16:00:27 #startmeeting api-wg 16:00:28 Meeting started Thu Aug 10 16:00:27 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is cdent. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:00:31 The meeting name has been set to 'api_wg' 16:00:36 who is here to api-wg? 16:00:42 \o 16:00:46 * dtantsur is lurking 16:00:52 #chair edleafe elmiko 16:00:53 Current chairs: cdent edleafe elmiko 16:01:11 #link agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda 16:02:42 #topic old business 16:03:02 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_wg/2017/api_wg.2017-08-03-16.00.html 16:03:24 elmiko was going to continue on the in person review process doc (he did) 16:03:37 edleafe was going to respond about sigs (he did, so did ) 16:03:47 o/ 16:03:59 I the review process doc is close to ready? 16:04:35 imo, we are just missing the example, but i thought maybe we could either do a mock review or just wait till the ptg to add the example 16:04:38 * edleafe apologizes for not having reviewed the latest 16:05:00 no worries edleafe, i missed your response about sigs and was curious 16:05:05 so, we're even =) 16:05:11 elmiko: Well, we want to use this as the template for what we send to PTLs 16:05:19 I think waiting until after the ptg for the example is a good idea, drop in a TODO? 16:05:22 ok, should i add an example? 16:05:30 So we should have something soon, and add the example in a follow-up 16:05:43 agreed 16:05:46 yeah, what cdent said 16:06:05 i have a couple cases that i've been involved with in the past that could be fodder for an example, if we want to push it 16:06:33 Will they be obfuscated, or will you name names? 16:06:53 i was going to name names, i did enough work on the sahara api that i don't feel it would wrong to use that as an example 16:07:18 like "sahara team approaches with problem X, etc...." 16:07:28 If you have an example to hand, may as well do it, but perhaps base it on top of the original doc? 16:07:39 i'm perfectly fine with that 16:07:44 word 16:07:52 ok, that's fine. There are some overly-sensitive folks in the OpenStack world who might object if they felt we were criticizing 16:07:54 i think getting this out sooner is better to give folks a chance to get ready 16:08:02 Because you know, no one in OpenStack ever makes a mistake 16:08:21 edleafe: yeah, i would choose an example that i was directly invovled with. so i could be the subject of criticism 16:09:02 elmiko: that *might* make them feel safer :) 16:09:07 hahaha 16:09:19 you know this community too well edleafe ;) 16:09:41 shall we move on to new biz (which includes some old biz) 16:09:48 yep 16:09:48 sounds good 16:09:57 # topic new biz 16:10:11 the sig stuff. 16:10:21 There’s been further discussion in email and elsewhere 16:10:27 cool 16:10:33 #link original thread http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-sigs/2017-July/000022.html 16:10:45 And I just had all my business cards and letterhead printed with "API-WG" on it 16:11:04 i wanted to reply to Thierry's email, mainly asking about the email list questions we raised last time 16:11:12 edleafe: LOL 16:11:14 the gist seems to be : if api-wg hops on this train it will be helpful in encouraging the concept and getting other more entrenched actors acting 16:11:41 elmiko: as I understand it, intra-SIG discussions happen on the SIG list 16:11:42 the mailing list question was clarified: outward publishing still goes wherever we want 16:11:47 * elmiko imagine cdent, edleafe and himself taking a train ride 16:11:50 elmiko: We can still post to dev list 16:11:55 the *-sig list is for us (members of the group) to talk to each other 16:12:10 ok, that's makes things easier for us to decide 16:12:12 imo 16:12:20 ...which we do *so* much of 16:12:24 haha 16:13:15 so, given that, i'd be ok with taking that train ride 16:13:18 to make the transition all we realy have to do is say “yes” and we’ll end up on wiki page soemwhere 16:13:22 right 16:13:32 and we might want to change some branding in the newsletter 16:13:44 I don’t personally think it is worth the effort to change launchpad, gerrit, git 16:13:53 yeah, probably need to sweep through the wiki and spec site as well 16:13:56 ahh, ok 16:13:59 cdent: they can be changed as we get to them 16:14:18 so for a period we'll have both names in various places 16:14:56 so you think we should change launchpad etc, eventually? 16:15:31 you mean like change the project links from api-wg to api-sig (more than just changing the names)? 16:15:33 (which is fine, but I remember when I set up launchpad I wanted to run screaming) 16:15:39 yeah... 16:16:08 i'm not sure the best answer, maybe we can engage the infra folks for advice? 16:16:09 launchpad is fun! 16:16:16 my concern is breaking all our old links 16:16:34 #action edleafe to manage any name change concerns, eventually 16:16:41 since you think it’s fun 16:16:45 sure, I can do that 16:17:18 shall we do an agreed, for formality? 16:17:24 of course! 16:17:27 +1 16:17:32 since it's so rare for us to agree 16:17:35 haha 16:17:41 Or should we do a vote? 16:17:46 We never get to do those 16:17:47 #startvote shall we become a SIG? 16:17:47 Begin voting on: shall we become a SIG? Valid vote options are Yes, No. 16:17:48 Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. 16:17:58 #vote yes 16:17:59 where is "meh"? 16:18:01 #vote Maybe 16:18:02 #vote yes 16:18:05 :) 16:18:10 haha, i was waiting for the jokes 16:18:11 #vote Yes 16:18:33 dtantsur: YOUR MEH IS NOTED! 16:18:37 you can vote too, dtantsur 16:18:44 yea, please do =) 16:18:44 dtantsur: meh should always be an option but [t v2a] 16:18:48 oh rly? 16:18:52 (except no purplerboth in here) 16:18:57 cdent: no dark magic for you! 16:19:03 #vote Yes 16:19:09 dtantsur: you've been a more regular attendee to these meetings than most 16:19:09 #endvote 16:19:10 Voted on "shall we become a SIG?" Results are 16:19:37 the suspense is killing me! 16:19:40 apparently I’m not a good operator 16:19:42 =) 16:19:50 #agreed api-wg will become a sig 16:20:02 Results are 16:20:07 do we have cake now or something? 16:20:11 #alsoagreed votebot sucks 16:20:16 haha 16:20:20 cake! 16:20:25 already next topic 16:20:57 heh, we're still on "old business" 16:21:04 I picked a bug about extensions and started a review, which has begun a discussion with morder 16:21:08 #topic extensions 16:21:31 mordrer is the some more mord version of mordred 16:21:45 #link extensions https://review.openstack.org/#/c/491611/2 16:22:04 he raises the issue of “capabilities”, which I was hoping to avoid entirely 16:22:19 this all started because I asked about a link that explains the intent of the service catalog 16:22:22 * mordred likes to make things hard 16:22:42 * mordred is very much in favor of the patch in question, fwiw 16:22:50 no, it all started when I suggested such a link 16:23:09 * dtantsur sees another recommendation, which ironic is not conforming to.. 16:23:24 edleafe: yes, you’re right, so sorry, credit where credit is due. here’s your 2c 16:23:41 * edleafe goes to buy some hard candy 16:23:58 yeah, it’s an issue dtantsur 16:24:08 sometimes reality isn’t well aligned with some of this stuff 16:24:32 +1 16:24:33 we've been talking about Bare Metal API V2 for some time. we're not even close to starting though.. 16:24:36 but I think we need to decide if we’re writing to describe an ideal, harsh reality, or somewhere in between 16:24:54 well, in mordred's terms we're at "Less good", not "Bad". which is relieving :) 16:25:24 * edleafe hopes someday to achieve "pure evil" 16:25:31 edleafe: I believe in you 16:25:35 ++ 16:26:24 so anyway: that review is there, please look and make some commentary, unless you feel you can construct something useful to say right now, in which case let’s talk about it 16:26:25 dtantsur: it took us nearl 6 cycles to go from planning a sahara v2 api, to actually making it happen 16:26:39 otherwise, the recommendation is good in theory (esp. if you don't deal with hardware) 16:26:41 cdent: ack, will do 16:27:20 Any other new biz? 16:28:26 nothing from me 16:28:33 nope 16:28:44 not here 16:29:58 movin’ on 16:30:02 #topic guidelines 16:30:09 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/api-wg,n,z 16:30:54 I think we’ve covered the state of those 16:31:07 cdent: just about to type that! 16:31:24 did I just win a typing race? 16:31:29 alert the media 16:31:59 well, I hadn't started, so... 16:32:09 the thought was stuck in my brain 16:32:20 too much evil 16:32:41 move to next topic? 16:32:52 lol 16:32:59 * edleafe nudges cdent forward 16:33:17 #topic bug review 16:33:27 #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-api-wg 16:34:06 the big news here is that for want of a better place, service-type-authority bugs are happening in openstack-api-wg 16:34:12 efried needed a place to put a bug 16:34:51 interesting 16:35:11 although there was some overlap early on between the api-wg and service-type participants 16:35:50 do we have TC bugs? :) 16:35:53 we are all core in service-type-authority 16:36:01 right 16:36:17 and generally considered “keepers of the service type religion" 16:36:21 so it sort of makes sense 16:36:29 but naming etc 16:36:53 ok, i hadn't realized the second part 16:37:02 also launchpad is involved so I ran away 16:37:05 haha 16:37:23 I don't know how good for a SIG is to own such a global and cornerstone thing 16:37:31 I mean, from governance point of view 16:37:32 * edleafe didn't even know that was a separate project 16:37:56 dtantsur: the tc and sdague and mordred are also cores of service-type-authority 16:38:43 well ... the API-WG is a little different than a normal sig 16:38:54 mordred: see earlier vote 16:38:59 We're... special! 16:39:07 haha 16:39:09 cdent: I can't keep up with things 16:39:09 we have been nominated (and accepted) being one of the sig trailblazers 16:39:27 you are blinding by edleafe’s evil darkness 16:39:30 damn 16:39:32 blinded 16:40:04 neat. well - I think the fact that the TC has delegated some specific authoirty to the api-wg-sig still stands and is why I'm personally ok with api-wg-core having core on sta 16:40:18 that said - we could also loop that back around with the tC just to make sure 16:40:55 wait - so will we be the api-wg-sig or the api-sig? 16:41:06 latter? 16:41:06 are the sigs supposed to have more space between themselves and the core governance of repos? 16:41:35 so something to consider here 16:41:48 there are repos associated by name with the api-wg 16:41:54 but they are actually owned by the tc 16:41:59 “owned” 16:42:16 so the stuff that happens in those repos is delegated to the people who are known as the api-wg cores 16:42:18 You mean we've been renting them? 16:42:53 but the activity which is associated with the idea of improving APIs and helping people, and such like that there, is something that is easily api-sig? 16:43:35 that makes some sense to me 16:43:46 still a little fuzzy on the repo stuff, but it's not a huge dela 16:43:49 deal 16:44:03 So the guidelines and such would still be our domain, as per ttx 16:44:12 IOW, no major functional changes 16:44:13 yah 16:44:26 ok, that's what i figured. just curious 16:44:43 I was more trying to address the idea of a SIG and service-types 16:44:53 there is a boundary there 16:45:23 that makes sense 16:46:10 I would propose that we continue as we have, without worrying about potential scenarios down the road 16:46:18 fair 16:46:24 When we encounter a definite issue, we can deal with it then 16:46:27 yeah, agreed 16:46:46 i was just trying to make dtantsur feel better! seeing as he has notmuchtime to be worrying about such things 16:46:47 The last thing we should do with the SIG switch is break things that are working now 16:46:48 can we get an animal logo for the api-sig? 16:46:57 * dtantsur feels better 16:46:58 maybe a dung beetle or skunk? 16:47:07 anything else on bugs? 16:47:20 edleafe: +1 16:47:38 elmiko: http://imgur.com/98WLNPW 16:48:00 such pun 16:48:15 wow 16:48:38 #topic weekly newsletter 16:48:45 edleafe: +1 16:49:20 is it my turn? 16:49:35 well, since you are offering XD 16:49:59 then it's unanimous! Congrats, cdent! 16:50:04 haha 16:50:27 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/api-wg-newsletter 16:50:28 fair 16:51:15 i’ll ping for proofing shortly 16:51:24 anyone have anything else to add? 16:51:35 not I 16:51:36 i made my reservations for denver =) 16:51:41 * dtantsur too 16:51:43 i have to leave on tuesday though 16:52:18 that's all 16:52:20 are all four of us going to be there? how very exciting 16:52:26 yeah! \o/ 16:52:39 api-dinner 16:53:06 \o/ 16:53:12 hell to the yes cdent 16:53:13 api-bar 16:53:17 that too! 16:53:24 api-dinner-at-a-bar 16:53:33 wow, this just gets better and better 16:54:24 api-dinner-at-a-bar-sig ? 16:54:29 maybe too far 16:54:49 sounds like we need a pre bar bar to plan the bar 16:54:52 api-breakfast-at-a-bar 16:54:53 LOL 16:55:06 okay 16:55:10 #endmeeting