:45 <elmiko> we definitely had a lot of actiivity at the ptg, which was cool
16:07:02 <cdent> plenty of activity, but less clear what the takeaways are
16:08:02 <edleafe> I'm working on a PTG blog post, too
16:08:05 <elmiko> well, big takeaway for me was the inclusion of the sdk folks and the knowledge about how the wg had been perceived by the user community
16:08:32 <elmiko> that was an eye-opener
16:08:35 <cdent> capabilities was another one
16:08:43 <cdent> elmiko: I was surprised that you were surprised by that
16:08:45 <elmiko> +1
16:08:48 <elmiko> haha
16:09:06 <cdent> we read and write the os-dev list and talk about how to make apis on the server side and that’s about it
16:09:07 <elmiko> i guess i just never realized how we were perceived outside the dev community
16:09:19 <elmiko> right
16:09:33 <elmiko> my blinders were fully on, i guess that's my admission here
16:09:46 <edleafe> I was surprised too
16:09:57 <elmiko> i also didn't realize how interested the user community was in the work that is going on
16:10:02 <edleafe> I guess I don't put much thought into formal governance
16:11:19 <cdent> it’s more about visibility perhaps?
16:12:00 <elmiko> and messaging
16:13:10 <cdent> another topic that had some size was instruction on the way in which sdks should granularize access to the microversions
16:13:16 <cdent> there was some surprise from various people
16:13:24 <cdent> so that would be a good thing to write down at some point
16:13:29 <elmiko> +1
16:13:36 <elmiko> that convo got deeper that i expected
16:13:37 <edleafe> Unless someone approached us and we rejected their request as "we don't do that stuff", I guess I can't see why people felt they couldn't work with us
16:14:12 <elmiko> edleafe: same for me
16:14:52 <cdent> note that the people who were reporting this to us were not actual “users” but people representing the UC world, so there may be some telephone game going on, or theorizing
16:15:11 <elmiko> fair
16:15:42 <elmiko> hopefully over the next month or so we'll have more interaction with melvin and the other uc folks to learn more about how we can help
16:16:02 <cdent> like you said, I think the way forward is increased interaction melvin et al, and more messaging
16:17:16 <cdent> we all seem to have a bit of interaction lag going on today
16:17:59 <elmiko> so, only other thing to clear up from the etherpad might be to followup with dtantsur about writing up the guided review
16:18:04 <elmiko> (for me at least)
16:19:16 <elmiko> ok, moving along then
16:19:25 <elmiko> #topic guidelines
16:19:34 <elmiko> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/api-wg,n,z
16:19:38 <cdent> edleafe: above you said “frankly…”
16:19:39 <elmiko> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/api-sig,n,z
16:19:53 <cdent> which suggests nothing to worry about re that comment
16:21:09 <elmiko> so, i'm kinda wondering amotoki is just looking for a definition to be added?
16:21:12 <elmiko> > I think we cannot define this without defining what "API extensions" means.
16:21:33 <elmiko> but, there is no -1, so maybe a request for a future guideline addition?
16:22:38 <cdent> perhaps so
16:22:53 <edleafe> cdent: I hate to ignore comments, but that one seemed worthy. I'm worried about the after-effects of doing so.
16:22:57 <cdent> it it true that there is no definition anywhere of “API extension”
16:23:44 <cdent> edleafe: worth of being ignored or worth of being attended to? this statement “frankly, I don't understand the confusion” enhances my confusion
16:24:34 <cdent> we can unfreeze it and I’ll add^wconstruct a definition if we agree that is the right thing to do
16:25:12 <elmiko> i don't know about unfreeze
16:25:32 <edleafe> cdent: it's a question of "how deep", and who the audience is.
16:25:34 <elmiko> if he had -1'd then yeah, but i'd be ok with merging then adding a bug to create a definition
16:25:47 <edleafe> we commonly talk about APIs, extensions, and the like
16:26:21 <cdent> edleafe: so you’re saying it is worthy of being ignored?
16:26:29 <edleafe> the existing wording says "API extensions are sometimes used to add custom functionality to single
16:26:33 <edleafe> deployments of OpenStack. API extensions are sometimes used to add custom functionality to single
16:26:40 <edleafe> doh!
16:26:52 <edleafe> dumb terminal paste function
16:27:08 <edleafe> "... deployments of OpenStack"
16:27:41 <edleafe> the definition of what an extension is seems irrelevant
16:28:01 <edleafe> it is the "custom functionality" which is the point, and which is "bad"
16:28:32 <elmiko> good point, imo
16:28:54 <cdent> so, in truth the term “api extensions” is irrelevant, it is “extending the api” that is the problem and we’re using what we consider a commonly accepted term of art?
16:29:06 <edleafe> We could change "extensions" for "modifications"
16:30:03 <edleafe> IOW: "don't modify an API. Create a separate service to do your custom stuff"
16:30:11 <cdent> the question is this: should we merge what we’ve got or stick a -1 on it to say how it needs to change?
16:31:02 <edleafe> I would say merge, and if there is confusion, add clarification later
16:31:10 <cdent> i’m fine with that
16:31:28 <elmiko> +1
16:31:37 <elmiko> so moted, let it be done
16:32:22 <edleafe> I can do it
16:32:29 <elmiko> cool
16:32:36 * edleafe is done with his phone meeting
16:32:42 <elmiko> i don't think there are any other guidelines that have moved since last meeting
16:32:59 <cdent> I believe you are correct elmiko
16:33:09 <elmiko> ok, then
16:33:11 <elmiko> #topic bug review
16:33:18 <elmiko> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-wg
16:33:25 <elmiko> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-sig
16:33:42 <cdent> nothing new, it seems
16:33:50 <elmiko> nice to see the list shrinking though =)
16:34:00 <elmiko> #topic weekly newsletter
16:34:07 <elmiko> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-sig-newsletter
16:34:15 <elmiko> it's either me or you edleafe =)
16:34:33 <elmiko> we need a randomizer on the irc bot
16:34:54 <edleafe> I wasn't paying attention for most of the meeting :)
16:35:01 <elmiko> me it is!
16:35:13 <elmiko> edleafe i'll ping for review in a few
16:35:23 <elmiko> any last comments or additions?
16:35:28 <edleafe> yeah
16:35:38 * elmiko hands mic to edleafe
16:35:50 <edleafe> was there any interest in moving these meetings to #openstack-sdk?
16:35:59 <edleafe> I don't remember who brought it up at PTG
16:36:21 <elmiko> hmm
16:36:31 <elmiko> i don't remember that
16:36:46 <edleafe> it was in the context of making us more open to SDK devs
16:36:57 <elmiko> if we do move, i think we'd have to give good notice and make sure that it is widely advertised when we will deprecate
16:37:07 <edleafe> might have been with David Flanders
16:37:18 <edleafe> for the record, I'm not in favor
16:37:19 <elmiko> i suppose i don't have an objection as long as the other openstack-sdk inhabitants don't mind
16:37:25 <edleafe> I like having separate logs
16:37:38 <elmiko> cdent any thoughts?
16:37:50 <cdent> i’m not a huge fan of having meetings in channels that already have casual traffic
16:38:09 <edleafe> yeah, me neither
16:38:14 <elmiko> i'm fine staying here
16:38:18 <edleafe> ok, let's forget I brought it up :)
16:38:23 <cdent> I get the idea of having office hours in a common/casual channel
16:38:32 <cdent> but for a thing which is a meeting with an agenda, not so much
16:38:37 <elmiko> yeah, that makes sense to me as well
16:38:48 <cdent> we may wish to consider having office hours, but let’s think about that some other time
16:38:48 <elmiko> so, maybe we should consider office hours?
16:38:52 <elmiko> jinx
16:38:52 <cdent> jinx!
16:38:55 <elmiko> lol
16:39:07 <elmiko> next ptg, first rounds on me ;)
16:39:41 <cdent> noted
16:39:43 <elmiko> ok then. any other last last minute topics?
16:40:01 <elmiko> going once...
16:40:06 <elmiko> twice...
16:40:12 <elmiko> thanks guys =)
16:40:15 <elmiko> #endmeeting