22:02:02 <david-lyle_> #startmeeting Horizon
22:02:02 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Dec 17 22:02:02 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is david-lyle_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:02:04 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
22:02:06 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'horizon'
22:02:16 <jcoufal> o/ hi
22:02:19 <lsmola_> hello
22:02:21 <david-lyle_> Hello everyone
22:02:21 <jtomasek> hi
22:02:23 <jpich> hey
22:02:24 <kspear> howdy
22:02:24 <ohnoimdead> o/
22:02:26 <lblanchard> hi all
22:02:29 <MaxV> hi
22:02:35 <mrunge> o/
22:02:44 <tzumainn> hiya
22:03:05 <david-lyle_> full house today, excellent
22:03:15 <ohnoimdead> woot
22:03:21 <david-lyle_> https://launchpad.net/horizon/+milestone/icehouse-2
22:03:40 <david-lyle_> just wanted take a quick look at the i-2 milestone
22:04:02 <david-lyle_> things are progressing well and most things seem to be on track
22:04:17 <david-lyle_> lots of review opportunities :)
22:04:56 <david-lyle_> And things that have been merging have been slowed a bit by gate difficulties, so let's remain patient and work these items through
22:05:14 <david-lyle_> Does any one have any concerns or questions re: i-2
22:05:16 <david-lyle_> ?
22:06:00 <david-lyle_> I'll take that as a no
22:06:05 <mrunge> I see still a huge bunch of unreviewed patches
22:06:17 <mrunge> gah, too late ;-)
22:06:26 <david-lyle_> no worries
22:06:35 <ohnoimdead> got through some reviews last week, will try to do more this week prior to holiday break
22:06:50 <lsmola_> me too
22:07:02 <lsmola_> we have to tame the review beast
22:07:12 <mrunge> I'd like to encourage all of you to do more reviews!
22:07:30 <david-lyle_> I think we have ~10 bps close to landing, just a few more iterations on reviews
22:08:01 <david-lyle_> so let's keep on them
22:09:01 <david-lyle_> Speaking of review load, I officially added tmazur to the horizon core list and retained ohnoimdead, as he expressed a strong interest and started reviewing again.
22:09:20 <david-lyle_> So welcome tmazur and thanks ohnoimdead
22:09:41 <mrunge> welcome both!
22:09:43 <jpich> Cool, thanks tmazur and ohnoimdead
22:09:50 <lsmola_> welcome :-)
22:09:51 <mrunge> *greatly appreciated*
22:09:57 <jcoufal> welcome ;)
22:10:23 <jpich> It's nice to also have people around with more historical knowledge of the code :)
22:10:25 <ohnoimdead> hella!
22:10:44 <david-lyle_> absolutely
22:10:55 <ohnoimdead> i'm old TT
22:11:08 <jpich> Wise and experienced ;)
22:11:12 <lsmola_> :-)
22:11:28 <david-lyle_> ok, on to the planned agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Horizon
22:11:45 <david-lyle_> #topic Meeting Time
22:12:11 <david-lyle_> So the was a thread on the dev mailing list about more diverse timezone friendly meeting times
22:12:26 <david-lyle_> I know I have talked with some of you before about this
22:12:39 <mrunge> yes...
22:12:58 <jpich> Was that a horizon-meeting-specific thread?
22:13:02 <david-lyle_> I think our core team now covers enough timezones that finding one ideal time is going to be impossible
22:13:27 <mrunge> if we could move the meeting one or two hours earlier, I suspect tmazur could make it easier
22:13:27 <david-lyle_> jpich: no openstack-dev in general
22:13:40 <jcoufal> would be great if we can move times
22:13:42 <jpich> david-lyle_:  ok, thanks, thought I missed it
22:13:47 <david-lyle_> Then amotoki and kspear have no chance
22:13:49 <jpich> mrunge: but then we lose APAC
22:13:56 <kspear> it's 9am at the moment
22:14:09 <jcoufal> here it's 11pm
22:14:09 <kspear> for me, but daylight saving will make it earlier...
22:14:12 <lsmola_> david-lyle: true, e.g. Ceilometer uses two times
22:14:21 <jpich> I think it's at 6 or 7am for amotoki at the moment
22:14:26 <jcoufal> daylight will make it 00:00 for us :(
22:14:28 <mrunge> jpich, imho that discussion was arount summit time...
22:14:41 <jpich> Ok
22:14:50 <mrunge> kspear, currently, it's 23:14 for me
22:14:55 <MaxV> same
22:15:00 <lsmola_> same
22:15:01 <mrunge> and summer time, it will move later
22:15:02 <david-lyle_> so, I would be open to having a moving time or other suggestions
22:15:03 <jpich> Personally, at the moment the meeting time is ok for me but when DST is on again it's really harder
22:15:41 <david-lyle_> I'm open to suggestions, because I have it the easiest right now
22:15:54 <lsmola_> :-)
22:15:58 <mrunge> moving 1 hour earlier will make this meeting collide with the general meeting....
22:16:20 <jcoufal> 2h earlier will be really hard for kspear
22:16:28 <jpich> Sounds like a discussion/vote to have on list :) So people who can't attend right now because the timing sucks can chime in
22:16:29 <david-lyle_> 1 hour earlier, I can't do
22:16:32 <lblanchard> do we have any US West coasters?
22:16:33 <kspear> could we all add our tz to some online tool to get a better idea of things?
22:16:33 <lsmola_> what about two times, repeating every two weeks?
22:16:38 <mrunge> if we're up to move it earlier, then we need to pick another day
22:16:45 <david-lyle_> lcheng is typically on the west coast
22:16:53 <mrunge> kspear, good idea
22:17:04 <lblanchard> what if we targeted morning time for EST like 9am…it would be 9pm-ish in APAC areas
22:17:07 <lblanchard> ah okay
22:17:11 * kspear can't remember the name of any though
22:17:18 <lblanchard> that would be tough for west coasters :)
22:17:28 <jcoufal> then west coast is out
22:17:56 <markwash> lblanchard: that's what glance does, it jsut means I have to get up at 6AM on standard time and 7AM on daylight savings
22:17:57 <jpich> lsmola's and the ceilometer folks way to do it is probably the best, or would certainly be interesting to try (alternating meeting times)
22:18:13 <mrunge> let's collect times, to get a better idea, and then take this to another meeting?
22:18:32 <lblanchard> markwash: thanks! 6am is pretty darn early for me…but maybe it would work for some?
22:18:37 <lsmola_> david-lyle: yep https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/MeteringAgenda
22:18:46 <lblanchard> mrunge: what is  that tool that alvaro has used?
22:18:51 <lblanchard> jpich: ^
22:19:00 <jpich> Agreed with mrunge, let's move it to the list, that won't be resolved here. Most people seem happy to consider a change
22:19:01 <david-lyle_> mrunge, good idea, let's leave the meeting time topic on the agenda page and just have people add their tz there
22:19:02 <jpich> doodle?
22:19:06 <lsmola_> david-lyle: this way all people can be here at least once in two weeks
22:19:26 <mrunge> lblanchard, on fedora, we took whenisgood, but doodle does the  jobs as well
22:19:46 <lblanchard> yeah, I was thinking of this: http://www.doodle.com/
22:19:50 <david-lyle_> or that works if someone will take the item to set it up
22:20:35 <lsmola_> jpich: alternating seems like a good idea
22:20:38 <jcoufal> let's start the thread in ML to gather timezones and then we can set up doodle with concrete proposals
22:20:51 <lblanchard> david-lyle: I can set up a doodle and share it with the ML
22:20:55 <mrunge> would it be sufficient to check for 2 hour slots?
22:21:06 <mrunge> lblanchard, thank you!
22:21:08 <david-lyle_> thanks lblanchard
22:21:29 <lsmola_> lblanchard: thank you :-)
22:21:33 <lblanchard> np!
22:21:57 <david-lyle_> #topic Tuskar-ui Code Merge Plan
22:22:32 <lsmola_> so, I have sent 2 email with 2 plans
22:22:36 <david-lyle_> lsmola sent a proposal that the tuskar-ui group created and then we readily stomped on it, discuss
22:22:42 <david-lyle_> :)
22:22:45 <lsmola_> :-)
22:23:01 <lsmola_> seems we are leaning to codebase merge
22:23:10 <lsmola_> though we have some worries
22:23:23 <lsmola_> do you want to sum it up jcoufal or should I?
22:23:28 <david-lyle_> lsmola, is the main concern re: core and reviews?
22:23:36 <jcoufal> david-lyle_: yeah
22:23:48 <jcoufal> in few words
22:23:58 <lsmola_> david-lyle: yeah, basically we need enough attention :-)
22:24:01 <david-lyle_> that's how many I can understand
22:24:21 <jcoufal> tuskar-ui needs to be developed quickly, we have only 2 motnhs and the goal is to deliver functional installer
22:24:23 <jcoufal> which is lot of work
22:24:34 <jcoufal> which we are willing to do
22:24:43 <david-lyle_> ok, my thoughts are you are currently gated by horizon for the ui toolkit
22:24:45 <lsmola_> david-lyle: lets say we have like 5 high priority tasks, that needs to be done by I3, so we have the deployment and manah=gement story upstream wants
22:25:10 <david-lyle_> I think that part remains with either proposal for now
22:25:34 <lsmola_> david-lyle: will it be possible to remain high priority also when we are in Horizon?
22:25:53 <david-lyle_> I would be open to merging the core teams and letting the existing tuskar-ui core team +2 changes in that area of the code
22:25:56 <david-lyle_> to begin with
22:26:26 <lsmola_> david-lyle: ok that would be great
22:26:42 <david-lyle_> I understand the need for agility in what is an incubating project, I don't see a need to block that
22:26:43 <tzumainn> david-lyle, so the two-company policy of approvals would be suspended for the tuskar-ui code?
22:26:52 <david-lyle_> yes
22:27:00 <jtomasek> david-lyle: how about the "multiple companies rule"?
22:27:01 <david-lyle_> I think it has to be
22:27:05 <jcoufal> david-lyle_: we would like to keep cross-company reviews, so the only concern is if we can get enough attention
22:27:05 <jtomasek> ok
22:27:11 <jpich> Personally I would have concerns about just merging the core teams. The first proposal suggested having a separate team to work on the tuskar-ui code, to begin with (if i understood correctly)
22:27:33 <david-lyle_> I'm honestly not sure how to accomplish that jpich
22:27:47 <mrunge> jpich that would imply to have a separate code base
22:28:15 <lsmola_> jpich: yes
22:28:25 <lsmola_> it would be only a small step forward
22:28:35 <david-lyle_> I would like to get to the point of doing cross-company reviews for tuskar-ui, but I honestly don't feel comfortable enough at this point to place that requirement on me or other un-familiar cores
22:28:42 <jpich> My understanding of the first proposal was that tuskar-ui would be in its own repository like now, except under the Horizon program - I was told that there could be a core team just for this, to begin with
22:28:52 <mrunge> david-lyle, yes, I'd love to do that
22:28:58 <lsmola_> jpich: yes
22:29:02 <mrunge> or to see that
22:29:10 <jpich> lsmola_: Thanks for confirming :-)
22:29:23 <jcoufal> david-lyle_: it sounds reasonable if everybody agrees, we can move to cross-company reviews in time
22:29:34 <david-lyle_> we could also do that, jpich.  I think the open question then for tuskarui is why move?
22:30:10 <mrunge> david-lyle, I have discussed this with the tuskar guys earlier
22:30:12 <jpich> Tuskar is based on Horizon
22:30:19 <tzumainn> david-lyle, one reason might be - right now lifeless feels responsible for our code, but it's difficult for the tripleo cores to evaluate horizon-based code
22:30:46 <jpich> And when the project is integrated and has less of a requirement for turbo-velocity, we can work together on merging it into the main horizon codebase
22:30:46 <mrunge> and I don't see a benefit for horizon nor for tuskar just to move to another separate repository
22:31:24 <tzumainn> mrunge, regarding that, I should ask - our development is currently somewhat horizontal - starting at the api layer, and working its way up
22:31:28 <mrunge> jpich, that would mean just to keep it like it is right now
22:31:28 <lsmola_> david-lyle: well It could be a blocker if cores won't approve our patch because, they can't setup dev env
22:31:36 <tzumainn> the code would probably run off mock data for the immediate future
22:31:41 <tzumainn> is that sort of code acceptable within horizon?
22:32:13 <lsmola_> mrunge: well that is the third and easiest plan to do :-D
22:32:36 * david-lyle_ torn
22:32:38 <jpich> mrunge: the benefit would be that it gives us time to get used to the code, and the tuskar team to get more used to what the horizon core folks look for in reviews (we've seen pretty strong disagreements on the general horizon direction before...)
22:32:44 <lsmola_> :-)
22:32:57 <mrunge> jpich, honestly?
22:33:02 <mrunge> who would do that?
22:33:13 <mrunge> if we aren't forced to do so?
22:33:16 <lsmola_> well
22:33:17 <jpich> mrunge: It would be different because tuskar ui would be the responsibility of tuskar-ui core + horizon core, instead of  tuskar-ui core + tripleo core, which seems to be a better match
22:33:48 <lifeless> FWIW if david-lyle_ and the existing horizon cores are happy with a single code base and merging -core I think thats fantastic
22:33:48 <mrunge> so jpich, why don't merge?
22:34:31 <mrunge> I'd love to see tuskar as tight as possible integrated into horizon codebase
22:34:32 <david-lyle_> mrunge, I think the concern would be we'd be managing it a bit like two code bases at the beginning
22:34:37 <jcoufal> Personally I think it makes more sense to be part of one codebase
22:34:44 <lsmola_> david-lyle: well the good thing about merge now is, it will be easy, we don't have almost any code after the cleanup
22:34:45 <david-lyle_> using artificial means
22:35:15 <david-lyle_> I think we're all capable of doing that
22:35:20 <jtomasek> lsmola_: +1
22:35:39 <mrunge> david-lyle, I'd rather treat tuskar as normal code, without any other *special handling* at all
22:35:57 <lsmola_> david-lyle: true, it's undercloud vs. overcloud right now
22:35:57 <lsmola_> david-lyle: so for the main functionality, the priorities wont be the same
22:36:07 <tzumainn> mrunge, which brings me back to a question - is code that doesn't fully work okay to be accepted into horizon?
22:36:13 <jpich> I think it makes sense to be part of one codebase once the project is integrated and we have similar requirements across the whole codebase (e.g. no more need for single company approval)
22:36:25 <kspear> one issue is we're expanding horizon's scope to include incubated projects
22:36:25 <mrunge> tzumainn, I'd say: yes
22:36:36 <lsmola_> mrunge: well you can see the infrastructure tab as a place where you manage a very special application you have deployed by heat
22:36:36 <mrunge> kspear, we did with trove
22:36:45 <kspear> which means core has less time to spend on core projects
22:36:56 <kspear> mrunge: and that didn't go well at all imo
22:37:09 <jpich> mrunge: Trove was an exception because the code was all there and ready afaiui
22:37:27 <mrunge> kspear, trove didn't built on horizon
22:37:34 <mrunge> nor is it tightly integrated
22:37:42 <tzumainn> I kinda agree with jpich - tuskar-ui is in a teardown and re-build state, and I feel like it'll be hard to evaluate for non-tuskar-ui people
22:37:48 <mrunge> but agreed. it could have worked better
22:38:04 <jcoufal> tzumainn: jpich: +1
22:38:14 <lifeless> I think the key question isn't about the code state; its about what works better for everyone
22:38:31 <mrunge> lifeless, +1
22:38:46 <lsmola_> lifeless: though seems like that is hard to find :-)
22:38:57 <mrunge> ok, when we don't merge more or less now, when do we have the next chance?
22:38:59 <jcoufal> yeah, the only concern here is if we can get the code in quickly for tuskar-ui
22:39:06 <mrunge> and what will we get then?
22:39:14 <lifeless> which david-lyle_ seemed ok to facilitate:)
22:39:16 <david-lyle_> So the tuskarui folks think it's better to remain split, horizon-core seems split
22:39:28 <mrunge> a finished product?
22:39:51 <jcoufal> david-lyle_: I don't think that tuskarui folks think it's better to remain split
22:40:05 <david-lyle_> I thought that was the proposal
22:40:06 <lsmola_> david-lyle: well we would like to merge, though we need attention :-)
22:40:08 <jpich> mrunge: The first proposal also said horizon core would be core for that project, it's up to us to get/keep up to date with it
22:40:12 <david-lyle_> per dev ml
22:40:22 <jpich> There was a 2nd proposal sent about 12h ago as well
22:40:34 <lsmola_> david-lyle: it would been healthier to build it under horizon cores eyes :-)
22:40:50 * david-lyle_ throws hands up
22:40:55 <lsmola_> hehe
22:41:05 * jomara is late to the conversation
22:41:05 <tzumainn> lsmola_, but if we aren't enforcing the multi-company reviewer rule, then what's the point?
22:41:30 <lsmola_> tzumainn: well we are, that is why we need the attention
22:41:43 <tzumainn> lsmola_, oh, are you saying you'd prefer a full merge, with the same reviewer rule that horizon uses, but we'd need a guarantee from horizon-cores that we'd get the appropriate attention?
22:42:02 <jtomasek> lsmola_: tzumainn: I don't see what is the problem with what david-lyle offers
22:42:08 <david-lyle_> how did I miss that email
22:42:10 <lsmola_> tzumainn: yeah something like that I guess
22:42:12 <jpich> I don't think anyone can reasonably guarantee that
22:42:22 <tzumainn> jpich, yeah, I agree - which is why I don't think that plan will work
22:42:24 <lsmola_> david-lyle: there is a lot of emails
22:42:42 <jcoufal> david-lyle_: can we say that we merge, and we want to try to keep cross-company reviews? would it be possible? ask horizon-cores to keep eye on the code that it makes sense from horizon point of view (they don't have to check how it works in sense of tripleo from the beginning, but they will get there)
22:43:13 <tzumainn> jcoufal, so are you okay if it turns out they don't have the bandwidth for those reviews?
22:43:17 <mrunge> yes, I don't think there is a guarantee. on the other side, I don't see, how it could be so time-critical to get a patch in in e.g 4 hours
22:43:46 <lsmola_> mrunge: well more like review
22:44:01 <mrunge> it would be easier for core reviewers, if we get enough reviews on code at all
22:44:12 <jtomasek> mrunge: exactly
22:44:14 <lsmola_> mrunge: that means you will have several reviews in one day, and you can address a feedback quickly
22:44:20 <jpich> IMO this needs more discussion on list to surface a consensus (if there is one to be found :-)), 12h isn't a lot of time...
22:44:28 <tzumainn> mrunge, it's because we're building from scratch somewhat, so future patches are likely to depend on recent ones
22:44:48 <tzumainn> mrunge, also, I think some of our dependent libraries and apis may be in flux
22:44:53 <lsmola_> jpich: sorry about that :-)
22:44:53 <jpich> lsmola_: In an ideal world we want this for all the openstack patches
22:45:00 <mrunge> tzumainn, if you have dependent code, you could fetch it from gerrit
22:45:04 <jtomasek> If the patch has 5 +1's on it I don't see a lot of work for core to approve it
22:45:07 <jpich> lsmola_: No worries!
22:45:10 <lsmola_> jpich: yaaay lets build an ideal world :-)
22:45:24 <mrunge> jtomasek, exactly
22:45:26 <jcoufal> how many non-redhat core members horizon has?
22:45:33 <lsmola_> jpich: can openstack buy some island?
22:45:57 <jpich> lsmola_: I'll prepare a proposal for the foundation :)
22:46:00 <mrunge> jcoufal, 13 or so, if I'm not totally wrong
22:46:01 <lsmola_> hehe
22:46:05 <david-lyle_> ~6 with varying levels of engagement
22:46:20 <mrunge> don't we have more core reviewers?
22:46:22 <jcoufal> so about 6-7 active cores?
22:46:24 <david-lyle_> mrunge, cleaned up a little per ml outcome
22:46:31 <mrunge> ah, yes
22:46:44 <mrunge> you're right david-lyle_
22:46:59 <david-lyle_> mrunge, not enough reviewers in general, that's picked up lately
22:47:26 <david-lyle_> but I think a track record needs to be established before moving people to core
22:47:28 <mrunge> well we have here 5(?) new contributors....
22:47:58 <lsmola_> 6
22:48:01 <mrunge> and they should be able to do reviews as well, to help reducing the backlog
22:48:18 <jcoufal> my proposal would be to try to keep cross-company reviews, we (tuskar-ui) can help as much as possible to ease reviews and then ask outside company cross members to have a look on almost ready code to get in...
22:48:25 <jcoufal> I think it can work
22:48:32 <tzumainn> what is review latency like?
22:48:34 <david-lyle_> jcoufal: I agree
22:48:41 <mrunge> currently, we're getting about 5-6 new patches per day
22:49:15 <jtomasek> jcoufal: +1
22:49:19 <jpich> I think david's numbers were 18/day last week?
22:49:36 <tzumainn> the part I have trouble with is that a) tuskar-ui will require additional setup for reviewers, and b) tuskar doesn't have the documentation to ease reviewers' understanding of what's going on
22:49:39 <jcoufal> can we have fallback plan? if we find out that we can't move as quickly forward as we need to ask for exception for temporary 'one company' reviews?
22:49:45 <david-lyle_> jpich: that may have been patchsets
22:50:10 <david-lyle_> but those all require reviews
22:50:18 <jpich> david-lyle: Most of them need reviews though :)
22:50:19 <jpich> yeah
22:50:31 <mrunge> jpich, http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/horizon-reviewers-30.txt look at the bottom
22:50:32 <david-lyle_> it's 19.9 now, btw
22:51:02 <jcoufal> tzumainn: I don't think that horizon-core needs to ensure it works correctly from tripleo point of view - they can keep eye on if the code fits horizon way
22:51:30 <jcoufal> at least from the beginning until they get more familiar with the code
22:51:35 <tzumainn> hm, is that true?
22:51:48 <david-lyle_> I think there is enough concern expressed here to put this on the mailing list for a little more fine tuning.
22:51:54 * jcoufal thinks - so that's not assured :)
22:52:10 <david-lyle_> I don't want to drag this out, but I don't think there's a concensus here
22:52:11 <jpich> mrunge: Thank you for the link
22:52:19 <jpich> Agreed
22:52:22 <jcoufal> david-lyle_: agree on ML
22:52:26 <mrunge> yupp, agreed
22:52:34 <lsmola_> david-lyle: seems like it, though it looks like another very long thread :-D
22:52:40 <jcoufal> we can follow the new thread lsmola sent 12h ago
22:52:59 <tzumainn> sounds like a plan to me : )
22:53:07 <lsmola_> ok then
22:53:09 <jpich> Is that email the new plan, or does a new-new plan needs to come out of this discussion first?
22:53:10 <jcoufal> I'll write down some sort of summary or at least my point of view to kick this off
22:53:20 <jomara> jcoufal: yes, reply to lsmola with it
22:53:20 <david-lyle_> jcoufal: thanks
22:53:24 <jcoufal> I just want to ask for one thing
22:53:43 <jcoufal> can we get attention to the ML to speed up the process of getting to consensus?
22:53:49 <lsmola_> i think we can build a new plan based on the feedback :-)
22:53:58 <david-lyle_> let's continue to work out the details.  I think this is the right fit, we just need the mechanics
22:54:06 <lsmola_> david-lyle: so, talk about it again the next meeting?
22:54:17 <jcoufal> next meeting is christmas
22:54:25 <jpich> Next meeting is... next year?
22:54:31 <mrunge> next meeting will be on the 24th?
22:54:33 <jcoufal> I would like to get to consensus until the end of the week. if all possible
22:54:36 <lsmola_> yes  I believe so
22:54:48 <jpich> Yes. We can work out a consensus on list
22:54:54 <david-lyle_> yes, the next two weeks should be off from this meeting
22:55:13 <jpich> The meetings shouldn't be a requirement to making decision
22:55:19 <david-lyle_> we can resolve this on the ml
22:55:19 <jpich> *decisions
22:55:29 <david-lyle_> #topic Open
22:55:33 <mrunge> so, next meeting will be on Jan 7th, david-lyle_ ?
22:55:43 <lsmola_> ok, so let's make consensus on a list
22:55:43 <lsmola_> jcoufal: not sure if we are able to do it til lthe end of the week, but it would be great
22:55:45 <jomara> +1 to jan7
22:55:47 <david-lyle_> after short discussion of the agenda...
22:55:47 <jcoufal> jpich, david-lyle_: thanks, tomorrow morning expect the starting e-mail
22:55:54 <lblanchard> I just wanted to remind everyone that there is a Persona Working Group kickoff meeting tomorrow
22:56:01 <jpich> jcoufal: Ok! Thanks
22:56:09 <david-lyle_> mrunge, yes that's inline with the project meeting
22:56:37 <david-lyle_> ml is always open for pressing issues in the interim
22:57:02 <jpich> lblanchard: Thanks! Are there international numbers available?
22:57:12 <lblanchard> jpich: great question!
22:57:19 <lblanchard> julim is running the meeting
22:57:21 <david-lyle_> lblanchard: thanks for the reminder
22:57:29 <lblanchard> I will follow up with her and cc you, jpich
22:57:39 <david-lyle_> what was the flow there IRC then phone?
22:57:57 <lblanchard> david-lyle: no problem. Yes, IRC and there is a conference call # in the invite
22:58:01 <jpich> lblanchard: Ok, no problems. I think it would be useful to have it in the wiki and/or wherever else the meeting is announced :)
22:58:26 <lblanchard> yes, good point. I will suggest this to Ju…I think maybe she will set up an etherpad early in the day and send that out to all
22:58:34 <lblanchard> jpich: ^
22:58:39 <david-lyle_> I see, that's an HP conference line, I'll see if I can dig up the international number for that
22:58:43 <jcoufal> lblanchard: +1 that would be great
22:59:03 <lblanchard> david-lyle: sounds great
22:59:05 <jpich> lblanchard: Makes sense, cool
22:59:16 <lblanchard> cool, catch those of you there who are interested :)
23:00:30 <david-lyle_> Ok, thanks everyone.  Have a good couple of weeks and provider you tuskar-ui feedback on the ml.
23:00:42 <david-lyle_> oh, and review :)
23:00:48 <david-lyle_> #endmeeting