14:00:44 <mestery> #startmeeting networking
14:00:45 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Oct 21 14:00:44 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mestery. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:46 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:48 <amotoki> hi
14:00:49 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking'
14:00:57 <mestery> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings Agenda
14:01:02 <mestery> #topic Announcements
14:01:14 <mestery> OpenStack Juno is out! Yay!
14:01:16 <mestery> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-announce/2014-October/000295.html
14:01:24 <mestery> And with it is Neutron:
14:01:26 <mestery> #link https://launchpad.net/neutron/juno/2014.2
14:01:42 <mestery> Thanks to everyone for all your efforts for the past cycle.
14:01:55 <mestery> I know it was rought at times, but we pulled through as a team. Nice work everyone!
14:02:01 <Sukhdev> Congrats to the team!!!
14:02:12 <amotoki> Thanks all!!
14:02:22 <markmcclain> o/
14:02:24 <nati_ueno> Congrats!
14:02:35 * marios_ looks forward to raising a beer with folks in a couple weeks
14:02:42 <mestery> Now that Juno is out, the ball keeps moving forward: On to Kilo!
14:02:49 <mestery> The Kilo release schedule is available on the wiki here:
14:02:50 <mestery> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Kilo_Release_Schedule
14:03:34 <mestery> I also wanted to update folks that I'm working to settle on a mid-cycle location with the neutron-drivers team now.
14:03:39 <mestery> We should be able to announce that next week.
14:03:45 <mestery> Stay tuned for more details!
14:03:45 <emagana> wow.. summit in Vancouver!
14:03:54 <mestery> emagana: Indeed, pretty awesome!
14:03:59 <emagana> I just noticed that!
14:04:01 <mestery> Any other announcements for the team?
14:04:06 <rkukura> mestery: I don’t see anything on the agenda regarding the kilo design summit. Can you explain how session topics are being chosen, and where we are in that process?
14:04:40 <mestery> rkukura: Yes: We've had the public etherpad out there for the past 5 weeks, now that we've collected items there, the neutron-drivers team is putting the schedule together and it should be finalized by later this week.
14:04:49 <mestery> We'll talk more about it next week during the meeting.
14:04:50 <rkukura> oh, the drivers
14:05:00 <jschwarz> Regarding the release schedule, until when are we accepting new specs? when is the deadline to get them approved?
14:05:19 <mestery> jschwarz: I haven't proposed SPD/SAD yet, but it will be much earlier than it was in Juno.
14:05:23 <rkukura> mestery: ML2 has been working on input for this
14:05:27 <mestery> Stay tuned, I'll have those dates next week.
14:05:37 <jschwarz> ack, thanks
14:05:46 <mestery> rkukura: We only have 11 slots this time, and 2 half day round table sessions.
14:06:12 <mestery> rkukura: We're constrained severly. If you have input which is not on the etherpad, please let mek now.
14:06:46 <mestery> OK, moving on in the agenda.
14:06:48 <mestery> #topic Bugs
14:06:49 <rkukura> mestery: there is way too much on the etherpad. We need an open process to narrow it down
14:06:56 <mestery> #undo
14:06:57 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x31aa2d0>
14:07:20 <mestery> rkukura: Exactly, this was brought up many weeks ago in this very meeting, something from salv-orlando on the fact we had 20 years worth of work there. :)
14:08:11 <marun> rkukura: I think the point of the drivers team is to provide leadership when it comes to choosing priorities.
14:08:27 <rkukura> I was expecting some communication as part of that process
14:08:50 <marun> rkukura: I don't think anybody is preventing you from talking to the drivers team.
14:08:51 <rkukura> let move on
14:08:56 <mestery> The communication is coming, yes.
14:08:57 <amotoki> I agree the driver team make things more transparency and need to explain how the schedule is decided.
14:09:00 <rkukura> Do they have an email list?
14:09:09 <emagana> drivers team: Please, take into consideration cross functional work such Third-party CI and Documentation!!!
14:09:13 <mestery> No email list, we're just normal people with addresses.
14:09:29 <marun> rkukura: you have working relationships with all of them.  Are you not able to use irc or the ml to raise issues?
14:09:59 <rkukura> I was not aware the drivers were determining the summit schedule. I should have guessed that.
14:10:10 <marun> rkukura: ah, fair enough.
14:10:32 <marun> rkukura: That raises a good point - that should have been communicated better.
14:11:03 <marun> rkukura: I thought it was, but if you're unaware you may not be the only one.
14:11:21 <Sukhdev> I am assuming amotoki will be representing ML2 in the driver team when choosing priorities
14:12:31 <mestery> I don't think there is any representing a specific team, we're all representing Neutron, and not just the drivers team, but each one of us.
14:12:38 <emagana> who are the drivers members again?
14:12:52 <mestery> With all of that work proposed, the hard choices around what requires F2F time and can fill those 11 slots are usually made by the PTL.
14:13:03 <mestery> Now with the drivers team we're spreading this load a bit, so it's a net win IMHO.
14:13:31 <Sukhdev> mestery: we have been discussing Kilo themes in ML2 meeting -
14:14:10 <mestery> Also, I hope everyone keeps this in mind:
14:14:11 <mestery> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-October/047954.html
14:14:19 <mestery> Neutron priorities for Kilo, I sent this email weeks back
14:14:23 <mestery> Just refreshing folks memory here
14:14:30 <pc_m> emagana: #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron-drivers
14:14:35 <amotoki> mestery: can we have an IRC meeting dedicated for summit planning if necessary? we can explain what's discussed among the driver team and everyone have chance to input.
14:14:49 <emagana> pc_m: Thanks!
14:14:54 <mestery> amotoki: That's fine, lets do it during the drivers team slot this week,.
14:14:57 <amotoki> weekly neutron meetng may be too short to discuss.
14:15:14 <mestery> amotoki: +1
14:15:27 <marun> amotoki: +1
14:15:38 <mestery> OK, we'll continue what should bea lively Summitt planning discussion on Wednesday during the Neutron drivers meeting.
14:15:46 * mestery notes everyone should bring plenty of rotten tomatoes
14:16:08 <mestery> #topic Bugs
14:16:19 <marios_> i spent some time poking at the criticals, for https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1381617 I'd be grateful for any input on my proposal there (will likely start trying that tomorrow)
14:16:20 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1381617 in neutron "Check for FIP status in scenario tests cause instability in neutron gate jobs" [Critical,Confirmed]
14:16:24 <mestery> I don't see our bug czar here, so I'm going to leave this open for bugs people want to discuss.
14:16:28 <mestery> And marun beat me to it :)
14:16:31 <mestery> marios_
14:16:32 <mestery> not marun
14:17:00 <marios_> also for https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1323658
14:17:02 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1323658 in nova "Nova resize/restart results in guest ending up in inconsistent state with Neutron" [Critical,Confirmed]
14:17:12 <marios_> wondering if anyone has a good repro?
14:17:37 <marios_> logstash says it is indeed a thing. but can't hit it on my devstack box
14:17:56 <mestery> marios_: I used to be able to hit that one fairly regularly, but it's been a while.
14:17:57 <markmcclain> didn't salv-orlando do some digging into this one
14:17:58 <markmcclain> ?
14:18:00 <mestery> That one has been around for a while.
14:18:07 <mestery> markmcclain: Yes, he did
14:18:21 <armax> That last one bug is nasty
14:18:25 <mestery> The findings are documented in the bug I believe
14:18:48 <armax> I can help with the FIP one
14:19:00 <marios_> armax: yes thanks, my apologies i attributed your question to salvatore
14:19:02 <salv-orlando> there is no repro for that folks
14:19:06 <marios_> armax: (on the comment)
14:19:43 <salv-orlando> I mean at least not one that you can easily reproduce. Mostly because it’s yet another bug with multiple root causes
14:19:44 <armax> We are the Aliases of the same person
14:19:52 <armax> that's OK
14:19:55 <armax> :)
14:19:57 <salv-orlando> we slashed it when we pushed the fix for bug 1349617, then it periodically comes back.
14:19:59 <marios_> :)
14:20:02 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1349617 in tempest "SSHException: Error reading SSH protocol banner[Errno 104] Connection reset by peer" [Critical,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1349617
14:20:05 <glebo> lo. /me sorry bout being late
14:20:19 <salv-orlando> troubles is that it’s not just the network. This bug basically means: I dd an action to my instance, and when it came back I was not able to access it anymore
14:21:28 <mestery> Any other bugs the team should be aware of today?
14:21:33 <marios_> i also looked at https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1274034
14:21:36 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1274034 in neutron "Neutron firewall anti-spoofing does not prevent ARP poisoning" [High,In progress]
14:21:36 <amotoki> I would like to raise the ML thread: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/2014-October/010055.html
14:21:49 <marios_> mestery: this one imo is a good 'technical debt' candidate and it has existing work
14:22:00 <amotoki> the one I raised is not a real bug, but it is worth mentioned in the release note and the docs.
14:22:01 <marios_> (Still marked 'in progress'. So the proper fix is to introduce ebtables. Some pushback in it being introduced here, perhaps needs to be stand alone etc)
14:22:19 <marios_> but the headline for that particular bug is "no tenant isolation in neutron"
14:22:25 <mestery> marios_: Are you working with Juergen on that one?
14:22:50 <marios_> mestery: no i didn't get that far i saw recent work so assumed it was between dev cycles stalled
14:22:51 <mestery> amotoki: Can you update the release notes with the output of that thread? That would be great!
14:23:07 <mestery> marios_: The issue with that one was the gigantic patch which was proposed at the end of Juno.
14:23:09 <marios_> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OSSN/OSSN-0027
14:23:09 <amotoki> mestery: sure. I can cover the docs too.
14:23:19 <mestery> And the fact it needed to be refactored to work with both iptables and ipset I believe.
14:23:25 <mestery> amotoki: Thanks!
14:23:39 <glebo> "no tenant isolation in neutron" . That's a pretty rough pill to swallow for the operator community.
14:23:40 <marios_> mestery: yes that was my take-away from reading the various threads there
14:23:57 <marios_> glebo: yes of course. its of course a sensasionalist headline and is not all that bad
14:24:18 <marios_> glebo: no sorry, it is pretty bad but not like the headline suggests :)
14:24:47 <mestery> marios_: Can you ping Jeurgen on this one and see where he's at with this? I'm concerned he hasn't popped up on the ML or meeting to discuss the solution here, nor has he worked with you on the ipset/iptables refactor to include the ebtables work here.
14:24:56 <glebo> marios_: ha
14:25:07 <marios_> mestery: sure will make a note of that
14:25:16 <mestery> marios_: Thanks!
14:26:00 <mestery> OK, lets move on in the agenda then.
14:26:03 <mestery> #topic Docs
14:26:06 <mestery> emagana: Hi there!
14:26:12 <emagana> Hello!
14:26:35 <emagana> mestery: This morning I updated the wiki with some progress on the bugs related to Docs
14:26:48 <mestery> emagana: Fantastic, thanks!
14:27:32 <amotoki> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings#Docs_.28emagana.29
14:27:44 <mestery> emagana: Anything else on docs for this week?
14:27:46 <emagana> I also notified the Docs team that is working on Networking the agreement of last week about having DVR and L3 HA as new features within the Docs
14:28:04 <mestery> Very good!
14:28:26 <emagana> mestery: Very few bugs have been opened by this team, we should review more the Documentation of our own staff!!!
14:28:40 <amotoki> emagana: will stable/juno on docs repo be cut about a month later?
14:29:08 <emagana> amotoki: Actually not all of them, for instance install guide is cut tomorrow
14:29:26 <emagana> the rest of the documentation will be
14:29:54 <amotoki> emagana: thanks. If we find docs bugs, let's fix them.
14:30:09 <emagana> amotoki: Yes!
14:30:17 <emagana> mestery: Nothing else!
14:30:23 <mestery> emagana: Thank you sir!
14:30:44 <mestery> OK, moving on.
14:30:51 <emagana> mestery: }=)
14:31:05 <mestery> #topic Non-NSX VMware Driver Discussion
14:31:08 <mestery> This may be a short topic
14:31:11 <mestery> Since garyk isn't here :)
14:31:27 <mestery> I had proposed to have this discussion during this slot as there are 3 BPs for non-NSX drivers in neutron-specs
14:31:34 <mestery> And armax and garyk have been working to figure out overlap
14:31:35 <salv-orlando> it’s funny I work for vmware and I hardly know what we’re talking about
14:31:45 <mestery> salv-orlando: You must not talk to garyk much ;)
14:31:54 <armax> mestery: I’ll sync up with gary
14:32:11 <mestery> armax: Yes, please do, and we can add this to next week's agenda if gary wants, since he proposed this to me. :)
14:32:20 <salv-orlando> mestery: we talk, but about other stuff
14:32:34 <mestery> #topic Neutron Peer Review Process
14:32:35 <armax> mestery: we need to figure out whether this stuff will live in neutron or outside
14:32:39 <mestery> #undo
14:32:40 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x31379d0>
14:32:47 <mestery> armax: Yes, that was one of gary's concerns too
14:32:55 <mestery> And waht could be reused across the drivers, etc.
14:33:05 <armax> mestery: right, we’ll get it sorted this cycle
14:33:07 <ihrachyshka> weren't we going to nuke all drivers from the tree?
14:33:11 <mestery> armax: Cool, thanks!
14:33:21 <armax> ihrachyshka: that remains to be discussed at the summit
14:33:21 <mestery> ihrachyshka: We didn't say which tree this would live in ;)
14:33:37 <armax> ihrachyshka: but if that was true, the moment is ripe for having the esx stuff happens out of tree
14:34:02 <armax> mestery, ihrachyshka: we’ll work that out this cycle
14:34:30 <mestery> OK, thanks armax!
14:34:38 <mestery> #topic Neutron Peer Review Process
14:34:48 <mestery> Per last week's discussion, I'll be rolling this out this week.
14:34:48 <glebo> ihrachyshka: thta's what I have been hearing consensus around, and maestry: I haven't really heard the "here's what we do now that they are out" plan
14:35:13 <mestery> I'm close to having the Google Forms stuff sorted out, expect this to happen by tomorrow.
14:35:26 <ihrachyshka> mestery: what's that process about? link?
14:35:31 <mestery> I just wanted to note this in the meeting for folks.
14:35:33 <mestery> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-peer-review
14:35:36 <ihrachyshka> tnx
14:35:37 <mestery> ihrachyshka: ^^^
14:35:45 <emagana> mestery: You are implementing a review process with just a couple of weeks of being annouced?
14:36:23 <mestery> emagana: Indeed sir. If it takes people more than 10 minutes than they shoudl ask for help. :)
14:36:30 <mestery> emagana: The idea is to collect the data before the Summit.
14:36:46 <rkukura> ?
14:36:52 <emagana> mestery: which data?  I am confused, what are these google forms about exactly?
14:38:07 <mestery> Background was discussed last week during the meeting, emagana I think you were here even:
14:38:08 <mestery> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking/2014/networking.2014-10-13-21.02.log.html
14:38:57 <glebo> mestery:  the discussion on this topic last week was very good, and certainly there were several points of input and suggestion
14:39:08 <glebo> I haven't seen much comment
14:39:14 <glebo> on the etherpad about it yet
14:39:20 <emagana> mestery: If everybody understands these forms and the reason behind them and the conclusion about last week I shut my mounth..
14:39:25 <mestery> glebo: Right, no one commented at all.
14:39:26 * glebo guilty for not commenting my review, as promised
14:39:48 <rkukura> emagana: I had no clue we were considering implementing this prior to the summit
14:39:49 * mestery notes no one commented on the etherpad after last week's meeting.
14:39:54 <mestery> Did people just not have enough time?
14:39:55 <glebo> but there are some pretty strong views about how this could be done effectively
14:40:07 <glebo> mestery: for me, yes.
14:40:22 * Sukhdev I thought the discussion was to continue in this week's meeting
14:40:22 <glebo> I fully intend to review and comment with some of the input I gave in last week's mtg.
14:40:23 <emagana> rkukura: Ni neither! but it seems mestery has made a decision
14:40:26 <glebo> on the epad
14:40:28 <jschwarz> I didn't see a ML thread about it and wasn't even aware this was in the works. Looks good btw
14:40:35 <amotoki> in my understand, the peer review proposed is our big challenge on how to manage a core team of a project.
14:40:36 <emagana> Sukhdev: Same here but same comment that before!
14:40:53 <mestery> Folks, I'm on IRC everyday,, all the time, I read email, etc.
14:40:58 <mestery> Please don't be afraid to reach out to me
14:41:01 * glebo feels strongly that the process needs to be more open and less "closed network of hand picked reviewers" type of thing
14:41:21 <emagana> mestery: I am reaching you out now! In the right forum. What is wrong with that?
14:41:22 <glebo> too much oppty for things to go sideways, as currently stands
14:41:27 <mestery> emagana: Nothing at all.
14:41:39 <mestery> In fact, I'm willing to delay this to address your concerns :)
14:41:43 <glebo> but, to reiterate, I'm 100% in support of a review process overall. GREAT leadership step
14:41:47 <mestery> We have 19 minutes :P
14:41:54 <mestery> glebo: Thanks.
14:42:00 <amotoki> As etherpad says, the first round is a kind of trial. we are exploring the process.
14:42:12 <mestery> amotoki is spot on.
14:42:14 <markmcclain> glebo: I don't think that until the we've run a sample run that attempting at a wide scale is wise
14:42:36 <emagana> mestery: It seems and I am not the only one confused about it. I am supportive of the peer review but I want to find more clarity. Please, tell me what to do?
14:42:58 <mestery> emagana: How about this: Can you comment on that etherpad? We can also discuss now and in-channel today.
14:43:02 * marun wishes he hadn't joined this conversation late
14:43:23 <marun> I'm also confused as to why concerns weren't raised this past week.
14:43:30 <glebo> markmcclain: sorry, mark, attempting what?
14:43:32 <emagana> mestery: Ok!
14:43:34 <marun> It was made clear that feedback was appreciated.
14:43:39 <marun> And zero feedback was provided.
14:43:41 <marun> What gives?
14:43:41 <emagana> marun: +1
14:43:58 <marun> If nobody actually cared, I could understand.
14:44:08 <marun> But if you cared and didn't raise your voice, who's fault is that?
14:44:10 <glebo> emagana: I also understood last week that the action item for those of us with input was to comment on epad,
14:44:13 <markmcclain> glebo: wide feedback vs a smaller sample
14:44:23 <amotoki> the discussion just starts. if you have a question, don't hesitate to raise :-)
14:44:36 <glebo> but I also think we need to promote and advertise this process a bit more on the mail list
14:44:46 <mestery> Folks, I am obviously VERY OPEN to feedback, but when we ask for it and get none, that leads me to believe people are ok with what is proposed.
14:44:50 <nati_ueno> I thought I did feedback, but I found actually I didn't. I'm +1 for this process.
14:44:51 <marun> glebo: I'm curious as to what your stake in this, frankly.
14:44:55 <glebo> mestery: how would u feel about a bit more advert on the ml?
14:45:09 <marun> glebo: The point is to try to get feedback to the cores so they can improve.
14:45:10 <emagana> marun: I care but I am also in the top of many things! CI, Docs and My current job!  I am investing time on this meeting expressing my concerns and now I have been asked to spend more time in commenting in a different time
14:45:37 <amotoki> emagana: you are leading cross project topics MUCH!
14:45:38 <glebo> mestery: understandable reaction to a week of total silence. for me, just been busy. SHould have at least told u that so's u didn't take silence as consensus
14:45:40 <emagana> marun: I find it unfair!
14:45:45 <marun> emagana: why?
14:45:46 <glebo> mestery: my bad
14:46:00 <emagana> glebo: +1 I second that!
14:46:10 <marun> So, you have concerns.
14:46:14 <marun> And then stay silent.
14:46:19 <marun> Must have been important concerns
14:46:22 <marun> ?
14:46:56 <emagana> not silent just busy and I did not know it will be implemented right away!  I am expresing concerns not believing that this is the right forum
14:47:19 <marun> emagana: What exactly is your concern?
14:47:19 <armax> could these concerns be so serious that they cannot be addressed while we see how this thing actually works in motion?
14:47:23 <marun> emagana: It's a feedback mechanism.
14:47:31 * glebo thinks maybe for a step this big a two or three weeks is an acceptable comment period.
14:47:32 <mestery> marun: +1000
14:47:45 <emagana> mestery: I asked last week how much time was expected per week per core in NEutron, what was the response?
14:47:48 <marun> emagana: It's not a tool to push anyone off core.
14:47:58 <mestery> emagana: The response is it's not something which we can document like that.
14:48:10 <glebo> I just never expected the whole comment and discussion window to be 1 week long. And we all know what they say about when I assume...
14:48:10 <mestery> emagana: It's different for each person, for each week, etc.
14:48:14 <marun> emagana: If anyone of us is not meeting each other's expectations, that's just information.
14:48:26 <marun> emagana: If the consensus is, we need to do more, we'll all know it.
14:48:40 <marun> emagana: If the consensus is, we're doing enough or we can do less, we can decide that too.
14:48:45 <emagana> marun: I understand that part and I agree with that, performance feedback is needed!
14:48:59 <marun> emagana: I'm still not clear on your concern, then.
14:49:06 <emagana> mestery: But we all need to know the expectation!
14:49:26 <marun> emagana: You are unwilling to have us all deliver feedback as to whether we are meeting each other's expectations?
14:49:28 <mestery> emagana: Expecatation on what? How much time you need to spend reviewing patches? Specs? Interacting on IRC? I'm confused.
14:49:46 <glebo> and the summary of my input is that the process needs to be more open, and more self selecting. i.e.
14:49:50 <emagana> mestery: Yes, that is one of them
14:49:53 <marun> emagana: If there is a perceived issue for any one of us, the goal is finding ways to get better.
14:50:02 <marun> emagana: I'm not sure why that would be contentious.
14:50:06 <mestery> emagana: Like I said, htere is no hard minimum or limit on that.
14:50:26 <emagana> marun: I am open to feedback
14:50:33 <amotoki> I understand there are several ways to contributing the community and core status motivates persons!
14:50:40 <marun> emagana: I am having a hard time understanding your desire for 'a number of hours'
14:50:52 <marun> emagana: Constructive participation is not something you can measure in hours.
14:50:59 <marun> emagana: That's the whole point of the proposal...
14:51:01 <glebo> if leaders are hand picking specific "in the club" other leaders to provide "unbiased performance reviews" then the tool is really just for leaders to get the opinions of people they want to listen to, and not to genuinely open up to community feedback
14:51:14 <marun> emagana: To get a more holistic view of what we all think about being core.
14:51:30 <marun> emagana: Rather than relying on numbers like review stats or number of hours.
14:51:33 <glebo> that process is fine for a corp. It's laden with issues for an open community, like OpenSource or Standards
14:51:37 <amotoki> emagana: there are many ways to express "community leadership". no worries. we know!
14:51:38 <mestery> glebo: I don't follow that, and why would you think that's what's happening here? That's a baseless accusation which isn't adding anything to the discussion.
14:51:43 <marun> glebo: Uh...
14:51:53 <emagana> marun: Maybe I am overreacting here. I just want to be sure that peer review is well understood by everybody
14:51:54 <marun> glebo: I'm having a hard time accepting your criticism.
14:51:57 <mestery> glebo: Have you read the etherpad>
14:51:59 <mestery> ?
14:52:01 <marun> glebo: Have you been reviewing code and I haven't noticed?
14:52:05 <glebo> mestery:  whoa, that was a pretty strong reaction, m.
14:52:12 <mestery> glebo: Indeed, that was a strong accusation.
14:52:25 <glebo> I don't recall making an accusation, least i didn't mean to, not in the least.
14:52:36 <mestery> glebo: Please re-read the etherpad and comment there if you have concerns.
14:52:42 <amotoki> I hope you all who are interested in this topics read the whole content on the epad. After reading the whole, you will see various metrix.
14:52:50 <glebo> As stands, the process is that a leader hand picks people they trust to provide feedback on another person, no?
14:52:53 <marun> glebo: We're a group of people who are overburdened.
14:52:59 <marun> glebo: The goal is figuring out how to be more effective.
14:53:20 <marun> glebo: It's not something we intend to use to deny bonuses or promotion.
14:53:23 <glebo> marun:  100% agree with that
14:53:26 <emagana> mestery: It is not my intention to slow down the progress of this excellent initiative! On the contrary I am onboard. With the caveat that I don't understand many things!
14:53:45 <mestery> glebo: Someone has to pick the reviewers, we'll iterate on this, but yes, initially it's the PTL. I'm sure you coudl see the issues with opening voting for who reviews who.
14:53:50 <mestery> And eveyrone reviewing everyone isnt' scalable.
14:54:03 <nati_ueno> marun: oh I thought person with good score get some beers from PTL
14:54:03 <marun> emagana: Feel free to ask questions, then.  There are no secrets here.
14:54:18 <glebo> marun:  in the spirit of being more effective, is a small, closed group of reviewers the most effective, or is an open, provide feedback as you have interactions more effective?
14:54:26 <emagana> marun: Is not what have been doing for the last 10 minutes?
14:54:34 <glebo> marun: if we look at models that are WILDLY successful in the industry,
14:54:41 <marun> glebo: uh.
14:54:56 <glebo> marun:  the reputation systems are doing a FANTASTIC job of helping communities self police
14:55:11 <marun> glebo: I don't know what you're talking about.
14:55:21 <glebo> , and self guide and self shape behaviors in line with the goals of the system
14:55:34 <glebo> marun: you've never heard of a reputation system?
14:55:44 <marun> glebo: We have a reputation system.
14:55:47 <glebo> marun: every used ebay?
14:55:50 <marun> glebo: ffs
14:55:55 * ihrachyshka noting: 5 mins left
14:56:01 <mestery> Folks
14:56:04 <mestery> Lets move on from this now.
14:56:08 <mestery> Please provide feedback on the etherpad
14:56:09 <marun> glebo: You're seriously going to point to some kind of gamification to support an open source community.
14:56:13 <marun> glebo: Just stop.
14:56:14 <mestery> And ML if you want.
14:56:15 <armax> glebo: you mean, like LP karma points?
14:56:20 <markmcclain> mestery: +1000 … Open Discussion please
14:56:23 <glebo> marun:  every read comments on a mobile app you were thinking about loading?
14:56:25 <ihrachyshka> I don't see how discussion here moves the process forward. let's move to etherpad.
14:56:31 <mestery> #topic Open Discussion
14:56:36 <mestery> Folks lets move on
14:56:38 <mestery> We're degraded now.
14:56:41 <marios_> mestery: you mentioned opening up this week's drivers meeting (wednesday?) for the summit planning discussion. but i can't see time @ https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings or https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron-drivers
14:56:51 * mestery looks
14:57:08 <markmcclain> 2pm UTC
14:57:21 <mestery> marios_: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#neutron-drivers_weekly_IRC_meeting
14:57:22 <mestery> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#neutron-drivers_weekly_IRC_meeting
14:57:27 <glebo> marun: u r way out of line, sir
14:57:49 <mestery> glebo and marun: We've moved on, please discontinue this discussion.
14:58:08 <marios_> mestery: markmcclain: thanks
14:58:12 <ihrachyshka> I have one thing to note: during kilo, we need to migrate to multiple graduated oslo libraries, and the sooner the better, so I will appreciate if people start reviewing the following pieces. For the start, this patch and its two dependencies: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127257/ (especially the policy thing that blocks several further patches)
14:58:12 <mestery> Anything else here folks?
14:58:20 * markmcclain needs to get better at TZ math
14:58:30 <mestery> ihrachyshka: thanks for the reminder! I see amotoki has a similar patch for python-neutronclient as well.
14:58:42 <ihrachyshka> markmcclain: google is great at it
14:58:57 <rkukura> mestery: Please put a link the drivers meeting logs on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NeutronDrivers
14:58:57 <markmcclain> ihrachyshka: thanks for working on this
14:59:05 <ihrachyshka> mestery: yes, https://review.openstack.org/128896
14:59:12 <amotoki> I think ihrachyshka and me are in the same page. the policy one needs careful reviews.
14:59:20 <mestery> rkukura: Ack
14:59:25 <markmcclain> ihrachyshka: sadly I was trying to do math before drinking coffee… never ends well :)
14:59:27 <ihrachyshka> amotoki: indeed it requires care, not a mechanical change
14:59:41 <mestery> OK folks, we're at the end.
14:59:48 <mestery> Hope to see folks back next week for another lively discussion!
14:59:53 <mestery> Thanks!
14:59:54 <mestery> #endmeeting