22:01:06 <sdake> #startmeeting kolla
22:01:06 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jun 17 22:01:06 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is sdake. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:01:07 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
22:01:09 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'kolla'
22:01:10 <harmw> yeej!
22:01:11 <sdake> #topic rollcall
22:01:23 <harmw> 'night
22:01:25 <rhallisey> hi
22:01:28 <bmace> here
22:01:29 <nihilifer> o/
22:01:33 <jpeeler> o/
22:01:34 <akwasnie> HI ALL
22:01:54 <daneyon_> hola
22:01:56 <akwasnie> hi all
22:02:01 <sdake> o/ welcome to the party :)
22:02:10 <Slower> o/
22:02:12 * Slower dances
22:02:27 <daneyon_> let the fun begin
22:02:28 <mandre> here o/
22:02:35 <harmw> hurry hurry!
22:02:46 <sdake> slower I hope you hae your mustache wax applied :)
22:03:01 <daneyon_> anyone see this spec #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/189157/9/
22:03:02 <sdake> waiting couple more minutes for stragglers
22:03:25 <sdake> daneyon one thing at a time :)
22:03:40 <sdake> #topic announcements
22:03:56 <sdake> Kolla midcycle will be called Kolla-poluza
22:04:03 <sdake> yay for big party :)
22:04:05 <daneyon_> love it
22:04:22 <sdake> daneyon suggested a vote, but i think we odnt need to vote on taking a bathroom break :)
22:04:29 <daneyon_> what bands are on the ticket?
22:04:31 <sdake> anyone is welcome to attend
22:04:38 <sdake> not aerosmith for sure :)
22:04:44 <sdake> few logistics
22:04:45 <daneyon_> lol
22:04:48 <sdake> wireless will e available
22:05:01 <sdake> hopefully I can swing some refreshments as in soda/water
22:05:02 <sdake> and lunch should be provided
22:05:09 <sdake> probably pizza or something equally cheap :)
22:05:20 <sdake> we will have webex available
22:05:21 <daneyon_> and equally unhealthy
22:05:31 <sdake> for those folks that can't swing the travel budget
22:05:39 <sdake> but the webex experiene will be suboptimal
22:05:46 <sdake> I'd highly recommend figurign out how to get to san jose
22:06:02 <sdake> I will announce the dates as soon as CSCO facilities gets back to me
22:06:11 <sdake> I am leaning towardsa a tuesday/wednesday
22:06:14 <sdake> towwards end of month
22:06:21 <sdake> (of july)
22:06:28 <daneyon_> i like that
22:06:39 <sdake> but i can't gurantee at this time
22:06:51 <sdake> any questions re midcycle?
22:07:06 <harmw> not at this point
22:07:14 <sdake> anything I can do to help eople out that doesn't involve writing travel checks :)
22:07:56 <sdake> one note, and this is a little onerous
22:08:05 <sdake> everyone has to be escorted in a csco facility by a csco employee
22:08:09 <sdake> which means me and daneyon
22:08:26 <mandre> will the agenda be written in advance?
22:08:33 <sdake> mandre next week we will start on that
22:08:37 <sdake> agenda is full fort oday
22:08:37 <daneyon_> and i only accept $
22:08:51 <sdake> i intend to have 50 minute sessions with 10 minute breaks
22:09:08 <rhallisey> daneyon_, are you expecting tips for your escort?
22:09:12 <sdake> any special requests for soda types, please send me an email
22:09:15 <harmw> i'll be interested in the agenda sdake
22:09:18 <mandre> good, it's important for people attending via webex
22:09:21 <rhallisey> :)
22:09:21 <daneyon_> lol
22:09:25 <harmw> yep mandre
22:09:35 <rhallisey> I'll keep change handy daneyon_
22:09:39 <sdake> can't gurantee there will be soda - I'd like to buy it myself but this pisses off the facilities people
22:09:46 <sdake> but I'm fighting for it :)
22:10:01 <sdake> (and water of course)
22:10:05 <daneyon_> only healthy... water and tofu
22:10:05 <sdake> no beer allowed at csco facilities btw
22:10:12 <sdake> so that will have to remain for after our sessions
22:10:13 <Slower> oh and I thought that was code
22:10:16 <sdake> sessions from 10am to 5pm
22:10:34 <sdake> #topic new core training
22:10:51 <sdake> we hae some new cores, this is mostly directed at samyaple and harmw
22:11:05 <sdake> but is relevant for folks that aspire to join the core reviewer team of kolla
22:11:24 <sdake> the difference between core reviewer and develoepr is core reiers can +2 or -2 changes
22:11:29 <sdake> and set workflow to +1
22:11:34 <sdake> the way it works is
22:11:51 <sdake> 1. someone submits a patch (this is an inherit +1 or +2 from them)
22:12:03 <sdake> 2. first core reviewer reviews patch - if its +2
22:12:08 <sdake> 3. second core reviewer reviews patch
22:12:18 <sdake> if its +2, set workflow to +1
22:12:31 <sdake> then it will hit jenkins which will merge it in the repo
22:12:53 <jpeeler> this might be helpful: http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/core.html
22:13:01 <harmw> understood, and probably something worth to document somewhere if not done already?
22:13:08 <harmw> well, like that indeed :)
22:13:20 <sdake> a -1 vote = work required to improve spec, a +1 vote means non-core reviewer thinks the patch requires no further work
22:13:31 <sdake> a +2 vote = no work required from submitter
22:13:34 <sdake> a -2 vote means one of two things
22:13:47 <sdake> it is either a veto, which means the review is effectively dead unless the core reviewer changes their mind
22:14:00 <sdake> I also use -2 to block changes around release time
22:14:05 <sdake> don't be concerned with those
22:14:12 <sdake> this is just me getting my act together
22:14:18 <sdake> I'm working on elimiting this use of -2
22:14:31 <sdake> I highly recommend using -2 with severe caution
22:14:44 <harmw> can't workflow-1 help with that case?
22:15:01 <sdake> workflow -1 is meant to mean a review needs more work from the commiter, shoudlnt' be set by  reviewers
22:15:15 <harmw> oh ok
22:15:15 <sdake> but yes workflow -1 would help with that case
22:15:23 <sdake> the problem with workflow -1 is it is reset on each new revision fo the patch
22:15:31 <sdake> which means I need to stay on top of changes in the review queue
22:15:50 <sdake> its just a technical thing, -2 is easier for me to block for a short period
22:16:05 <harmw> got it
22:16:05 <sdake> these are going away as we start adhering to a strict follow-the-release-dates policy in our project
22:16:08 <harmw> next!
22:16:13 <sdake> yup
22:16:26 <sdake> #topic specifications review
22:16:32 <sdake> lets start with the easy one first
22:16:52 <sdake> i'd like people in this meeting to read the review (everyone on the core team) and vote according to the instructions in the review
22:17:01 <sdake> at this point I'm not interested in 100% technical accuracy
22:17:10 <sdake> specs are evil, but sometimes necessary
22:17:31 <sdake> more interested in seeing who supports doesn't support or wnats to veto a review
22:17:41 <harmw> i've +2'd both H-A and mansible
22:18:15 <sdake> The HA spec review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181983/
22:18:24 <sdake> please read and indicate in channel when you have voted
22:18:26 <harmw> think we're done with 99% on both of 'em, it's time to actually start doing something to keep us from staying way to long in a design phase
22:18:41 <sdake> note if you dont want to vote, please indicatey ou are abstaining in the cocmments section
22:19:22 <bmace> right on harmw
22:19:23 <sdake> when your done voting plase indicate in channel so we can take a look at the specs
22:20:02 <sdake> I have read the HA spec and approve with +2
22:20:13 <sdake> I'd like all cores to review
22:20:20 <sdake> so I can get a feel for support for the spec
22:20:24 <harmw> done
22:20:27 <harmw> and, done
22:20:28 <daneyon_> rhallisey are you now expecting a tip to vote on the HA spec? lol!!!!!!
22:20:42 <sdake> we still will folow openstack best practices with requiring 2 core reviewers not submitting the spec to approve the spec
22:20:45 <sdake> but dont workflow justyet
22:20:46 <rhallisey> I thought I did O.o
22:20:57 <sdake> if you voted please incicate that in channel
22:20:59 <rhallisey> ok done
22:21:05 <sdake> this is called a "rollcall vote"
22:21:09 * jpeeler voted
22:21:26 <daneyon_> +2 but i don't count
22:21:47 <mfalatic> Ok voted
22:21:52 <sdake> daneyon please vote as well
22:22:00 <mandre> voted on the HA spec
22:22:01 <sdake> if you submitted the spec please vote
22:22:07 <sdake> that leaves sam yaple
22:22:12 <sdake> he alrady voted +2 previouly
22:22:21 <mandre> i need some time to catch up on the multinode spec, a lot of discussion happened overnight
22:22:31 <sdake> so looks like we have great community consensus on ha spec
22:22:34 <daneyon_> I did in the review and in irc
22:22:37 <sdake> and no work items needed
22:22:45 <sdake> I'll mark workflow +1
22:22:57 <jpeeler> wish gerrit automatically refreshed
22:23:16 <sdake> ok next spec
22:23:41 <sdake> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/189157/
22:24:04 <sdake> samyaple and I are not able to set workflow +1 on this because we are the authors of the change
22:24:11 <harmw> but I can :)
22:24:12 <sdake> there have been about 150 comments on this specification
22:24:25 <daneyon_> just a little bit of interest :-)
22:24:26 <sdake> harmw your elected if there are two core votes then
22:24:45 <harmw> one of those 2 my own
22:24:48 <sdake> I think version 1.0 wasn't quite right, and version 2.0 was quite right
22:24:56 <sdake> please spend the time to read the review comments
22:25:01 <sdake> those are the most important
22:25:03 <sdake> just on the last review
22:25:03 <harmw> oh, 3, yours is way up on top
22:25:12 <sdake> all other revies have been addressed
22:25:36 <sdake> please respond in channel after you have finished reading the review comments
22:25:47 <harmw> did tht earlier :)
22:25:53 * harmw done
22:25:54 <sdake> I voted +2 on this spec
22:26:05 <harmw> here as well, want me to +1 the workflow?
22:26:14 <sdake> harmw no we are doing a rollcall vote
22:26:20 <harmw> oh, excuse me
22:26:22 <sdake> harmw patience young padiwan :)
22:26:45 <harmw> more like, eager getting to bed :p
22:27:01 <Slower> honestly docker-compose isn't even the important part for tripleo, we just need a way to deploy with heat
22:27:01 <sdake> the reason for the rollcall is I want to understand what level of support the spec has from the core reviewer team
22:27:16 <Slower> we can use docker directly or some other tool
22:27:41 <sdake> i'll give it 10-15 minutes
22:27:43 <sdake> bbiaf :)
22:28:20 <mandre> sdake: do we need to make a decision on the repo split now?
22:28:40 <mstachow> huh, hi everybody - my IRC client breaks up and I didn't see any conversation here
22:29:17 <sdake> mandre I am veto on the repo split at this point in time
22:30:09 <sdake> hence my -2 comments on that partof the review
22:30:36 <jpeeler> sdake: are you against it just in this timeframe or forever?
22:30:36 <mandre> ok, so we're not going to decide on the split in the next 15 minutes I take it :)
22:30:45 <mandre> I good with the spec then
22:31:01 <sdake> mandre feel free to vote
22:31:09 <mfalatic> I'm good with the spec provided outstanding questions get resolved. voting.
22:31:10 <sdake> jpeeler future possible to predict, but I  feel it derails out l2 objectives
22:31:12 <sdake> or atlast mine :)
22:32:10 <sdake> jpeeler I think what will happen is our deployment tools  will be tightly integrated with our container tech
22:32:22 <sdake> jpeeler but our container tech will not be  tihgtly integrated with our deployment tooling
22:32:43 <sdake> hence, containers will be highly reusable
22:32:49 <sdake> deployment tooling not reusable
22:32:55 <daneyon_> I don't think we are going to reach consensus on the spec, so should we just +1 the workflow since 2 core's other than the authors +2'd?
22:33:10 <sdake> I want to finis hteh job on the rollcall vote
22:33:26 <sdake> so when you done indicate in channel
22:33:53 <mfalatic> voted
22:33:56 <daneyon_> I'm torn
22:34:03 <daneyon_> not sure if I can +2 or -2
22:34:18 <sdake> -2 kills the review and would be drastically bad for our community
22:34:26 <daneyon_> right
22:34:39 <daneyon_> +2 or -1 i mean
22:34:40 <sdake> but vote how you please, your were voted into the core team because people trust your judgement
22:34:46 <daneyon_> i love the community
22:35:05 <harmw> and it loves you!
22:35:14 <daneyon_> a big love fest
22:35:22 <mstachow> <3
22:35:26 <harmw> are we done rolling round?
22:35:28 <Slower> what is the kolla manifesto?
22:35:40 <daneyon_> shame on u... haha!!!
22:35:55 <daneyon_> check the dev wiki
22:35:59 <rhallisey> you don't have a tattoo of it?
22:36:02 <sdake> slower https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Kolla
22:36:23 <sdake> if you have already voted, please let me know
22:36:31 * harmw check
22:36:41 <sdake> or if your notchanging your ote based uopon the comments in the various review threads
22:37:04 <sdake> let me know when the rollcall is done :)
22:38:43 <harmw> how does one tell?
22:38:49 <daneyon_> I have changed my vote to +2
22:38:54 <harmw> (or am I asking stupid questions now?)
22:39:28 <daneyon_> bc I have changed my mind after thinking about the separate repo thing for the last several hours
22:39:49 <daneyon_> i see pro's and con's to both approaches
22:39:53 <jpeeler> am i blocking the spec with -1 or no?
22:39:56 <Slower> I actually think we should give it a few more days
22:40:05 * jpeeler is wondering if he should go down in glory or submit
22:40:12 <Slower> haha
22:40:22 <daneyon_> i think by moving the spec forward as-is provides greater good than harm to the project
22:40:33 <bmace> all the code will be in a separate directory.  it isn't like, if in the future it is decided to split it out, it can't be done.  i don't see waiting helping anything
22:40:35 <harmw> I think this spec has seen enough revisions and we should just start here as well
22:41:01 <rhallisey> still thinking
22:41:47 <daneyon_> It may be more difficult to split deploy/content in the future or maybe it never gets split. However, we need multi-node now, we need HA now. We can revisit the split later on if we feel it is really hindering the project
22:41:57 <Slower> when I see disagreement I tend to think time will make decisions clearer, but that's just me
22:42:58 <harmw> c'mon rhallisey :)
22:42:58 <jpeeler> i changed as well, but i wish time constraints weren't influencing this decision
22:43:05 <jpeeler> i also wish i had a million dollars fyi
22:43:20 <Slower> jpeeler: haha :) yeah..
22:43:29 <harmw> yea, and i wish you would share those with me jpeeler
22:44:04 <rhallisey> k fine with me
22:44:13 <mstachow> harmw is right jpeeler, share those with me
22:44:17 <Slower> peer pressure ftw!
22:44:17 <mstachow> ;)
22:44:32 <harmw> sdake: I believe thats it
22:45:50 <sdake> jpeeler you dont block the spec with -1
22:46:31 <sdake> jpeeler ack on the million dollars
22:46:34 <sdake> sorry I only have 1 hour to work with :(
22:47:18 <sdake> ok so rhallisey is the last one to vote
22:47:24 <sdake> vote what you think is right andlets move on
22:47:26 <rhallisey> I did
22:47:29 <daneyon_> i think he did
22:47:31 <sdake> oh cool
22:47:41 <sdake> ok so can someone confirm all votes are accounted for in the spec?
22:47:47 <rhallisey> I'd prefer more time, but doesn't seem we have it
22:48:16 <sdake> harmw your elected to confirm thta :)
22:49:23 <sdake> ok I'e had a quick look over the voting
22:49:43 <sdake> looks like we are all on the same page regarding scope and mission
22:49:51 <sdake> so this whole spec thing
22:49:52 <sdake> PITA
22:50:00 <sdake> dont do a spec plz - its painful
22:50:06 <harmw> hehe
22:50:26 <sdake> mature projects like nova etc core teams are threatening to rage quite the core teams because of the specs process in place
22:50:35 <sdake> I think it is really an anti-pattern to proper openstack development
22:50:38 <harmw> I see checkmarks and +1's now
22:50:48 <sdake> harmw hit theworkflow +1 button plz
22:50:57 * harmw check
22:51:06 <sdake> ok thanks for taking the time to review those
22:51:14 <sdake> that really sucked up alot of the agenda that I had planned
22:51:40 <sdake> on the plus side, now everyone knows everyones thoughts on this spec
22:51:55 <sdake> but it looks like we hae broad agreement to fullfill our roles as scor ereviewers to support the review of this work
22:52:09 <sdake> if not borad agreement on the actual implementation :)
22:52:16 <harmw> aaand, next agenda item :P
22:52:36 <harmw> don't tell me we hve more specs to go through...
22:52:59 <sdake> I am going to have to adjut our agenda to focus on our highest priority task atm
22:53:09 <sdake> #topic openstack liberty 1 finalization
22:53:13 <sdake> deadline is July 25th
22:53:46 <sdake> https://launchpad.net/kolla/+milestone/liberty-1
22:53:50 <sdake> #link https://launchpad.net/kolla/+milestone/liberty-1
22:54:01 <sdake> so 14 blueprints, 37 bugs fixed
22:54:03 <sdake> tremendous velocity !
22:54:10 <sdake> yay we are making hugeprogress
22:54:14 <harmw> seriously, we have bugs?
22:54:41 <sdake> samyaple has one blueprint that is in not started state
22:54:43 <sdake> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/kolla/+spec/one-interface
22:54:52 <sdake> eerything else is started or in code review
22:55:02 <sdake> I am going to bounce that blueprint to liberty 2
22:55:09 <sdake> i knwo this dmaages our ci efforts
22:55:17 <harmw> I'll be happy to go through that one though
22:55:17 <sdake> but we are blocked by a whole bunch of stuff
22:55:21 <harmw> but ok
22:55:26 <sdake> I've got a plan to get er unblocked
22:55:35 <sdake> and people are actively working on it
22:55:50 <harmw> (4 minute warning)
22:55:52 <sdake> but its not going to happen before liberty 1
22:55:54 <sdake> ya i know time
22:56:40 <sdake> all of our blueprints are in needs code review
22:56:51 <sdake> reviewers, please spend the next week gettingthoe throug hthe gate
22:57:05 <sdake> i want to release eactly ont he 25th of july
22:57:15 <harmw> ok
22:57:17 <sdake> committers, please fix up the issues
22:57:18 <daneyon_> will do
22:57:25 <mandre> got it
22:57:31 <sdake> #topic open discussion
22:57:33 <sdake> aologies for3 minutes of open discussion
22:57:37 <sdake> I'll try to plan timing better
22:57:43 <sdake> hard with open ended objectives :)
22:57:55 <sdake> we can spill over into #kolla
22:58:02 <sdake> at the conclusion of our meeting time
22:58:08 <rhallisey> we need to get a bigger time slot
22:58:09 <Slower> no beer at cisco?!?!
22:58:12 <rhallisey> lol
22:58:15 <sdake> rhallisey lol
22:58:24 <sdake> slower 70k person company - bean counters ftw :)
22:58:47 <Slower> that's the elephant topic in the room.. man oh man..
22:58:52 <harmw> night all!
22:58:58 <sdake> just one last thing
22:59:03 <harmw> which is..
22:59:05 <sdake> i'd rather not have to go through these rollcall votes on specs
22:59:11 <sdake> I'd rather no have specs entirely
22:59:16 <sdake> but sometimes they will be necessary
22:59:26 <sdake> I am open to discussion on a better way to handle these
22:59:37 <sdake> since specs are generally done to buid consensus
22:59:44 <sdake> and consensus means there is contention :)
22:59:56 <sdake> feel free to have in channel or privately
23:00:13 <sdake> thanks for attending folks - apologies meeting was so mentally taxing :)
23:00:31 <sdake> #endmeeting