18:59:40 <shamail> #startmeeting nonatc
18:59:42 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Apr 21 18:59:40 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is shamail. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:59:43 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:59:45 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'nonatc'
18:59:53 <emagana> I am here!
18:59:53 <shamail> #topic roll call
18:59:59 <shamail> Hi Edgar!
19:00:03 <emagana> shamail: Thanks for pinging
19:00:06 <shamail> Anyone else here for the meeting?
19:00:07 <shamail> np
19:00:10 <dc_mattj> yup
19:00:14 <carolbarrett_> Hi
19:00:14 <dc_mattj> hello all
19:00:24 <shamail> awesome
19:00:26 <shamail> hi!
19:00:29 <shamail> #link  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NonATCRecognition#Meeting_Information is the agenda for today.
19:00:52 <shamail> #topic Review milestone-2 outputs
19:01:22 <shamail> The team went through a list of potential contributions that should be considered a part of the UC constituency
19:01:28 <shamail> I took that list and summarized the findings
19:01:30 <shamail> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/uc-recog-m2-output
19:01:42 <shamail> Please take a few minutes to read the results and then lets discuss.
19:02:32 <dc_mattj> shamail: is there a difference between Official user group meetup hosts and Official User Group organizers ? I know there isn't in the UK meetups, but there might be elsewhere ..
19:03:00 <shamail> dc_mattj: good catch, I don’t think so
19:03:07 * shamail looks at groups.openstack.org to see validate
19:03:37 <shamail> One in the same I think....
19:03:40 <shamail> https://groups.openstack.org/groups/san-francisco-bay-area
19:03:53 <shamail> Shows “Joe Arnold ;Sean Roberts ;Lisa-Marie Namphy;Rick Evans” as coordinators
19:03:59 <shamail> which I would also consider the hosts
19:04:19 <shamail> Removed hosts from the list
19:04:19 <dc_mattj> same for the UK groups, organisers are the hosts
19:04:41 <dc_mattj> emagana: do you think that list captures all of the important contributions from the ops community ?
19:04:51 <shamail> I think one open question was whether sponsors (maybe that is what hosts referred to) are eligible
19:04:58 <shamail> e.g. if company XYZ pays for food
19:05:10 <emagana> dc_mattj: No, I think we are missing a lot of good contributors
19:05:27 <shamail> This list is capturing contributors, not activities
19:05:41 <shamail> activities (things we can track) are the discussion we will start today
19:05:48 <shamail> We need to add openstack operators though
19:05:49 <shamail> :P
19:05:57 <dc_mattj> shamail: companies have other ways of contributing - sponsoring the foundation for a start, sponsoring summits etc.
19:06:21 <dc_mattj> personally I don't think this should be the mechanism for recognising that
19:06:28 <shamail> dc_mattj: +1
19:06:40 <emagana> dc_mattj: We are taking that into account
19:07:26 <dc_mattj> slightly also read through the lens that in the UK there seems to be a lot of companies putting marketing messages on their websites about supporting the community without actually doing anything
19:07:28 <shamail> emagana: what else would you add?
19:07:31 <dc_mattj> :(
19:07:42 <emagana> looking into my notes
19:08:27 <emagana> Take a look to this etherpad: #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/OperatorRecognition
19:08:42 * shamail opening it
19:08:58 <shamail> I see a few
19:09:02 <shamail> “Ask Moderation"
19:09:28 <shamail> The bug one we decided to defer for now (until we can discuss and qualify “quality” later)
19:10:06 <shamail> I think Ask Moderation and User Committee particpation are the two I see missing
19:10:32 <shamail> Is it okay to add them?
19:10:51 <dc_mattj> we did discuss Ask stuff a bit last week
19:11:03 <dc_mattj> although I have to admit I don't spend a lot of time on there anymore
19:11:04 <MeganR> I have a question regarding Filling out the user survey (including a deployment) - some companies don't allow this information or only allow certain people to complete this information
19:11:05 <shamail> Also, this is an initial list… we can grow it in the future as well… we tried to identify measureable items that have general agreement
19:11:21 <shamail> so we don’t get stuck in long debates for now (so we can start somewhere)
19:11:39 <dc_mattj> my view on user surveys was that it wasn't enough, but happy to go with the consensus
19:11:43 <shamail> MeganR: I didn’t include that on the initial list
19:11:53 <shamail> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/uc-recog-m2-output
19:12:08 <shamail> Yeah, as dc_mattj, there was debate whether it is enough so didn’t include for now
19:12:36 <MeganR> ah thank you - I was referring to emagana's link
19:12:52 <shamail> Any +1s to adding “Ask Moderators” and “User Committee Participants”?
19:13:41 <shamail> Anyone else have suggestions on what to add?
19:13:55 <MeganR> +1, I think those are good to add
19:14:14 <shamail> I have two changes that I would like to propose… I want to change Contributors to ops repositories to be Any repo under UC governance
19:14:15 <dc_mattj> I'd personally -1 Ask Moderators, although that's also based on not really seeing much value in Ask generally
19:14:28 <dc_mattj> shamail: +1
19:14:31 <shamail> this would cover the ops repos but also take openstack-user-stories into account and any future working groups
19:14:42 <MeganR> did we discuss Track Chairs/Summit presentations - great to have both, but one or the other works
19:15:04 <shamail> dc_mattj: we can discuss Ask at the summit
19:15:17 <shamail> MeganR: yes, track chairs are included
19:15:21 <dc_mattj> :) look forward to it
19:15:40 <shamail> I would +1 presentations as well
19:15:51 <carolbarrett_> shamail +1
19:16:02 <MeganR> thank you
19:16:08 <dc_mattj> if this ends up being a badge recognition thing then presenters get that anyway right ?
19:16:35 <shamail> They do
19:16:50 <dc_mattj> if you've had a presentation accepted, then you're already in the schedule, have a badge designation etc.
19:17:06 <MeganR> good point, I guess that ties into what recognition we are looking at
19:17:15 <dc_mattj> are we trying to find ways of recognising the folks who aren't already recognised ?
19:17:42 <shamail> We are trying to find ways to broaden the definition of contributor to include those who are not included in the current definition
19:18:19 <shamail> recognition one of the desired benefits (but others could be determined by UC as well)
19:18:48 <dc_mattj> ok, under that scope you could maybe say that presenters aren't recognised as contributors I suppose
19:19:17 <shamail> I had another addition request… should we have a definition for “Additional members based on review committee”
19:19:42 <shamail> This would allow us to have a mechnaism where people could self-nominate and we could validate their eligibility
19:19:43 <dc_mattj> context ?
19:19:58 <shamail> this would be useful for recognizing contributions that do not have a good way of being measured
19:20:18 <shamail> “e.g. writing a book, working in another open source community to promote openstack, etc
19:20:38 <dc_mattj> think you'd have to be pretty confident to nominate yourself, and if you were that person you'd probably already fall into other categories, but as a catch all +1
19:20:58 <shamail> It would also give us a way to find gaps in coverage… if we get a lot of request based on certain activities, we could work on automating the criteria and explicit inclusion
19:21:08 <shamail> true dc_mattj
19:21:20 <shamail> I view it as a catch all to give a person a way to contest not being included
19:21:24 <dc_mattj> actually having said that, I can think of some folks in the KVM community who are very engaged with the UK user group community, but wouldn't necessarily be contributing in other ways
19:21:32 <dc_mattj> +1 anyway
19:21:37 <shamail> Thanks
19:21:42 <shamail> Anyone else +1?
19:21:44 <MeganR> +1
19:21:46 <shamail> Thanks
19:21:50 <shamail> hmm
19:21:52 <shamail> how to phrase it
19:22:08 <dc_mattj> I think your definition above was fairly good
19:22:16 <shamail> “Submission for eligibility to review panel”
19:22:29 <dc_mattj> +1
19:22:40 <dc_mattj> because that also says that someone else could nominate you
19:22:46 <shamail> Yeah!
19:23:02 <dc_mattj> +2 ;)
19:23:04 <shamail> Okay
19:23:10 <shamail> We are done with reviewing this list for now
19:23:19 <shamail> I have marked milestone-2 as completed but “pending review"
19:23:31 <shamail> We should bring this list forward at the face to face session for additional vetting in the community
19:23:35 <shamail> and then consider it completed
19:23:38 <dc_mattj> so just to clarify for a second
19:24:11 <dc_mattj> emagana: given those additions do you think that covers everyone you know of in the ops community who doesn't fall into all of the other categories ?
19:24:32 <shamail> I thought we lost emagana
19:24:41 <shamail> good call dc_mattj
19:24:50 <emagana> sorry.. I am in another meeting at work
19:25:01 <shamail> ah
19:25:01 <emagana> I hope we have full coverage
19:25:10 <shamail> We will review again at ops meetup Edgar
19:25:14 <shamail> so we can always add there as well
19:25:28 <emagana> now, we should run the number and find out how many people will have in total.. we could end up having more non-ATC that ATC
19:25:34 <dc_mattj> I think the lists are fairly well aligned, but Edgar knows that community far better than me
19:25:40 <shamail> We need to complete milestone-3 before we can do that
19:25:45 <dc_mattj> emagana: lol
19:25:47 <shamail> (we will start milestone-3 in this meeting)
19:25:55 <shamail> that is to define the criteria for validation
19:26:17 <shamail> emagana: lol
19:26:35 <shamail> okay to move on for now?
19:27:14 <dc_mattj> yes
19:27:24 <shamail> awesome, thanks
19:27:31 <shamail> #topic Discuss metrics used to verify eligibility and possible automation to extract information
19:27:38 <shamail> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/uc-recog-criteria
19:27:47 <dc_mattj> shamail: can I suggest a similar tack to last week, where we identify the easily automated ones to start with and just focus on the less easily quantifiable ones
19:27:54 <shamail> I have created a new etherpad that just includes the criteria
19:27:56 <shamail> dc_mattj: +1
19:28:14 <shamail> Let’s go in the etherpad and start adding criteria and sources for validation
19:28:17 <shamail> for example
19:28:38 <shamail> WG particaption: extract IRC meeting attendance from eavesdrop, scrape etherpads
19:32:42 <shamail> We are all active on the etherpad (https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/uc-recog-criteria)
19:35:11 <shamail> dc_mattj: which one is your session?
19:35:16 <shamail> checking schedule
19:35:30 <dc_mattj> Ceph integration
19:36:20 <shamail> aah
19:36:22 <shamail> yes
19:36:23 <dc_mattj> ah maybe it's just that session - moderators were fairly last minute ( although before it landed on the schedule pages ). Moderators are me and Johanni from Workday
19:36:28 <shamail> He didn’t have a mod originally
19:36:29 <dc_mattj> but that can be fixed
19:36:43 <shamail> yeah, I remember that (and another one) being the last few
19:38:32 <shamail> MeganR: on con call topic...
19:38:39 <shamail> most of those groups still use etherpads
19:38:40 <MeganR> yes
19:38:40 <dc_mattj> carolbarret_: what don't you think should be a criteria ?
19:38:46 <shamail> can you think of any that don't?
19:39:07 <dc_mattj> ah ok, we're all on the same point :)
19:39:08 <shamail> PWG is covered easily, EWG could be gathered from etehrpads
19:39:28 <shamail> and I added a “catch all” here as well
19:39:31 <emagana> shamail: On this topic. Is everybody aware of the repos that Tom F. made available to collect metrics about users/ops
19:39:31 <emagana> ?
19:39:49 <shamail> We could send our scraped list to the organizers listed at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee for validation
19:40:06 <shamail> Hi emagana, I think I linked it at the last meeting
19:40:12 <emagana> good!
19:40:14 <shamail> Please feel free to post if you have it handy
19:40:18 <MeganR> I was just thinking that - you are right, I can't think of any that don't, unless they are side projects (the booklet for EWG or the ref. architecture again for EWG)  I think we can use etherpads
19:40:30 <shamail> MeganR: good point
19:40:41 <emagana> just in case: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/302547/
19:40:59 <shamail> I think those things could still be caught via validation from organizer or if the team nominates via review board
19:41:32 <MeganR> shamail - I think so, they should all bubble up to another group, using an etherpsd
19:41:36 <MeganR> *etherpad
19:41:55 <shamail> MeganR: +1
19:42:28 <shamail> dc_mattj: I like the tool suggestion for WGs
19:42:50 <MeganR> +1, great idea
19:42:54 <shamail> It would be fairly easy to build (could re-use foundation track chair assets) and could become a standard practice recommended by the user committee for new working groups
19:43:18 <dc_mattj> could be pre-populated by scraping IRC if we really needed that, although it would be trivial for a chair to just put in emails, nicks, etc
19:43:29 <shamail> yeah
19:43:34 <dc_mattj> and for a chair it's 30 seconds work
19:43:49 <shamail> I think entry/ownership by WG organizers if probably simple
19:43:50 <shamail> yeah
19:44:00 <shamail> We should spend days building something that a chair could build in minutes
19:44:10 <shamail> lol
19:44:12 <dc_mattj> chair knows all ;)
19:44:13 <shamail> how about we SHOULDN'T
19:44:34 <shamail> This is great!
19:44:47 <shamail> We have easily definable criteria for every item on the list
19:45:07 <shamail> some require follow-up: superuser, WG
19:45:48 <shamail> Please feel free to keep populating this etherpad… we will also discuss this at our face to facce
19:46:00 <shamail> I’m going to change topics for the sake of time, this was really productive!
19:46:06 <dc_mattj> superuser could be the same as WG chairs, if Nicole has a super easy way to say I've approved this for publication ...
19:46:15 <shamail> dc_mattj: +1
19:46:19 <shamail> #topic Austin Summit plans
19:46:49 <shamail> I spoke with emagana earlier this week and he graciously allowed for us to crash his ops recognition session at the ops meetup next week!
19:47:13 <dc_mattj> lol
19:47:22 <shamail> We will use that session to discuss the status of ops recognition but then also leverage it as a working session for this WG
19:47:27 <shamail> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/summit-schedule/events/9518
19:47:30 <dc_mattj> works for me as I already have all of Monday set aside for ops summit ;)
19:47:32 <shamail> Details for the session in the link
19:47:41 <shamail> dc_mattj: same here, I will be there for most of it as well
19:47:54 <shamail> mark your calendars MeganR and carolbarrett_ !!
19:48:08 <dc_mattj> oh noes, that is the same time as the ceph session :(
19:48:13 <shamail> Oh oh
19:48:36 <MeganR> thank you for the info
19:48:42 <shamail> This is a double session dc_mattj
19:48:47 <shamail> so you might miss the first half
19:48:58 <shamail> Your session ends at 5:20 and this ends at 6:!0
19:49:00 <dc_mattj> tbh I only agreed to do the ceph session because Tom was short of moderators, so my preference would be to do this session if someone else could be found for the ceph stuff
19:49:05 <shamail> 6:10*
19:49:44 <shamail> It would be great to have you for the whole session since you have been at every meeting!
19:49:50 <dc_mattj> +1
19:49:52 <shamail> #context
19:50:03 <dc_mattj> let me talk to Tom
19:50:11 <shamail> Thanks
19:50:37 <shamail> emagana and I will be updating the etherpad to include information about Non-ATC WG as well.
19:50:41 <shamail> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/AUS-ops-Ops-Recognition
19:51:12 <shamail> I also would like to find out how emagana sourced the data he has in the etherpad already
19:51:23 <shamail> Seems like something we could use for the discussion we just had
19:52:22 <shamail> That is all we had on the agenda for today
19:52:24 <shamail> #topic open
19:52:35 <shamail> Would anyone like to raise another topic?
19:52:57 <shamail> Going once...
19:53:03 <shamail> twice…
19:53:15 <shamail> Have a great day/evening!  See you in Austin!!
19:53:19 <shamail> #endmeeting