19:00:42 <shamail> #startmeeting nonatc
19:00:43 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun  2 19:00:42 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is shamail. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:44 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:00:47 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'nonatc'
19:00:57 <shamail> Hi everyone!  Who’s here for the AUC recognition meeting?
19:01:01 <maishsk> shamail: we should change that…. :)
19:01:05 <maishsk> o/
19:01:26 <MeganR> o/
19:01:41 <shamail> maishsk: I will… I need to talk to tonyb first to see if log migrations are possible or whether we should change meeting info but keep “nonatc” as folder name
19:01:45 <shamail> #chair maishsk
19:01:46 <openstack> Current chairs: maishsk shamail
19:01:55 <shamail> Hi MeganR
19:01:59 <shamail> We offended dc_mattj
19:02:04 <maishsk> Why?
19:02:20 <shamail> Im just kidding :)  He just left the room (computer went to sleep)
19:02:35 <MeganR> we weren't entertaining enough!
19:02:41 <shamail> that must be it
19:02:51 <shamail> hi dc_mattj
19:02:59 <dc_mattj> evening
19:03:07 <shamail> So the agenda for today is small
19:03:09 <shamail> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/AUCRecognition
19:03:13 <maishsk> YEY!
19:03:28 <maishsk> been a long day at the #OpenStackIL event
19:03:41 <dc_mattj> looked good
19:03:44 <shamail> Nice!  Good event?
19:03:59 <shamail> We’ll be posting a SuperuserTV video with interviews from the event by tomorrow
19:04:03 <dc_mattj> organised by the guys from Gigaspaces I think ?
19:04:15 <dc_mattj> they do all their OpenStack testing against our platform
19:04:32 <shamail> nice
19:04:35 <shamail> first agenda item...
19:04:38 <shamail> #topic Updates on action items from 5/26
19:04:49 <shamail> There were two action items from last week
19:04:56 <shamail> 1) rename group from non-atc to AUC
19:05:02 <dc_mattj> nice :)
19:05:22 <shamail> I’ve made progress on this one (wiki has changed, meeting reminders changed) but still have some work left
19:05:33 <shamail> I will put in a patch to change the meeting information on eavesdrop
19:06:00 <shamail> I want guidance from Tony Breeds as to whether it is possible to migrate logs or whether we can change meeting info but use “nonatc” to start meetings
19:06:23 <shamail> if we change the meeting ID then historical logs will be more difficult to find
19:07:00 <shamail> another workaround might be to change meeting ID but still include a link to the nonatc meeting logs in the wiki and put a disclaimer (e.g. for logs prior to 6/6, click here)
19:07:06 <maishsk> I would hope that they can be migrated
19:07:12 <shamail> I hope to sort this out by next week
19:07:20 <dc_mattj> small point I would think, we can always link
19:07:24 <shamail> I hope so too maishsk but I’ve prepared a plan B just in case
19:07:30 <shamail> dc_mattj: +1
19:07:35 <maishsk> good to know
19:07:46 <shamail> the other action item was
19:07:56 <shamail> 2) shamail: determine if ATC membership information is published anywhere (and, if so, what is published about them)
19:08:19 <shamail> I saw your tweet maishsk (I was travelling so didn’t get a chance to reply) about the extra-ATC info in the governance repo
19:08:31 <maishsk> So the info is definitely there
19:08:48 <shamail> I think that addresses the question partially (e.g. extra ATC info is there) but I haven’t found a centralized ATC list anywhere
19:08:54 <shamail> The governance repo only shows extra-ATCs
19:09:11 <dc_mattj> I've never seen a list like that either
19:09:23 <shamail> I have emailed ttx to find out if they just run scripts to extract repo contributors or whether they post the aggregate results for ATC somewhere
19:09:51 <shamail> To be honest, I emailed him an hour ago so I probably won’t be able to provide an update until next week
19:09:54 <shamail> :x
19:09:59 <maishsk> I stand corrected - it is only the extra ATC
19:10:00 <dc_mattj> we've always assumed stackalytics tells you
19:10:13 <dc_mattj> although in Austin I learned not every commit gets you ATC now
19:10:14 <maishsk> the ATC is not published publicly
19:10:20 <shamail> I assumed they just run a script to find project contributors and leverage that
19:10:26 <shamail> true dc_mattj
19:10:34 <maishsk> dc_mattj: you mentioned that last week - where / when was that decided?
19:10:55 <dc_mattj> maishsk, it was mentioned a few times in different sessions
19:10:58 <shamail> It was mentioned at the board meeting although I am not sure where it stands from an implementation perspective
19:11:10 <maishsk> I have not seen any communication - or reviews / decisions on that
19:11:12 <shamail> came up in the AUC recognition session too
19:11:21 <dc_mattj> although never clarified properly, it was always to do with the issue of people committing typo fixes to comments to get ATC
19:11:27 <maishsk> :)
19:11:37 <dc_mattj> not something any of my team have ever done, but apparently it happens
19:11:37 <shamail> maishsk: technically the OpenStack Foundation covers that benefit so it might not go through an actual governance review
19:12:01 <maishsk> foundation covers the fact of a free pass
19:12:07 <shamail> yep, they fund it
19:12:08 <dc_mattj> it wasn't ever clear to me who was making that decision
19:12:12 <dc_mattj> maybe the PTL's ?
19:12:18 <maishsk> but if someone has ATC status or not - they are not the same
19:12:20 <shamail> I think OpenStack Foundation itself
19:12:27 <maishsk> they are very different
19:12:34 <shamail> I think people still qualify for ATC (if I am not mistaken)
19:12:34 <dc_mattj> that's a big job to trawl through every commit and decide worth
19:12:39 <shamail> it was the free pass that was being adjusted?
19:12:57 * maishsk is all for getting rid of the free pass
19:13:01 <MeganR> I think they were trying to work around the one commit only to get a free pass
19:13:11 <shamail> I can try to find someone who is more in-tune with the topic and see if they can recommend how we discuss this in the community
19:13:20 <maishsk> or at least making the bar a lot higher
19:13:25 <shamail> MeganR: +1
19:13:36 <shamail> I think they also want people that are invested voting for TC as well
19:14:04 <shamail> So that was my update on the action items.. I give myself a C-
19:14:06 <dc_mattj> maishsk, I'm not sure on that - contributions are the key metric of any OS project, so getting people to contribute is vital
19:14:06 <shamail> :(
19:14:15 <shamail> I will make more progress by next week, sorry!
19:14:34 <dc_mattj> maybe comment typos shouldn't count though ;)
19:14:36 <shamail> Okay to move to next topic?
19:14:42 <dc_mattj> shamail, +1
19:14:44 <maishsk> +1
19:14:52 <MeganR> +1
19:14:59 <shamail> Wanted to revisit some of the metrics that we deferred last week
19:15:04 <shamail> #topic Metrics for WG participants (MeganR)
19:15:16 <MeganR> So, naturally I have more questions than answers at the moment.  For teams not using IRC, the team leads can enter the “meeting participant” information somewhere – to be determined.  If we go this route, then we need to specify what information needs to be entered – Name, Email, IRC Handle . . .
19:15:24 <MeganR> However, it wasn’t ruled out to have people log into IRC, might help people get more comfortable with it.  If we go this route, is there somewhere that people could “log in” – otherwise, I don’t know if we would bump or interrupt meetings just to have individuals log in.
19:15:39 <MeganR> I need guidance on which avenue we want to pursue
19:15:44 <shamail> MeganR: One of the options that was discussed at the summit was to see if the foundation would let us clone the track chair tool
19:15:55 <shamail> so that WG chairs could use it to manage their working groups
19:16:09 <dc_mattj> definitely needs a low touch tool
19:16:10 <shamail> Use the same tool but apply it to WG membership
19:16:18 <dc_mattj> otherwise it's  just way too much work for people to do
19:16:27 <MeganR> yes, as low touch as possible
19:16:53 <dc_mattj> the IRC thing is a bigger issue though I think
19:16:54 <maishsk> So I think the first option is low touch enough
19:17:01 <MeganR> shamail - would Kendall be the best person to reach out to about cloning that tool?
19:17:03 <shamail> This “re-using track chair tool” would be intermediate touch for WG chairs (membership doesnt change often) and no-touch for WG members
19:17:07 <dc_mattj> there's a lot of new working groups where IRC is alien to them - like Scientific WG
19:17:09 <maishsk> WG leads - fill out the active participants
19:17:31 <dc_mattj> not sure how relevant the track chair tool is here though
19:17:37 <shamail> MeganR: I think Kendall with a CC to Tom would be a good place to start… he would have context
19:17:40 <dc_mattj> I can't see the re-use
19:17:53 <shamail> dc_mattj: It would not be full re-use
19:18:04 <shamail> in the track chair tool, there is membership information for each tracks chairs
19:18:06 <MeganR> ok, I will reach out - we need a "database" for the WG leads to enter this info
19:18:18 <shamail> in this use, think of track=WG and chair membership=WG membership
19:18:19 <dc_mattj> tool IMO would need to be something where after a meeting, the chair could tick boxes to say who the contributors were
19:18:35 <dc_mattj> but if you mean the same kind of concept as the track chair app, then I agree
19:18:45 <shamail> similar concept
19:18:48 <shamail> good way to phrase it dc_mattj
19:18:49 <dc_mattj> +1 then
19:18:49 <maishsk> dc_mattj: or drop a text file with the names of the participants
19:19:05 <MeganR> shamail - I am going to cc you on that email - in case there needs to be clarification
19:19:08 <dc_mattj> maishsk, that already sounds like too much friction
19:19:10 <shamail> Sounds good
19:19:34 * maishsk thinks he is becoming to fluent in the ways of OpenStack … :(
19:19:40 <maishsk> too*
19:19:40 <shamail> Do we think this will be a massive amount of folks?  Could we simply ask WG chairs once a cycle (near end) to give us a list of people who are active?
19:19:45 <dc_mattj> ideal would be that everyone uses the same comms mechanism and it's all automagically audible
19:20:06 <shamail> dc_mattj: I agree, this could be done manually but I fear it might become a burden
19:20:13 <dc_mattj> shamail, maybe. As a community of engineers we're always guilty of overthinking the problem
19:20:16 <shamail> WG count continues to grow as do members
19:20:30 <MeganR> I don't feel that it is a huge list - but would prefer they enter the info after each meeting, especially if there are different leads for the meetings
19:20:40 <shamail> MeganR: Could you pursue an option 1 and option 2 recommendation?
19:20:46 <dc_mattj> I'm always warning my engineers not to over-engineer, but we do like perfection ;)
19:20:50 <maishsk> And also this is a way to track active participation
19:21:08 <dc_mattj> this is a small WG thought right ?
19:21:16 <MeganR> Option 1 - enter info after each meeting, Option 2 - enter info monthly ?
19:21:28 <dc_mattj> emerging stuff like scientific and NFV are bigger, and potentially very big ?
19:21:29 <maishsk> dc_mattj: there are a number of WG
19:21:40 <shamail> Maybe option 1: tooling to automate collection, option 2: manual methods
19:21:42 <MeganR> This is for WG that are not using IRC for their meetings
19:21:51 <maishsk> Product and Enterprise are probably larger
19:22:09 <dc_mattj> so we should also probably think about how many WG are NOT using IRC
19:22:16 <shamail> We already have a script to extract info for WGs using IRC (https://github.com/openstack/uc-recognition/blob/master/tools/get_active_wg_members.py)
19:22:26 <MeganR> shamail - sorry, I am not following, are these the options to present to Kendall and Tom or to the WG leaders?
19:22:36 <shamail> dc_mattj: +1, that would give us a good idea of whether the effort is worth it
19:22:51 <dc_mattj> if the mainstream are all using IRC, then there's no point in overthinking the minority
19:23:05 <shamail> MeganR: These are options that our AUC WG should recommend at the end of milestone-3 on how to account for WG members
19:23:15 <dc_mattj> set the standard as IRC, then allow some manual process for anyone not using it ?
19:23:22 <MeganR> ahh - got it - ok, thank you
19:23:30 <maishsk> dc_mattj: sounds like a plan :)
19:23:36 <MeganR> dc-mattj +1
19:23:42 <dc_mattj> not saying IRC is perfect, but it is fairly standardised and we have automation tooling
19:23:46 <shamail> MeganR: You are determining now that we want to include WG members as AUC, how do we identify them.
19:24:00 <dc_mattj> change from IRC is under the control of the WG chairs
19:24:08 <MeganR> I have been focusing on the ones listed through the User Committee
19:24:17 <dc_mattj> so if they change it, then maybe they need to work out how to recognise contribution ?
19:24:31 <shamail> MeganR: +1, that is what we chose as criteria for being considered “official WGs"
19:24:49 <shamail> They have to have information on the UC wiki
19:25:02 <MeganR> yes - focusing there, and then if we need to expand in the future we can
19:25:32 <dc_mattj> where does the official WG list live ?
19:25:44 <shamail> dc_mattj: I am worried that if we leave the designation entirely unstandardized then questions on why someone was considered active versus not could arise
19:26:03 <shamail> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee
19:26:06 <shamail> Near the bottom dc_mattj
19:26:07 <dc_mattj> shamail, not sure what that means ? Can you explain ?
19:26:30 <dc_mattj> in terms of contribution ?
19:27:03 <maishsk> dc_mattj: So I think that is part of Milestone #5
19:27:16 <shamail> dc_mattj: I was trying to say that we should be able to give criteria to WG chairs on how they should identify who they consider “active”.. if we let each WG determine (without publicly listing the criteria) then it could raise questions on why someone was “active” and someone else was deemed “not actove"
19:27:18 <shamail> active*
19:28:02 <dc_mattj> Yeah I get that. I think I'm saying that the mechanisms that exist right now in terms of number of lines during a meeting etc are probably good enough given the vast majority use IRC
19:28:07 <shamail> maishsk: +1, milestone 5
19:28:16 <dc_mattj> and for those that don't use IRC, we could have a fairly manual process for now
19:28:19 <shamail> dc_mattj: ah, got it.
19:28:28 <dc_mattj> although admittedly I don't know how many don't use IRC
19:28:51 <shamail> Only ones I know are enterprise.. does scientific?
19:29:00 <MeganR> I was thinking of keeping it really simple for the first round - if someone is routinely attending WG meetings, they are considered active.  We can see what number that brings - ad then possibly refine it.
19:29:08 <shamail> MeganR: +1
19:29:12 <dc_mattj> +1
19:29:14 <dc_mattj> exactly
19:29:19 <shamail> Anything else on this topic MeganR?
19:29:19 <maishsk> +1
19:29:25 <dc_mattj> use what metrics we have right now and don't overthink
19:29:38 <MeganR> Nope - I'm good
19:29:47 <shamail> Thanks
19:29:48 <dc_mattj> assume everyone is using IRC, and if they aren't then the WG chair has to provide that metric somehow
19:29:53 <shamail> #topic Metrics for Ops meetup moderators (maishsk)
19:30:01 <dc_mattj> lol
19:30:08 <maishsk> So I reached out to Tom - and got this
19:30:09 <dc_mattj> sorry, was already ahead of myself
19:30:17 <maishsk> #link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EUSYMs3GfglnD8yfFaAXWhLe0F5y9hCUKqCYe0Vp1oA/edit#gid=803513477
19:30:40 <shamail> Yep, that has all moderators
19:30:46 <maishsk> It is an excel sheet with the list of all the moderators for all the moderators.
19:30:50 <dc_mattj> I also talked to Tom about this
19:31:02 <shamail> dc_mattj: Will the new meetup admin WG keep the same spreadsheet or do you plan to change where moderator info is kept?
19:31:11 <dc_mattj> not sure yet
19:31:20 <dc_mattj> I am VERY familiar with this spreadsheet
19:31:25 <maishsk> So we can get all the info from there
19:31:37 <dc_mattj> but it is a bit like to mouldy old bit of paper kept under your bed ;)
19:31:41 <shamail> lol
19:31:41 <maishsk> The question is just about ‘the how’
19:31:45 <maishsk> ;)
19:31:54 <dc_mattj> again, I think for this let's not overthink
19:32:05 <dc_mattj> the amount of folks who fall into this category is fairly small
19:32:11 <dc_mattj> and easily manually treatable
19:32:13 <maishsk> copy + paste a list - sounds good
19:32:17 <dc_mattj> treatable
19:32:20 <dc_mattj> aargh
19:32:20 <shamail> maishsk: +1
19:32:22 <dc_mattj> autocorrect
19:32:27 <shamail> lol
19:32:30 <dc_mattj> we can do it manually
19:32:31 <shamail> treatable
19:32:32 <dc_mattj> ;)
19:32:34 <maishsk> LOL
19:32:38 <dc_mattj> create - able
19:32:48 <shamail> got it, treatable
19:32:49 <shamail> :P
19:32:53 <dc_mattj> LOL
19:32:58 <maishsk> dc_mattj has found a way to outsmart his computer :)
19:32:59 <shamail> I agree
19:33:00 <dc_mattj> I think we're agreeing
19:33:09 <shamail> the list has everything needed and its small enough to just copy/paste
19:33:17 <dc_mattj> yup
19:33:21 <dc_mattj> +1
19:33:23 <shamail> Anything else maishsk?
19:33:38 <maishsk> On this topic - nope
19:33:45 <shamail> #topic Review next steps
19:34:08 <shamail> So we’ve made good progress in identifying our data sources and how we might interface with them
19:34:22 <shamail> The next step would be to document our results from this milestone
19:34:31 <shamail> I would also like to propose switching milestone 4 and 5
19:34:41 <shamail> milestone 5 feels like a good continuation of mileston 3
19:34:53 <shamail> it would completely close out the who, what, and how
19:34:57 <dc_mattj> +1
19:35:20 <shamail> We can move to the exceptions discussion (e.g. review board) after establishing the norm
19:35:39 <dc_mattj> I'd also say the review board for self nominated is the UC
19:35:41 <maishsk> shamail - that is very smart
19:35:43 <shamail> Agree/disagree to switch?
19:35:49 <dc_mattj> +1
19:35:50 <dc_mattj> agree
19:35:53 <maishsk> +1 agree
19:36:07 <shamail> dc_mattj: I agree but would want to check with them first to see if they are fine with the workload
19:36:07 <MeganR> agree
19:36:16 <shamail> or if they want to delegate
19:36:21 <dc_mattj> shamail, I suspect the workload is a tiny edge case
19:36:36 <shamail> dc_mattj: +1, it should also get smaller each cycle
19:36:44 <dc_mattj> I can't believe someone would not fall into any other category, and not be known by the UC
19:36:56 <shamail> true
19:37:02 <shamail> Thanks everyone
19:37:37 <shamail> #Agree we will change ordering and cover milestone 5 (now known as milestone 4) first and then milestone 4 (now known as milestone 5)
19:37:51 <dc_mattj> lol
19:37:57 <shamail> That is probably the most complex way I could’ve written that sentence
19:37:59 <dc_mattj> that's not going to get confusing
19:38:02 <shamail> lol
19:38:14 <shamail> We know what it means!
19:38:15 <maishsk> and it should have been # agreed : )
19:38:25 <dc_mattj> this is all getting a bit Life of Brian
19:38:30 <shamail> haha
19:38:32 <dc_mattj> for any of you with a Monty Python interest
19:38:34 <maishsk> We are all individuals
19:38:37 <MeganR> for this week - remind me again next week!
19:38:42 <shamail> lol
19:38:45 <maishsk> With a shrubbery
19:39:08 <MeganR> lol
19:39:10 <maishsk> So if there is nothing else on the agenda
19:39:17 <maishsk> I would like to share two things