00:01:22 <thinrichs1> #startmeeting CongressTeamMeeting
00:01:23 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Oct 13 00:01:22 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is thinrichs1. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
00:01:24 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
00:01:26 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'congressteammeeting'
00:01:35 <aimeeu> Good day"
00:01:39 <njohnston> o/
00:01:46 <thinrichs1> Hi all!
00:02:00 <thinrichs1> njohnston: glad you made it back today!
00:02:20 <thinrichs1> This week ekcs is really running the meeting, but
00:02:35 <thinrichs1> he's trying to minimize typing b/c of RSI,
00:02:55 <thinrichs1> so he asked me to help out
00:03:03 <thinrichs1> Here's the agenda for the day…
00:03:08 <ekcs> thanks thinrichs1 !
00:03:11 <thinrichs1> 1. Barcelona
00:03:20 <thinrichs1> 2. Newton.0.1 release
00:03:26 <thinrichs1> 3. PTG
00:03:28 <thinrichs1> 4. Status updates
00:03:31 <thinrichs1> 5. Open discussion
00:03:35 <thinrichs1> Anything else to add?
00:03:44 <thinrichs1> ekcs: happy to help!
00:05:23 <thinrichs1> #topic Barcelona
00:06:07 <thinrichs1> Remember that the focus for the summit is around use-cases and new features to satisfy use cases
00:06:39 <thinrichs1> Here's our etherpad, where we're keeping track of who has ideas for use cases and when they're presenting those.
00:06:43 <thinrichs1> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/congress-ocata-design-summit
00:07:09 <thinrichs1> We should all be thinking about use cases that we think are important,
00:07:15 <thinrichs1> making notes of them in the etherpad,
00:07:40 <thinrichs1> so that by the end of the summit we can prioritize use cases and the features needed to implement them
00:08:19 <thinrichs1> njohnston: Given your interests, perhaps now is a good time to introduce yourself to the group and say a bit about why you are interested in Congress
00:09:13 <njohnston> Hi!  My name is Nate Johnston, and I am a core contributon for the neutron-fwaas team
00:09:47 <njohnston> neutron-fwaas implements Firewall as a Service, which is really just a large dictionary of policies to enforce and the enforcement mechanism to implement the rules
00:09:55 <thinrichs1> Maybe he stepped away.  We can come back to him later.
00:09:55 <thinrichs1> Any questions or comments about Barcelona?  Ideas about people to invite?
00:10:41 <njohnston> So I submitted this blueprint to talk about some of my use cases: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/congress/+spec/congress-fwaas
00:10:45 <njohnston> netsplit?
00:11:12 <masahito> thinrichs1: I'm seeing njohnston's comments.
00:11:17 <thinrichs1> If a netsplit, seems it caught up now
00:11:42 <thinrichs1> I'm seeing njohnston's comments too now
00:12:28 <njohnston> I think that congress and fwaas are a very good combination, and I am excited to start looking at integrations
00:13:55 <ekcs> Adding to meeting summary. #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/congress/+spec/congress-fwaas
00:14:25 <thinrichs1> njohnston: Cool!  I read over your revised blueprint just now.  Seems interesting and at first glance doable
00:14:36 <thinrichs1> njohnston: tried to leave a comment, but launchpad barfed.
00:15:03 <njohnston> thanks!
00:15:10 <njohnston> so other than that, I am here to watch and learn
00:15:44 <thinrichs1> njohnston: welcome (again)!  I'm looking forward to discussing this use case in Barcelona!
00:16:11 <thinrichs1> Any other comments/questions for njohnston?
00:16:53 <njohnston> If you think of anything, hit me up anytime - I am usually in #openstack-neutron
00:17:05 <njohnston> speaking fo which, do you all have an IRC channel you use?
00:17:10 <thinrichs1> #congress
00:17:26 <thinrichs1> njohnston: good to know where to find you!
00:17:43 <njohnston> excellent!  I joined #openstack-congress but I was sad and lonely.
00:17:56 <thinrichs1> :)
00:18:33 <thinrichs1> Besides njohnston we have 1 other speaker for that 40 minute slot in the large fishbowl room.
00:19:00 <thinrichs1> I'd say 2-3 speakers is probably the right number.
00:19:07 <thinrichs1> I reached out to the Monasca team, but Fabio who most of you know isn't making the trip.
00:19:57 <thinrichs1> Any other thoughts about a 3rd speaker to invite?
00:20:58 <thinrichs1> #topic Newton.0.1
00:21:15 <ekcs> has anyone talked to the vitrage guys lately?
00:21:29 <thinrichs1> ekcs: not me
00:22:03 <ekcs> I see on their workesssion agenda that they mentioned congress.
00:22:22 <ekcs> so seems they still have interest in something. I can shoot them an email.
00:22:51 <thinrichs1> ekcs: that'd be great!  The other team that we met with last time was Watcher.
00:24:08 <thinrichs1> ekcs: I'm happy to help reach out to folks—let me know who you'd like me to ping
00:24:25 <ekcs> ok.
00:24:29 <thinrichs1> On to Newton I'd say, given the time.
00:25:08 <thinrichs1> There are a number of lingering issues we didn't have a chance to fix before the Newton release...
00:25:13 <thinrichs1> - ceilometer driver
00:25:26 <thinrichs1> - remove database locking  #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384747/
00:25:40 <thinrichs1> - check DB not mem in datasource create #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/376166/
00:25:49 <thinrichs1> Anything else come to mind?
00:27:21 <thinrichs1> I'd lean toward pushing those changes to stable/newton
00:28:06 <thinrichs1> We don't need to do a release until we feel there's enough different to warrant one
00:28:19 <ekcs> if we modify stable/newton, does that obligate a x.0.1 release at some point?
00:28:47 <thinrichs1> ekcs: not sure.  This is the first cycle we've had the release team actually manage our releases.
00:28:53 <njohnston> most likely, I would thing, so that the packagers have something to release to consumers
00:29:04 <njohnston> like RDO and the debian build people
00:29:38 <thinrichs1> njohnston: agreed that we shouldn't be pushing stuff to stable/newton unless we expect to do a release at some point
00:30:03 <thinrichs1> what I don't know is whether the release team does 1 release for all the projects at the same time, or whether each project can release independently
00:30:24 <njohnston> I believe there is milestones
00:31:07 <ekcs> I wondered whether it’s worth putting more work into (non-critical) newton update given that ocata is right around the corner.
00:32:01 <njohnston> I believe that when O-1 drops N+1 usually drops at the same time, for non-client projects https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi8m4i9w9bPAhVJeT4KHTtwA4kQFggnMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Freleases.openstack.org%2Focata%2Fschedule.html&usg=AFQjCNElEllVCBXggiyMaeKmDtZ2Z0mRyQ&sig2=7I3cG_hrTsQQZAfgVVFIEg&bvm=bv.135475266,d.cWw
00:32:09 <njohnston> oops, bad link there
00:32:15 <njohnston> was trying to link to https://releases.openstack.org/ocata/schedule.html
00:33:52 <ekcs> but given that we are supporting newton for a couple more cycles I guess we should expect that there will be an update at some point.
00:33:53 <ekcs> so putting some of these changes in is not a big marginal cost if we’re going to do an update anyway.
00:33:53 <ekcs> main cost to us is manual testing.
00:33:53 <thinrichs1> I would expect another release on newton/stable given how many changes went in so late.
00:33:53 <ekcs> makes sense.
00:33:53 <ekcs> masahito: do you have any thoughts?
00:33:53 <thinrichs1> And it's time for us to start thinking about backporting bug-fixes periodically and doing releases
00:34:16 <ekcs> got it thanks njohnston !
00:34:41 <njohnston> just make sure that you are following the stable branch policy from the release team: "The stable branches are intended to be a safe source of fixes for high impact bugs and security issues which have been fixed on master since a given release."
00:34:44 <njohnston> http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/stable-branches.html
00:35:42 <thinrichs1> high-impact/security bugs….hmmmm…not sure any of our changes meet that criteria
00:35:49 <thinrichs1> ekcs: what do you think?
00:36:43 <masahito> I think the bugs listed in above meets the criteria.
00:36:45 <ekcs> I’d htink ‘no’ to the DB changes. but maybe yes to ceilometer and testing changes.
00:36:53 <ekcs> based on this “Note It’s nevertheless allowed to backport fixes for other bugs if their safety can be easily proved. For example, documentation fixes, debug log message typo corrections, test only changes, patches that enhance test coverage, configuration file content fixes can apply to all supported branches. For those types of backports, stable maintainers will decide on case by case basis.”
00:37:38 <thinrichs1> Testing changes make sense to ensure we've got good tests for when we patch critical problems.
00:37:52 <thinrichs1> Ceilometer seems less critical, but certainly safe
00:39:23 <ekcs> well maybe we can decide later on the DB changes.
00:39:44 <ekcs> I don’t think they’re necessarily high-impact.
00:40:02 <ekcs> unless someone runs into problems.
00:40:08 <thinrichs1> ekcs: right.  We could put those in if we need to patch another bug that is high impact and that depends on the new DB stuff
00:40:30 <thinrichs1> Time check: 20 min remain.
00:40:34 <masahito> thinrichs1: agreed.
00:40:42 <thinrichs1> Let's move on to the next topic
00:40:44 <thinrichs1> #topic PTG
00:41:07 <thinrichs1> Remember that last week we discussed whether to have Congress meet-ups at the PTG.
00:41:24 <thinrichs1> If I remember right, everyone was in favor of the PTG meetups.
00:41:45 <thinrichs1> That doesn't stop us from also meeting up at the summit (without any meeting-rooms)
00:41:59 <thinrichs1> We need to decide in the next few days (if I remember right).
00:42:25 <ekcs> right.
00:42:26 <thinrichs1> Anyone NOT want us to set up PTG meetings for Congress?
00:42:51 <thinrichs1> Anyone know they won't be able to attend the PTG meetings?
00:42:55 <ekcs> note this is juts for the first PTG. we can always do something different in later PTGs if it doesn’t work well.
00:43:18 <thinrichs1> ekcs: Atlanta this time?
00:43:30 <ekcs> thinrichs1: yes.
00:43:32 <aimeeu> Has Congress ever tried a virtual mid-cycle?
00:43:34 <ekcs> feb
00:44:01 <thinrichs1> aimeeu: nope
00:44:28 <ekcs> on meeting up at future summits, we are certainly free to meet, just that I don’t expect most to be there if we adopt PTG model.
00:44:48 <thinrichs1> ekcs: agreed
00:44:50 <aimeeu> just asking about virtual because the Tacker team opted out of the PTG in favor of their normal virtual mid-cycle
00:45:10 <aimeeu> so something to think about for the future
00:45:16 <thinrichs1> virtual would be interesting, though time-zones would be difficult
00:45:18 <aimeeu> if budgets continue to shrink
00:45:35 <thinrichs1> masahito: are you planning to come to the Atlanta PTG?
00:45:36 <aimeeu> thinrichs1: yes, we in the US would probably end up working 2nd shift
00:45:49 <masahito> thinrichs1: yes if we have
00:46:29 <ekcs> aimeeu: do you know if tacker expects to do the “mid cycle” at the beginning of the cycle (feb) or the middle?
00:46:57 <aimeeu> ekcs: nope - I didn't look into it that part
00:47:44 <thinrichs1> I'd vote for doing it if people think they'll have budgets to make the trip.
00:48:00 <thinrichs1> Otherwise, we could set up a virtual meet-up
00:48:54 <thinrichs1> ekcs: can you make the trip?
00:48:59 <thinrichs1> aimeeu: what about you?
00:49:24 <aimeeu> I don't know yet - I just changed positions at work - new boss, new org, lots of unknowns as to travel
00:49:25 <ekcs> I can def make it. possibly whether we have work sessions or not.
00:50:05 <ekcs> maybe I’ll get ramineni’s take on whether she thinks she’ll be able to make it.
00:50:22 <thinrichs1> That sounds like 3 pretty strong Yes, 1 maybe, and 1 probably Yes (assuming ramineni continues to travel like she has in the past)
00:51:12 <ekcs> ok so on the PTG response, we can say YES or NO or MAYBE.
00:51:35 <ekcs> so we are either YES or MAYBE. seems like YES.
00:51:42 <thinrichs1> Well if ramineni can make it, I'd think it's a Yes.  If she can't, I'd say it's a Maybe
00:51:49 <ekcs> great.
00:52:00 <thinrichs1> 9 min left.
00:52:07 <thinrichs1> #topic Status and open discussion
00:52:57 <thinrichs1> Let's do this simultaneously since we're short on time.
00:53:03 <thinrichs1> masahito, aimeeu, ekcs: status updates?
00:53:17 <thinrichs1> Or anything else that needs to be discussed as a group?
00:53:45 <aimeeu> not much from me - Summit prep mostly
00:54:20 <ekcs> I’m working on DB change and multi-proc haht tox test. looking into the antlr mess again. and summit prep.
00:55:13 <ekcs> but mostly I’m focused on gathering material for the work sessions.
00:55:18 <ekcs> anyone looked at the schedule and see any talks of interest to us?
00:55:36 <thinrichs1> There are a number that come up when searching for Congress
00:55:48 <thinrichs1> I haven't gone thru the talks other than that
00:56:44 <ekcs> got it. i’m in the process of going through them. some interesting policy things but I haven’t organized them in any way.
00:57:11 <masahito> I'm working on use-case policy of Doctor fits current congress features for summit session.
00:57:28 <thinrichs1> ekcs: I'd be interested in seeing your list when you're finished.  Maybe post to the ML when you're finished?
00:57:38 <ekcs> ok thinrichs1
00:57:38 <aimeeu> I think there is at least one OPNFV talks that mentions Congress
00:57:56 <thinrichs1> masahito: cool!  Looking forward to seeing your talk
00:58:10 <masahito> aimeeu: it would be my session.
00:58:29 <masahito> https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/global-search?t=Congress
00:58:32 <aimeeu> masahito: oh yes! I just found it
00:58:47 <aimeeu> ekcs: BTW tacker will have a virtual in Feb
00:59:24 <ekcs> aimeeu: thanks! so they’ll have a virtual “start cycle"
00:59:33 <aimeeu> ;p
01:00:26 <thinrichs1> Out of time for this week.
01:00:30 <thinrichs1> Thanks all!
01:01:02 <masahito> thanks
01:01:23 <thinrichs1> #endmeeting