16:00:09 <etoews> #startmeeting api wg
16:00:10 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun  2 16:00:09 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is etoews. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:11 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:13 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'api_wg'
16:00:14 <cdent> o/
16:00:19 <etoews> hello
16:00:32 <cdent> elmiko said he will be late
16:00:48 <cdent> were you/are you still at pycon?
16:01:03 <etoews> got back yesterday
16:01:17 <etoews> just catching up
16:01:43 <cdent> twitter made pycon sound very good
16:02:20 <etoews> it was :)
16:02:46 <etoews> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda
16:02:53 <etoews> #topic previous meeting action items
16:03:01 <etoews> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_wg/2016/api_wg.2016-05-26-16.00.html
16:03:10 <etoews> (none)
16:03:16 <etoews> well that's easy then
16:03:26 <cdent> I think we did them all during the meeting
16:03:42 <cdent> and they were all pretty much: prepare the newsletter
16:03:59 <etoews> right right
16:04:10 <etoews> #topic send the weekly newsletter
16:04:20 <etoews> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/API_Working_Group_weekly_email_template
16:04:28 <etoews> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-wg-newsletter
16:05:00 <cdent> I made  new guideline, so we can add that
16:05:10 <etoews> \o/
16:05:16 <cdent> and I think we also need to add a note that some of those guidelines that are up for review are old and need their authors back
16:05:39 <etoews> or we just mark them as abandoned. that's okay too.
16:06:12 <cdent> at least two of them got some comments since the newsletter went out
16:06:19 <elmiko> yo/
16:07:15 <cdent> I reckon maybe we should abandon actions pending further cogitation?
16:07:45 <etoews> ya
16:10:04 <cdent> so, to whoever put the recently merged back: is the idea that we'll just keep that as a rolling list of "recent", not "in the past week"?
16:10:34 <etoews> oh wait. were those two already in there and i didn't see them get deleted?
16:10:42 <cdent> etoews: yeah
16:10:48 <etoews> oops
16:10:59 <cdent> but I think it might be reasonable to re-advertise them if we want
16:11:02 <cdent> ?
16:11:20 <elmiko> which ones are we talking about?
16:12:06 <etoews> elmiko: the merged on may 26 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:closed+project:openstack/api-wg
16:14:40 <etoews> i think it would look a bit odd to have them as "recently" merged for 2 weeks in a row.
16:15:01 <cdent> I'm fine either way
16:15:08 <elmiko> i could see that
16:16:01 <etoews> it also makes me wonder if we should be sending this every week. our velocity is such that bi-weekly might make more sense. ;)
16:16:22 <elmiko> true, but it seemed like we had a clear signal that more emails would be welcome
16:16:44 <cdent> yes, and also from what I can tell people read the list in a very piecemeal fashion so it is easy to miss one week but see the next
16:16:47 <elmiko> is there perhaps other content we could add to them?
16:16:57 <etoews> okay. weekly is fine.
16:17:02 <cdent> we could editorialize
16:17:31 <elmiko> under that guise, maybe having "recently merged" be slightly sticky is not a bad thing
16:17:32 <cdent> "the other day, while reviewing nova api-ref docs, I realized that just about all the URIs in nova are awful, so I wrote a new guideline so we can avoid that in the future"
16:17:39 <elmiko> lol
16:19:34 <etoews> alright well let's keep them in recently merged then?
16:20:24 <elmiko> yea, maybe just leave em in for a few emails. just to help drive the message home
16:20:33 <etoews> done
16:21:02 <etoews> anything else to add to the newsletter or ready to send?
16:22:21 <cdent> I think the content is correct, but since we're noodling over concerns with people's responses, will people get mego if it looks mostly identical to the last one?
16:22:35 <cdent> Or should we be shaking it up somehow?
16:23:04 <cdent> my style would be to vdiff with my memory
16:23:10 <etoews> that was my concern.
16:23:10 <cdent> so everything in the same place is good
16:23:42 <cdent> but I reckon for other people the addition of the new guideline will be completely lost (as that's the only concrete change)
16:24:07 <etoews> do we want to highlight "new guidelines" vs  "Guidelines currently under review"?
16:24:12 <elmiko> hmm, good point cdent
16:24:22 <etoews> right. maybe have a new section for "New guidelines"
16:24:32 <cdent> seems reasonable
16:24:36 <elmiko> might be nice to have some indication about what is "new"
16:24:49 <cdent> or divvy into two broad parts "news" and "status"
16:24:56 <etoews> and rename "Guidelines currently under review" to "Decrepit guidelines"
16:25:03 <cdent> :)
16:25:09 <elmiko> lol
16:25:22 <elmiko> news/status sections seems ok to me
16:25:28 * cdent looks around for more cans of paint
16:25:28 <etoews> what would go under news?
16:25:41 <cdent> in my mind it is basically anything that wasn't in the last week
16:25:53 <cdent> or selections from the list of things that weren't there last week
16:26:00 <elmiko> or do we just have an asterisk or something for new items?
16:26:20 * elmiko grabs another brush
16:26:49 <etoews> asterisk (or the like) doesn't vdiff very well.
16:27:00 <elmiko> good point
16:27:03 <cdent> If you're up for it, elmiko, as the current editor, you could just have an opening paragraph. The content that we currently have would be as it is
16:27:11 <etoews> we already have an awful lot of *  and # already
16:27:13 <cdent> but at the top you'd just write a little blurb
16:27:28 <cdent> "This week nothing has merged but we've got a new guideline about..."
16:27:35 <elmiko> that could work
16:27:58 <cdent> so much paint
16:28:12 <elmiko> seems to me, we want this to be an email that is more than just a proceedurally generated thing
16:28:19 <cdent> yes
16:28:21 <elmiko> so, maybe the intro para. would help that out
16:28:25 <etoews> ya
16:28:29 <cdent> +5
16:28:31 <etoews> ja
16:28:43 <cdent> (ones and twos are, like, so last week)
16:28:47 <elmiko> "it was the best of times, it was the w...."
16:30:44 <cdent> something like that?
16:31:19 <elmiko> do you have an etherpad up or something?
16:31:27 <cdent> (I probably made a gazillion typos)
16:31:38 <cdent> oh yeah elmiko , sorry about that, thought you had caught that:
16:31:41 <cdent> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-wg-newsletter
16:31:50 <elmiko> thanks
16:31:58 <cdent> just reusing the same one from last time
16:32:15 <etoews> yep. let's always just reuse that one.
16:32:23 <etoews> lgtm btw ffs
16:32:32 <elmiko> lgtm as well
16:32:58 <etoews> care to send it off elmiko ?
16:33:09 <elmiko> sure, i can do that
16:33:51 <cdent> word
16:34:07 <elmiko> done and done
16:34:57 <cdent> ossum
16:35:30 <etoews> #topic API changes on limit / marker / sort in Newton
16:35:37 <etoews> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/095545.html
16:35:50 <etoews> i stumbled onto this the other day and didn't have a chance to dig into it
16:36:05 <etoews> that was really just a reminder for me to do it
16:36:19 <etoews> think there's anything in there we need to comment on?
16:36:56 <cdent> ah, yeah, I've been sort of observing that and eventually decided that it was fruitless to get too involved as the reasons for the decision are entirely based on bad mojo in nova's implementation
16:37:19 <elmiko> i had not seen this
16:37:28 * elmiko reading
16:37:49 <cdent> it might be useful to clarify the target point that the wg has declared in existing guidelines while keeping aware that nova has pre-existing constraints
16:39:49 <etoews> cdent: do we have a target point for pagination?
16:40:04 <etoews> all i'm aware of is this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/190743/21/guidelines/pagination_filter_sort.rst
16:41:09 <cdent> etoews: that same file has existing sort_key guidelines in it
16:42:10 <etoews> right. http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/pagination_filter_sort.html but it sez nothing about pagination things like limit and marker
16:42:48 <cdent> right, but the pending review does
16:43:31 <etoews> we should respond and at least point out these things.
16:44:24 <cdent> you want that action?
16:45:30 <etoews> i'll do it right now
16:45:44 <etoews> #topic get out of draft mode
16:46:11 * etoews be right back...
16:47:40 <cdent> this is quite the topic
16:48:04 <etoews> we can postpone it to next week
16:49:00 <cdent> I reckon before we figure out how to do it, we need to figure out what it means to be "out of draft mode"
16:53:43 <cdent> are we gonna hit anything in the next few minutes, if not, I've got dinner waiting on me and then unusually good evening weather to be somewhere other than at this desk
16:54:03 <etoews> what does it mean to be "in draft mode"? :P
16:54:23 <etoews> i'm fine with ending early and putting stuff off to next week
16:54:38 <etoews> another nice thing about weekly meetings!
16:55:08 <etoews> #endmeeting