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