19:02:16 #startmeeting auc 19:02:16 Meeting started Thu Jul 14 19:02:16 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is maishsk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:02:17 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 19:02:20 The meeting name has been set to 'auc' 19:02:44 Hi everyone 19:02:52 hey 19:02:53 #chair shamail 19:02:53 Hi 19:02:54 Current chairs: maishsk shamail 19:03:05 hi shamail 19:03:16 maishsk: do you want to lead this meeting? 19:03:23 apologies I missed the last meeting 19:03:45 np, it was just MeganR and I… yet we still made progress :) 19:03:59 I asked a bunch of questions!! :) 19:04:30 np shamail 19:04:42 So agenda for today 19:04:45 Awesome, all yours. 19:05:09 #link#link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/AUCRecognition#Meeting_Information 19:05:27 First up 19:05:31 #topic Update on centralized data source proposal by Tom Fifield (MeganR) 19:06:34 MeganR: would you like to give us an update? 19:06:40 They are working on centralizing the data obtained for ease of pulling the AUC information. The information they are pulling looks good. 19:06:50 - slow typer - 19:07:31 We also talked about how to track WG participation for teams not currently using IRC, and looks like the decision is to go really high tech: Google Docs 19:07:45 :) 19:07:50 super hi-tech 19:08:17 there are only a few teams that don't use IRC, so the Google Doc will track active attendance/participation, but will not allow us to count lines in IRC 19:08:38 MeganR: How about a google forms? (I know, I am now going bleeding edge…) 19:08:53 lol - whoa, I need a min to take that in :) 19:09:04 We could have a link to a form where WG chairs could put in the WG name and list all members in one place. 19:09:13 This would automatically give us categorized data :) 19:09:13 I don't know Google Forms, but can take a look at it this next week - like that idea 19:09:26 maybe we can use it for the indiv. submissions as well. 19:09:34 All good, happy to help if you want 19:09:40 MeganR: +1 19:09:48 you might regret that - thank you! 19:09:54 lol 19:10:42 Megan you mentioned that the info they are pulling looks good. 19:10:45 In what way? 19:11:35 Tom went through what we are focusing on for "AUC Criteria" and how they will put that info into the person's profile 19:12:02 still some manual processes, but helps in automating some of the data - and having it for "historical" purposes as well 19:12:08 Good to hear 19:12:21 will that data be publicly available ? 19:12:41 I don't know 19:12:59 Yes, I believe so 19:13:05 cool 19:13:21 Anything on this topic or shall we move on ? 19:13:26 else * 19:13:34 I'm all done - unless there are questions 19:13:47 The plan (please correct me if I am wrong MeganR) is to capture metrics for IRC meetings/lines, commits to UC repos, user group organization, ops-summit mods, etc. and make them all accessible via API from the person’s profile 19:13:47 #topic Milestone-5 update 19:14:19 shamail: you are right 19:14:22 * maishsk jumped the gun. …. . .. 19:14:33 Not at all, we were done. 19:14:49 ok so I started to draft a proposal for the review board 19:14:59 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/uc-recog-m5-output 19:15:13 * maishsk waits for everyone to go and have a look at the link 19:16:21 The idea was to create a group of members, and uneven number. Majority of the representation will be from the UC - but also representation from the TC and the Openstack Foundation employees 19:16:48 That way we have the complete openstack community involvement 19:17:08 * shamail flips over to etherpad 19:17:16 There are still a few things that we need to iron out and that I put under the ‘Things to consider’ 19:17:43 maishsk, looks good 19:17:54 maishsk: I would suggest also adding at least 1-2 people from the user organizers community (e.g. ambassadors), WG chairs, AskOpenStack Mods, Ops-Meetup organizers 19:18:07 this would ensure that we have a SME from the represented activity on the panel too 19:18:15 I suspect there won't be many of these, but good to have it defined anyway 19:18:54 shamail: works for me - I just don’t want to have too big of a body that needs to review - as long as we keep it under 10 19:19:37 maishsk: +1 19:21:04 Please feel free to add something to etherpas with suggestions and improvements. 19:21:44 If you don’t all mind - we should leave this open for comments an discussion on the etherpad until next meeting - and then summarize? 19:22:02 Are there any points on there that you feel we need to disucss today? 19:22:23 The nomination date 19:22:33 I was going to bring that up during the next topic anyway 19:22:43 but it has implications for this topic too 19:22:55 the floor is yours shamail 19:23:18 When do we want to do “cut-off” for AUC (e.g. when will we run scripts and say this is the final list)? The nomination period probably needs to start after that. 19:23:34 This way the only people that self-nominate are the ones who didnt get AUC 19:23:48 ATC passes are already going out for Barcelona 19:23:53 and I believe they do it in waves 19:23:54 So the obvious question for me is are we looking to follow the same cycle the ATC? 19:24:10 I think that makes sense to me maishsk 19:24:12 every six months - based on a OpenStack release? 19:24:19 That is for sure. 19:24:29 My question is about when in that six month period to we build our list 19:24:41 we cant wait until the end because then people won’t get AUC in time for the summit 19:24:48 Does anyone know how the list is built for the ATC? What that process is? 19:24:59 They have already started I believe 19:25:09 but they do 3-4 waves 19:25:27 so I think they run their scripts 3-4 times during the release (maybe each milestone?) 19:25:30 do you know what waves are used for ATC - I believe cores and such receive status first - can we assign equivalents to those waves 19:25:55 #link http://releases.openstack.org/newton/schedule.html 19:26:20 My recommendation would be to align with each release’s Feature Freeze date 19:26:27 What I dont understand - is are we talking about the initial AUC - or the cycles thereafter (if there is actually any difference - I don’t know) 19:26:34 We don’t have as many AUCs as ATCs so even one run (near the end) should work 19:26:48 both, I don’t think there will be a difference maishsk 19:27:03 we just need to find a consistent point in time for each release to compile our list 19:27:39 So I would suggest is to use the tried and tested method that Openstack already uses for ATC - keep to the same schedule 19:27:46 I think it would make the most sense to align to the ATC schedule for future cycles 19:27:48 If we align with FF then that would mean we identify AUCs (via manual and automated ways) by 08/02/16 (for this release) 19:28:00 That is tight 19:28:07 wow - that is tight 19:28:11 ;) 19:28:12 Yep 19:28:20 I think we could be there by Sept. 19:28:30 I have a pre-lim list going (which I will give details on in the next topic) 19:28:57 Okay so how about we align with RC-1 date? 19:29:03 This would be 9/12 for this release 19:29:17 I will take an action to reach out to UC and Tom to find out if that is enough room for them as well 19:29:21 I think that is reasonable 19:29:32 +1 on the date 19:29:38 We are balancing our ability to collect the data and the UC’s ability to have the list with enough advance notice to do something with it 19:30:03 #action shamail to reach to tom F to see if the proposed date will work for them 19:30:08 #action shamail to contact UC with tentative date of 9/12 for AUC list 19:30:14 oops, sorry maishsk 19:30:16 ;) 19:30:29 ok then - next topic 19:30:42 #topic Update on preliminary count 19:31:25 Thanks maishsk 19:31:48 Sorry, I am now in two meetings at once 19:31:53 will be a little slower than usual :) 19:32:28 So I have spent time this week updating the uc-recognition scripts to reflect the AUC criteria 19:33:11 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/341958/ 19:33:14 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/341958/ 19:33:22 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/341955/ 19:34:27 Here is what I have so far for counts (am still updating scrpts to ensure we dont miss any WGs, repos, etc.) 19:35:00 I set the start date for the scripts to 04/08/2016 (the day after Mitaka release) 19:35:17 Active WG member count: 41 19:35:25 Ask OpenStack Moderators: 20 19:35:35 Commiters to user story repos: 16 19:35:55 I have not collected data for ops meetup moderators, superuser contributors, and user group organizers since those will be manual 19:36:04 I am going to send emails this week to get that data 19:36:11 The running total so far is 77 19:36:29 which is very low so I am thinking my scripts are off (even though I am double/triple checking) 19:36:30 wow - thought it would be higher 19:36:37 :) 19:37:09 Will keep the team posted but thats what I have for now 19:37:13 Any questions? 19:37:45 It is a start - and I think that number will grow - especially after the first round. 19:38:23 I would expect that number to cross over the 100 easily with all the manual peices we collect 19:38:44 a really good start, it's good to have some numbers to correlate with what we have identified 19:38:56 It will be interesting to see what comes back after the email rounds. 19:38:59 I am really worried that the numbers are so low 19:39:08 since Tom had mentioned osmething like 400+? 19:39:19 I am thinking the date adjustments I did made the differene 19:39:22 difference* 19:39:28 shamail - what about the ops repos? 19:39:35 accounted for 19:39:41 lots of commits 19:39:44 but from like 2-3 people 19:39:51 interesting 19:39:56 same thing with user stories repo even 19:41:54 I have to drop for now 19:41:57 sorry 19:42:04 Thanks shamail 19:42:06 bye 19:42:09 Take care! 19:42:29 Well there was nothing else on the agenda for today - unless someone wants to raise a topic? 19:43:02 I'm good 19:45:06 OK then so lets call it for today - and catch you all next week. 19:45:06 Thanks everyone 19:45:06 #endmeeting