18:02:36 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy 18:02:37 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Aug 14 18:02:36 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:02:38 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:02:40 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy' 18:02:40 <emagana> hi all! 18:02:45 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy 18:02:58 <SumitNaiksatam> agenda unchanged from the last meeting :-) 18:03:09 <rkukura> hi 18:03:19 <LouisF> hi 18:03:20 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Mailing list discussion on the path forward 18:03:35 <ivar-lazzaro> hi 18:04:13 <SumitNaiksatam> i think Stefano sent out an email yesterday saying that we are getting closer to making some progress here 18:04:25 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont have any more details than that 18:04:31 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: link in agenda? 18:04:40 * s3wong holding his breath awaiting for a decision on GBP's fate (for Juno) 18:04:42 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy 18:04:56 <banix> i meant for mailing thread 18:05:02 <banix> making sure i am not missing it 18:06:14 <SumitNaiksatam> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-August/042963.html 18:06:55 <banix> it says many in the GBP team are actively working …. 18:07:08 <banix> who are those members? are they present here? 18:07:28 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: i believe he is referring to the mailing list discussions 18:07:58 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: i see 18:08:07 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: other than that stefano had reached out to mscohen, rkukura and myself 18:08:29 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: this was based on the action item he had mentioned in the Neutron IRC meeting on monday 18:08:42 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: how did that go? 18:08:45 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: to understand the history 18:09:01 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: is there a rough idea on which direction we are going to go? 18:09:01 <SumitNaiksatam> history of the development of GBP 18:09:05 <SumitNaiksatam> he wanted to get up to speed 18:09:16 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: we gave the matter of fact information 18:09:37 <SumitNaiksatam> based on whatever is already in the open and recorded 18:09:49 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: i am not sure 18:10:05 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: OK 18:10:08 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont know if others are, i have not seen anything in the public mailing lists 18:10:36 <SumitNaiksatam> i think different people are working on different proposals or ideas 18:11:00 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam, prasadv reached out to stefano and told him about the work we have been doing 18:11:13 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: ok, thanks for the update, good to know 18:11:57 <banix> What is the role of Stefano? Any particular reason why he is asked to do this? 18:12:17 <s3wong> banix: I think he is on the OpenStack board? 18:12:44 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: i am not sure, you ahve to either check with him or the PTL 18:13:03 <banix> s3wong: SumitNaiksatam ok thx 18:13:14 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: since he joined in the last neutron IRC meeting which is usually run by the PTL 18:13:35 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: perhaps these are all good questions to be posed to the ML 18:13:52 <rkukura> http://www.openstack.org/foundation/staff 18:13:53 <LouisF> will there be a final decsion on whether on gbp in juno? 18:13:59 <ronakmshah> Ok. So we have 20 days. We have ~13 patches (neutron, heat, client, horizon) to merge. What is our team strategy here? 18:14:20 <SumitNaiksatam> ronakmshah: our team strategy is to stay on message 18:14:36 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: we are all hopeful 18:14:54 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: yeah will send a note asking for clarification and openness to the discussion (not suggesting it is not open; simply reiterating it.) 18:15:06 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: i am guessing you are in support of it being in Juno 18:15:17 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: very good 18:15:32 <LouisF> SumitNaiksatam: indeed 18:15:55 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: good 18:15:55 <cathy_> SumitNaiksatam: Is there a timeline for the decision being made? 18:16:04 <banix> from the Neutron weekly cll i thought it was clear thet it will *not* be in tree in Juno for sure 18:16:38 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: is taht your interpretation or you have knowledge about this? 18:16:51 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: my interpretation 18:16:52 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: we hope its at the earliest 18:17:07 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: i am guessing you are also anxious as you are in support of this effort? 18:17:19 <cathy_> SumitNaiksatam: yes 18:17:26 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: good 18:17:30 <sarob> i lurking and can explain stefano 18:17:33 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: okay 18:17:34 <banix> my understanding from the call; no knowledge beyond that 18:17:59 <sarob> stefano is one of the openstack community managers 18:18:02 <s3wong> banix: my interpretation of the call was that there is no conclusion - but time is against us... 18:18:10 <sarob> and he works for the foundation 18:18:13 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: that was more of my feeling as well 18:18:29 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: based on the ML discussion as well as from the IRC meeting 18:18:37 <SumitNaiksatam> sarob: thanks for that input 18:18:37 <ronakmshah> :( 18:18:45 <sarob> sure 18:18:46 <banix> sarob: i see; thx for the info 18:19:23 <SumitNaiksatam> ok, onto more technical things? ;-) 18:19:39 <SumitNaiksatam> so while on the ML thread 18:20:07 <SumitNaiksatam> i think most people agreed to the policy-target terminology (in lieu of endpoint) 18:20:22 <SumitNaiksatam> but towards the end there was also a suggestion for “policy-endpoint" 18:20:35 <SumitNaiksatam> want to make sure that its duly noted as well 18:21:04 <SumitNaiksatam> also we have not discussed “policy-target” as a candidate specifically in this meeting forum 18:21:29 <SumitNaiksatam> any thoughts? 18:21:54 <LouisF> +1 18:21:55 <SumitNaiksatam> should we go with “policy-target” and “policy-group”? 18:22:05 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: +1 for which one? 18:22:40 <LouisF> policy-group containing policy-targets 18:22:44 <regXboi> +1 for policy-target/policy-group 18:22:57 <hemanthravi> +1 for policy-target, policy-group 18:22:59 <banix> dont like policy-target particularly but any of the suggestions is ok 18:23:03 <ivar-lazzaro> policy-endpoint sure sounds fine but I'd avoid the 'endpoint' word 18:23:12 <s3wong> contract is still contract, right? :-) 18:23:15 <ivar-lazzaro> so +1 policy-target and policy-group 18:23:17 <regXboi> ivar-lazzaro: exactly 18:23:25 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: regXboi hemanthravi ivar-lazzaro: thanks 18:23:41 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: so you dont like policy-target but you are not opposed? 18:23:48 <LouisF> target-group/target-member? 18:23:59 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: correct; no problem with having it 18:24:09 <s3wong> LouisF: that way, we all work for Target instead of Walmart :-) 18:24:16 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: i think it might be better to have “policy” in there somewhere :-) 18:24:23 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: lol 18:24:34 <cathy_> s3wong: lol 18:24:37 <LouisF> SumitNaiksatam: ok fine 18:24:48 <rkukura> As long as it has a usable acronym, I’m OK 18:24:49 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: no, just thinking loud 18:24:59 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: there you go! :-) 18:25:04 <cathy_> policy-group could mislead people to think it is a group of policy? 18:25:27 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: so policy-target-group, then? 18:25:36 <s3wong> rkukura: PT and PTG --- not as catchy as EP and EPG... 18:25:46 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: that i agree 18:25:55 <SumitNaiksatam> i had gotten used to EP and EPG! :-( 18:26:30 <SumitNaiksatam> so per cathy_’s reservation, what do people think of ‘policy-target-group’? 18:26:45 <cathy_> SumitNaiksatam: that is a little too long, or not 18:26:51 <emagana> cathy_ point is very interesting, I like policy-target-group little long thou 18:27:04 <SumitNaiksatam> we already had end-point-group 18:27:10 <SumitNaiksatam> if you break it that way 18:27:21 <banix> honestly, I think the main reason to change the name is to not have to discuss changing the name. 18:27:27 <SumitNaiksatam> so i guess policy-target-group might be a few more characters 18:27:29 <s3wong> the CLI would be neutron-policy-target-group-create ... 18:27:43 <regXboi> s3wong: ouch 18:28:01 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: or we could make it neutron-ptg-create 18:28:16 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: but valid point to consider from a usability perspective 18:28:29 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: you were saying something? 18:28:44 <cathy_> I think louis's suggestion has merit. since it is clear that policy is appled, do we still need policy in the tagret-group 18:28:57 <regXboi> SumitNaiksatam: if we do that, consistency requires ptg-list, ptg-show, ptg-update and ptg-delete and I can just hear somebody complaining about using an abbrev 18:29:05 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: I think banix 's point is we are discussing name change such that we don't have to have long discussion on name change 18:29:08 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: :-) 18:29:15 <regXboi> cathy_: if we don't say policy, somebody will inevitably complain that we are too general 18:29:28 <regXboi> so let's not open that can of worms again 18:29:37 <cathy_> regXboi: ok, 18:29:37 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: yeah what s3wong said 18:30:09 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: banix: sorry i still did not get it (yeah, i am dense), but anyway 18:30:16 <ronakmshah> policy-point and policy-group 18:30:27 <SumitNaiksatam> i think we proabably dont want to revisit this again 18:30:34 <SumitNaiksatam> name change that is 18:30:40 <ronakmshah> +1 18:30:45 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: so we conform to Jay Pipes' request for name change to avoid name changing being a gating factor on discussing GBP 18:30:48 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: i think the names are good as they are; not convinced we have to change them but changing them will make it possible to move on ... 18:30:53 <songole> CLI would be grouppolicy-policy-target-group-create 18:30:54 <SumitNaiksatam> so lets spend a few more minutes if we have to, and get done with it 18:30:59 <songole> very confusing 18:31:06 <LouisF> +1 18:31:10 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: and at the end we still spent tons of time discussing name changes. I think that was the point :-) 18:31:23 <cathy_> confusing 18:31:27 <ronakmshah> CLI should be grouppolicy-policy-point-create 18:31:34 <ronakmshah> grouppolicy-policy-group-create 18:31:39 <regXboi> I'm going to argue against policy-point 18:31:43 <jaypipes> Why not: neutron group-policy-target create 18:31:46 <ronakmshah> That as is is long enough 18:31:46 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: i fully agree, i did not see any problems with the names or overlaps (but it came up at a time when lots of things were being thrown at this, and we did not want it to be a roadblock) 18:31:57 <regXboi> because it's *not* clear 18:32:11 <banix> ronakmshah: that’s correct 18:32:28 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: yeah 18:32:36 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: that works for the “policy-target" 18:32:43 <regXboi> jaypipes: +1 for the thing that replaces endpoints (sorry about that :) ) 18:32:44 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: we were discussing what to call the group 18:33:01 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: so we have could either call it “policy-group” 18:33:06 <LouisF> group synonyms: bag, sack, bucket... 18:33:15 <jaypipes> SumitNaiksatam: neutron policy-group-create 18:33:17 <cathy_> byw, do we still distinguish source and destination? 18:33:28 <jaypipes> SumitNaiksatam: neutron policy-target create 18:33:35 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: but then people said that “policy-group” implies a group of policies 18:33:49 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: and not group of policy-targets 18:34:04 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: so the suggestion was to use ‘policy-target-group' 18:34:09 <jaypipes> SumitNaiksatam: a policy-target is just one component of a policy group, yes? 18:34:13 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: but then it becomes too long :-) 18:34:19 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: exactly 18:34:27 <regXboi> jaypipes: not quite... 18:34:46 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: or in other words, policy-group is a collection of policy-targets 18:34:56 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: ^^^? 18:35:02 * regXboi can hear the complaining now 18:35:03 <jaypipes> SumitNaiksatam: so I recommend: neutron policy-target create <GROUP_NAME> <TARGET_NAME> for the policy-target creation 18:35:24 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: yeah, i think we kind of agreed on that 18:35:24 <jaypipes> SumitNaiksatam: and neutron policy-group create <GROUP_NAME> for the policy-group creation 18:35:49 <ronakmshah> Fine. +1 18:35:55 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: but the suggestion is that “policy-group” sounds like a collection of policies 18:35:57 <jaypipes> that's pithy enough, yes? 18:36:05 <ronakmshah> EPG -> Policy-group 18:36:15 <ronakmshah> EP - > Policy-target 18:36:18 <jaypipes> right. 18:36:18 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: whereas its actually a collection of ‘policy-targets' 18:36:33 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: am i representing your point correctly? 18:36:56 <cathy_> SumitNaiksatam: yes, it is just my concern how some people might interprete it 18:37:42 <banix> i think Cathy_ i right in pointing out policy-group is confusing 18:37:48 <SumitNaiksatam> if everybody agrees that ‘policy-group’ is not misleading, we can move forward with that 18:37:50 <banix> is right 18:37:59 <LouisF> my 2 cents is for neutron target-group create <GROUP_NAME> 18:38:10 <SumitNaiksatam> if not, then we have to chose the longer terminilogy “policy-target-group" 18:38:14 <jaypipes> LouisF: that works too. 18:38:16 <banix> i think it is confusing; will have to pay the price later on 18:38:23 <cathy_> I like Louis's sugggestion 18:38:43 <ronakmshah> My only concern with PT is that when you attach a VM to that one will have to say “attach this VM to this policy-target” 18:38:44 <s3wong> banix: agreed, I am definitely not a fan of policy-group, especially we prefix that with group-policy 18:38:48 <s3wong> sounds silly... 18:38:51 <jaypipes> the problem is that then you have policy-target instead of just target. :) 18:38:56 <ronakmshah> policy-point fits well for me in that regard 18:39:29 <ronakmshah> VM is a policy-target vs VM is a policy-point 18:39:42 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: perhaps someone else might complain with overloading of the target terminology, not sure 18:39:44 <regXboi> policy-point is too close to policy enforcement point for my taste 18:40:24 <SumitNaiksatam> we are 40 mins into the meeting :-) 18:40:27 <jaypipes> neutron policy-target-group create <GROUP_NAME> && neutron policy-target create <GROUP_NAME> <TARGET_NAME> 18:40:51 <regXboi> jaypipes: :-) 18:40:52 <cathy_> how about "target replacing "endpt" and "target group" replacing "endpt group" 18:41:12 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: what about jaypipes suggetstion above? 18:41:14 <jaypipes> neutron target-group create <GROUP_NAME> && neutron target create <GROUP_NAME> <TARGET_NAME> 18:41:16 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: he has spelt it out 18:41:19 <jaypipes> cathy_: yes? 18:41:33 <SumitNaiksatam> jaypipes: i prefer the former 18:41:35 <cathy_> that is good 18:41:42 <jaypipes> either one is cool with me. 18:41:44 <LouisF> +1 18:41:45 <regXboi> sorry - we need to say policy somewhere 18:41:47 <cathy_> jaypipes: I like it 18:41:51 <ronakmshah> Policy is a MUST 18:41:52 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: +1 18:42:22 <SumitNaiksatam> okay, so we agree policy-target and policy-target-group? :-) 18:42:26 <rkukura> cathy_: I strongly prefer acronyms over “squashed” words 18:42:36 <emagana> I think how long the name is should not matter as long as it is clear, for instance we have in Neutron: security-group-rule-create 18:42:46 <SumitNaiksatam> emagana: kind of agree 18:42:48 <regXboi> emagana: +1 18:42:52 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: agree 18:42:53 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: +1 18:42:55 <cathy_> rkukura: agree, it is just for easy typing 18:43:07 <cathy_> not suggesting using sqaushed words 18:43:10 <SumitNaiksatam> going once 18:43:18 <SumitNaiksatam> policy-target and policy-target-group 18:43:27 <regXboi> "bang that gavel!" 18:43:41 <SumitNaiksatam> ok no disagreements 18:43:53 <banix> sounds good 18:44:05 <cathy_> OK with me 18:44:10 <SumitNaiksatam> #agreed endpoint will be changed to policy-target and endpointgroup will be changed to policy-target-group 18:44:12 <LouisF> and sold to the gentleman in the green fedora... 18:44:23 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: there ^^^ 18:44:26 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: lol 18:44:28 <regXboi> :-) 18:44:35 <cathy_> LouisF: LOL 18:44:44 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: didnt realize that regXboi was wearing the green fedora 18:44:54 * regXboi didnt realize it either ;) 18:44:56 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: or may be it was jaypipes! :-) 18:45:07 <jaypipes> :) 18:45:12 <SumitNaiksatam> actually it was jaypipes :-) 18:45:17 <SumitNaiksatam> ok moving on then? 18:45:23 <banix> yes pls 18:45:29 * jaypipes dons green fedora 18:46:08 * SumitNaiksatam hands over the policy-target plaque to jaypipes :-) 18:46:19 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Patches in review 18:46:23 <songole> SumitNaiksatam: are we going to drop grouppolicy prefix in CLI? 18:46:36 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: good point 18:46:41 <SumitNaiksatam> #undo 18:46:42 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x1e94b90> 18:46:42 <regXboi> can we? I'd sure like to 18:47:04 <SumitNaiksatam> lets take the CLI patch first since songole has been working furiously on that 18:47:07 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic CLI 18:47:22 <songole> if we don't, CLI command would be grouppolicy-policy-target-create 18:47:27 <SumitNaiksatam> so per jaypipes’ suggestion above its not required 18:47:43 <SumitNaiksatam> is everyone fine with: 18:48:00 <SumitNaiksatam> neutron policy-target-group create <GROUP_NAME> && neutron policy-target create <GROUP_NAME> <TARGET_NAME> 18:48:06 <SumitNaiksatam> ? 18:48:17 <rkukura> neutron l3-policy-create … 18:48:20 <SumitNaiksatam> any issues with not having grouppolicy as prefix? 18:48:24 * regXboi goes and looks 18:48:28 <songole> neutron contract-create .. 18:48:32 <LouisF> yes 18:49:02 <banix> yeah may be an issue 18:49:06 <regXboi> I'm worried about the l3policy and l2policy coming back to us 18:49:13 <hemanthravi> earlier there was an issue with action-create....too generic without prefix 18:49:13 <songole> they need to have some prefix 18:49:28 <songole> gbp-l3policy-create? 18:49:40 <rkukura> could we just add a policy- prefix to the ones that don’t already mention policy? 18:49:40 <banix> or just gp-* 18:49:51 <regXboi> banix or songole: +1 18:49:52 <rkukura> banix: +1 18:50:04 <regXboi> I'm ok with an abbrev there 18:50:25 <regXboi> and gp-policy-target-create and gp-policy-target-group-create aren't *too* bad 18:50:28 <rkukura> applied consistently? i.e. gp-policy-target-create …? 18:50:33 <ronakmshah> Will it be acceptable? Cores? 18:50:46 <SumitNaiksatam> gp/gbp - nice, i like that 18:50:46 <regXboi> rkukura: yes, applied consistently (whatever it is) 18:50:50 <songole> regXboi: +1 18:50:57 <cathy_> I might miss some discussion. WHy do we have l2policy and l3 policy. What is their replationship to contract? There could be policies other than L2 and L3. 18:51:23 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: we had a long discussion about what to call those as well :-) 18:51:35 <s3wong> cathy_: they were originally named l2-context and l3-context 18:51:36 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: so in this case they are l2/3 policies 18:52:07 <SumitNaiksatam> so should we go with the “gp-“ prefix for all group-based policy CLI? 18:52:17 <cathy_> SumitNaiksatam: s3wong I think I need to catch up on these discussions later 18:52:27 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: sure 18:52:36 <songole> going by the above argument, isn't it actually contract-target? 18:52:43 <SumitNaiksatam> cathy_: if there are other policies that need to be added, we can surely augment the model 18:52:53 <regXboi> SumitNaiksatam: +1 on the gp idea (though I'd like some cores to comment :) ) 18:52:56 <emagana> SumitNaiksatam: gp- sounds like a very good option! 18:52:58 <emagana> +1 18:53:08 <cathy_> SumitNaiksatam: thanks. we can discuss that after all these are settled. 18:53:30 <rkukura> I’m a core and am on record as not being anti-acronym (aa) 18:53:41 <regXboi> rkukura: danke 18:53:47 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: emagana cathy_: thanks 18:54:08 <SumitNaiksatam> #agreed All Group-based policy CLI to be prefixed with “gp-“ 18:54:40 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: any more CLI update? 18:54:53 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: or anything blocking you? 18:55:02 <LouisF> gp-target-group-create? 18:55:04 <songole> no. working on unit tests 18:55:33 <LouisF> since the gp- sets the context? 18:55:34 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: the gavel has been struck :-P 18:56:09 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: i do agree there is some redundancy 18:56:28 <SumitNaiksatam> LouisF: but probably not the best place to optimize? 18:56:34 <LouisF> SumitNaiksatam: okey doke 18:56:47 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: ok thanks for the upates 18:57:00 <SumitNaiksatam> we are 4 mins away from the end of the meeting 18:57:07 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Vendor drivers 18:57:16 <regXboi> ...the joys of naming... 18:57:17 <SumitNaiksatam> i might be putting the cart before the horse here 18:57:39 <banix> i saw a driver from One Convergence. right? 18:57:42 <SumitNaiksatam> but hemanthravi i think you or your teammate posted a patch for the one convergence driver? 18:57:48 <hemanthravi> yes 18:57:59 <banix> cool 18:58:00 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay, just wanted everyone else to know 18:58:07 <hemanthravi> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113649/ 18:58:11 <SumitNaiksatam> in case the team wants to exchanve notes 18:58:17 <sarob> i'd like to squeeze in a minute to discuss the proposed policy summit in september 18:58:18 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113649/ 18:58:21 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: thanks 18:58:32 <SumitNaiksatam> sarob: sure 18:58:37 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion 18:58:40 <sarob> thx 18:58:42 <SumitNaiksatam> sarob: go ahead 18:58:44 <sarob> #link https://www.eventbrite.com/e/openstack-policy-summit-tickets-12642081807 18:59:15 <sarob> id like to get the congress and GBP teams together 18-19 sept 18:59:16 <SumitNaiksatam> sarob: thanks for that information 18:59:28 <sarob> and a few of the other project cores as well 18:59:35 <s3wong> sarob: yes, that would be good 18:59:55 <sarob> SumitNaiksatam: i could use your input on the etherpad 19:00:10 <sarob> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-midcycle-policy-summit 19:00:10 <cathy_> sarob: thanks for the info. I am interested in joining the discussion 19:00:26 <sarob> we can have some remote as well 19:00:38 <sarob> if you can not join us in Palo Alto 19:00:46 <SumitNaiksatam> ok anything else? 19:00:52 <sarob> all are welcome to update the etherpad 19:00:54 <SumitNaiksatam> we are at the hour 19:00:55 <sarob> nope thx 19:00:56 <s3wong> sarob: my understanding it would either be in Yahoo (sunnyvale) or vmware (palo alto) 19:01:04 <sarob> vmware 19:01:05 <cathy_> sarob: where in Palo Alto? 19:01:07 <sarob> its set 19:01:10 <s3wong> so local for most of us (except regXboi and banix) 19:01:15 <rkukura> and me 19:01:22 <s3wong> and rkukura (sorry :-) ) 19:01:34 <sarob> 3401 hillview ave 19:01:51 <sarob> we have a room for 25-30 19:01:56 <SumitNaiksatam> all right, thanks all! 19:01:59 <sarob> thx 19:02:02 <regXboi> a hangout/webex/irc channel would be good for those that will be remote... 19:02:05 <SumitNaiksatam> we are over the time 19:02:09 <sarob> roger that 19:02:12 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting