16:00:05 #startmeeting api wg 16:00:10 Meeting started Thu Sep 10 16:00:05 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is elmiko. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:11 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:14 The meeting name has been set to 'api_wg' 16:00:26 hi everyone =) 16:00:32 o/ 16:00:45 #topic agenda 16:00:53 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda 16:01:12 let's give folks a few minutes 16:01:15 hi 16:01:18 hey folks 16:01:24 hey 16:01:32 o/ 16:02:00 o/ 16:02:11 hello 16:02:32 cool, good crowd today =) 16:02:57 looks like we had no action items from last time 16:03:12 #topic Mitaka sessions 16:03:20 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-api-wg-session-plans 16:03:27 we have one big session for tokyo 16:04:09 so far there is an outline forming there, but i welcome any additions for topics that should be addressed 16:04:32 hopefully, we'll flesh that out more before summit 16:05:31 #topic guidelines 16:05:50 so, we have the dashboard up #link http://ghostcloud.net/openstack_gerrit_dashboards/dashboard_api-wg.html 16:06:10 are there any new guidelines that folks would like to highlight, or suggestions for freeze? 16:06:39 I'd like to remind folks of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/217764/ 16:06:47 (which is ready for freeze, btw) 16:07:02 ok, cool. i will mark that as +2 and put it up for freeze 16:07:22 and also reminder to review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/214817 16:07:26 oh, actually that is process related so we don't need to freeze it 16:07:29 it's not (IMO) freeze-ready yet 16:07:37 but more reviews more better 16:07:40 +1 16:08:01 this one #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187112/ could also use some reviews 16:08:22 i don't think its ready yet, but it will be nice to have. we just need to clean the language up 16:09:42 any other guidelines to mention? 16:10:31 actually, #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/221163/ 16:10:40 i think that is close to freeze, but needs a few more reviews 16:10:46 those are the only two I wanted to point out 16:11:06 oops, forgot to #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/214817 16:11:52 ok, so more reviews then we have a couple ready for freeze 16:11:54 ooh, hadn't seen that one elmiko, thanks for the pointer 16:12:12 we probably won't have any new freezes to announce for next week 16:12:30 #topic APIImpact 16:12:41 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+AND+(message:ApiImpact+OR+message:APIImpact),n,z 16:12:57 any reviews that should be highlighted? 16:13:44 I had a nice chat with flaper87 about this one: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219649/ 16:13:50 was glad to see it happening 16:14:20 * flaper87 bows and thanks cdent for the feedback 16:14:22 interesting, hadn't seen that 16:14:49 cdent: is this something we could spin into a guideline, or are we already advising this? 16:15:14 I don't know. Until it came up I hadn't realized anyone would do anything differently 16:15:34 yea, seems like you wouldn't want to do that 16:16:28 looks like we are getting lots of usage out of the APIImpact flag though, which is nice 16:16:36 +1 16:17:04 elmiko: +1 16:17:06 i wonder if there is something more formalized we should do to help add comments on these. i almost feel like there are so many to look at. any thoughts? 16:18:16 I think just asking members to cover whatever they can is the way to go 16:18:44 that's fair, i was just kinda thinking out loud =) 16:18:54 we're just a working group, so our capacity shouldn't be blocking other projects, but when possible we should try to provide all the feedback we can 16:19:04 agreed 16:19:33 I'm not sure any policy would be helpful, other than "there are lots to look at, cover what's possible" 16:20:15 yea, i was thinking something along the lines of like the "office hours" that are held by... governance? 16:20:49 like, could we make a 1hour slot during the week that folks might assemble in openstack-api for the purpose of reviewing some APIImpact stuff? 16:20:59 maybe that's too formalized though 16:21:27 yeah, I'd be mildly -1 on that 16:21:38 yea, i think it's too much 16:21:46 again, just spit-balling 16:21:59 ok, anyone else want to highlight a review? 16:22:16 Do the docs on the APIImpact flag also point to our IRC channel? 16:22:26 good question 16:22:43 if not, maybe that'd be the way to go for folks who have an api-impacting change that want to ask questions 16:22:51 +1 16:23:18 #action elmiko check APIImpact docs to make sure they also mention #openstack-api channel 16:23:39 I think we need to do a bit of work to make it easier for those of us who are api-wg oriented to devote real time toit 16:23:52 as it is, right now I always feel a bit like it is stolentime 16:24:13 agreed, not sure what we could do. reviewing them during out meetings seems like a nice middle ground though 16:25:05 maybe for meetings without a large agenda we should queue up a few to review as a group? 16:25:34 i dunno, something to think about i suppose 16:25:44 cdent: yeah, I have a calendar event set aside for api reviews weekly, and whenever there are replies to things I've reviewed already I see those when I do the rest of my reviews 16:25:58 one of the topics at summit is "how to get (and be) more engaged and engaging" 16:26:01 but that's about the maximum structure possible with the existing setup 16:26:06 cdent: +1 16:26:26 i like that idea ryansb 16:26:44 (also, obligatory plug for gertty) 16:26:46 given the number of apiimpact tagged things, and the relatively strong flow of guidelines, we probably have some useful metrics to wave around 16:26:56 it's like 10x more efficient for me to do reviews that way 16:27:30 it is very cool but I ended up not sticking with it. not sure why 16:27:57 gonna have to check it out 16:29:12 #topic Open discussion 16:29:19 any other business? 16:30:24 not from me 16:30:30 nope 16:30:35 not I 16:30:35 shall we all go review APIImpact stuff for the next 30 min. ;) 16:30:46 seconded! 16:30:57 oh 16:30:59 ok, thanks everybody! 16:31:05 #endmeeting