19:06:48 <jbryce> #startmeeting
19:06:49 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jun  2 19:06:48 2011 UTC.  The chair is jbryce. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:06:50 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:07:25 <jbryce> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/PPB - agenda is listed there
19:07:46 <jbryce> most of this has already been discussed on the list so we should be able to move pretty quickly through it
19:08:14 <jbryce> #topic core project promotion only for releases
19:08:44 <jbryce> Thierry's proposal was that projects can only be promoted to core for the following release cycle rather than allowing it in the middle of a cycle. Seemed like most people agreed with that
19:08:51 <dendrobates> +1 to thierry's recommendation
19:08:54 <vishy> ho/
19:09:06 <vishy> +1
19:09:09 <jbryce> I updated the new project process to include the following language to make this the policy:
19:09:11 <jbryce> "Once a project is approved for addition as an core project, it will be promoted in the next release cycle. All projects must be approved for promotion to core 6 weeks before a release cycle's design summit. After approval, a new PTL will be elected for the project in the regular PTL election cycle."
19:09:43 <jbryce> +1 from me as well
19:09:45 <notmyname> +1
19:09:49 <ewanmellor> +1
19:09:51 <soren> +1
19:10:28 <jbryce> #agreed Projects will only be promoted to core for the following release cycle as stated in the updated new project process
19:10:44 <jbryce> #topic incubation process policies
19:11:01 <jbryce> http://wiki.openstack.org/ProjectTypes
19:11:02 <jbryce> http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/Incubation
19:11:02 <jbryce> http://wiki.openstack.org/Projects/IncubatorApplication
19:11:24 <jbryce> Those 3 documents together lay out the purpose and process for a project applying and being approved to be an official incubation project
19:11:33 <dendrobates> jbryce: has you discussed the incubation process with RS legal.  At some point we need to make sure all previous contributers have signed the CLA, right?
19:12:00 <jbryce> we've discussed most of them but have made a number of iterative changes over the past few weeks and i'd like to actually get a vote on them on record
19:12:14 <jbryce> dendrobates: good point. i will make sure that is part of the process.
19:12:55 <jbryce> #action Make sure incubation projects follow CLA procedures and previous contributors have agreed to CLA
19:13:04 <vishy> If the project is not approved, it may continue as an incubated project?
19:13:26 <jbryce> if the project is not approved for core? we previously said yes
19:13:49 <vishy> no that is on incubation page
19:14:26 <jbryce> ahh...that's in reference to step for--the application for core promotion
19:14:28 <jbryce> i will make that more clear
19:14:57 <jbryce> updated
19:15:03 <vishy> cool
19:15:06 <vishy> +1 from me
19:15:12 <dendrobates> +1
19:15:40 <ewanmellor> +1
19:15:47 <notmyname> seems to me that there should be some explicit provision for removing an incubated project
19:15:57 <notmyname> is that "If the project fails to make progress..."?
19:16:03 <jbryce> yes
19:16:08 <jbryce> it's basically PPB discretion
19:16:28 <notmyname> so what are the changes you are making?
19:16:37 * jaypipes reading back..
19:16:37 <jbryce> i changed #5
19:17:00 <jbryce> from "If the project is not approved, it may continue as an incubated project" to "If the project is not approved by the Policy Board to be promoted to a core project, it may continue as an incubated project"
19:17:52 <jaypipes> jbryce: typo on #6: s/may remove is/may remove it/
19:18:10 <soren> Sorry, just catching up a bit here.
19:18:22 <jbryce> jaypipes: thanks. fixed.
19:18:34 <soren> The CLA is an agreement between the contributor and who else?
19:18:56 <jaypipes> I think it would be useful to mention what the *benefit* of being in an incubated status is on that document
19:18:58 <soren> I don't remember and don't have a copy at hand.
19:19:02 <dendrobates> soren: rackspace
19:19:05 <notmyname> +1 on the docs
19:19:19 <notmyname> jaypipes: that's covered in http://wiki.openstack.org/ProjectTypes
19:19:23 <jbryce> soren: http://wiki.openstack.org/CLA
19:19:38 <jaypipes> notmyname: oh, doh. thx :)
19:19:51 <soren> So if some other entity (be it corporate or otherwise) has a project that ends up in openstack, their contributors have to sign an agreement with *Rackspace* because...
19:20:14 <dendrobates> soren: patent protections mainly, I believe
19:20:15 <jaypipes> Is there going to be a wiki or web page that lists projects that are in incubated status?
19:20:22 <jbryce> soren: it's between the contributor and OpenStack LLC (owned by Rackspace right now) because OpenStack LLC is the Project Manager who is actually granting the Apache License on OpenStack projects
19:20:27 <notmyname> soren: OpenStack, LLC
19:20:33 <soren> dendrobates: So why don't we sign a similar agreement with everyone else involved?
19:20:44 <jbryce> jaypipes: yes. i will add a section to wiki.openstack.org/Projects
19:20:48 <notmyname> dendrobates: patents are covered in the apache license
19:20:56 <jaypipes> jbryce: coolio.
19:21:14 <dendrobates> notmyname: but that is not valid in every country unless specifically agreed to, hence the CLA
19:21:38 <dendrobates> or so I understand from the lawyers
19:21:42 <jbryce> the CLA explicitly grants OpenStack LLC the write to perpetually release the code under Apache for all contributions the contributor makes
19:21:42 <jaypipes> jbryce: one more typo on last paragraph: s/have successfully release/have successfully released/
19:21:44 <soren> I don't think it's clear at all that OpenStack is a legal entity.
19:21:52 <jbryce> dendrobates: correct
19:21:56 <soren> and even less so that it's owned by Rackspace.
19:22:32 <notmyname> I felt that was pretty explicitly talked about in the initial business sessions at the summit
19:22:33 <jbryce> jaypipes: thanks for the proofreading. i'm usually the grammar nazi. = )
19:22:40 <jaypipes> :) np
19:22:41 <dendrobates> soren: I agree that should be more clear in the doc, but it is referred to as a LLc which is a legal entity
19:22:41 <soren> But I guess that's a discussion for another day. It just seems weird to require legally binding agreements to add code to openstack.
19:23:10 <soren> dendrobates: I don't just mean in the agreement, but more generally.
19:23:10 <notmyname> +1 that it could be made more clear in official docs
19:23:39 <notmyname> also +1 that it's a discussion for a different day :-)
19:23:52 <soren> Yeah.
19:24:17 <jbryce> yes
19:24:30 <dendrobates> is it another day yet?  :)
19:24:37 <dendrobates> jk
19:24:42 <jaypipes> this last line: "In general, a project will need to have successfully release at least two milestones before it will be considered as a core project." I think it may be better to be more specific on that. Perhaps something like: "Project must have made at least 2 consistent, regular milestone releases. Project must participate in an integration release (6 month release cycle), the first of which will be considered
19:24:42 <soren> :)
19:24:42 <jaypipes> alpha-quality)" Or something like that?
19:25:24 <jaypipes> basically, I'm keen to make more specific the way the incubated project treats *the first integrated release*
19:25:46 <jaypipes> and how the other core projects treat the incubated project during the integrated release...
19:26:25 <jbryce> because the integrated releases only happen every 6 months, that would push core promotion out an additional 6 months if they have to go through an entire integrated release as well, right?
19:26:28 <jaypipes> what are the specific expectations for each of the parties involved? Is the release manager responsible for treating incubated projects differently during integration release time?
19:27:27 <jaypipes> jbryce: well, I guess I'm saying that if Lunr releases 2 milestone releases, but doesn't participate in the integration release, I don't think they should become core. But if they *do* participate in the integration release, I think they would..
19:27:29 <jbryce> as laid out currently, they would have to meet all requirements for promotion and be approved by the ppb 6 weeks before a release cycle design summit
19:27:38 <jaypipes> Lunr is just an example here of course, nothing more.
19:27:55 <jbryce> then, starting the next release cycle, they would be core and in the process through the entire 6 months
19:28:14 <jbryce> so taking lunr, they would not be able to be in diablo and would need to be approved 6 months before the design summit this fall
19:28:14 <jaypipes> jbryce: yeah, I'm trying to suggest one of those PPB promotion requirements is participation in the integration release process :)
19:28:39 <jbryce> if approved, their first core release would be e next spring which would be managed by the release manager through the entire 6 months cycle
19:28:50 <jaypipes> jbarratt_: in other words, how can we promote a project to core that hasn't demonstrated "integratability"
19:28:51 <jaypipes> ?
19:28:57 <jmckenty> ah, gotcha
19:29:08 <jmckenty> jaypipes: do we need a "transitional" state?
19:29:09 <jbryce> so you're saying they couldn't be core until F, but we would treat them as core from a release perspective in e?
19:29:29 <jmckenty> where the project is pending-core, but does not have an integrated release out yet?
19:29:40 <jaypipes> jmckenty: maybe, but I don't necessarily think so. I just think one of the promotion requirements should be a plan for integration and demonstrated participation in the area of integration.
19:29:43 <notmyname> jmckenty: isn't that incubator?
19:29:56 <jmckenty> no
19:30:06 <jmckenty> I think a lot of incubated projects might never become core
19:30:11 <jbryce> i think with 6 month releases, this pushes it out too far
19:30:23 <jbryce> i'd rather put a specific requirement in like jaypipes says around integration
19:30:26 <jmckenty> k
19:30:41 <jbryce> but not necessarily make it a requirement that they go through an entire integration release before they get promoted
19:31:14 <jaypipes> jbryce: I'm just saying that "Integration with OpenStack processes around testing, releases, and community management" may be a bit vague and proposed projects might appreciate a bit more detail on what we expect from them regarding integration.
19:31:25 <jaypipes> jbryce: sure.
19:31:34 <jmckenty> well, I can see confusion if they're listed as an openstack core project, but they're not yet available in an official release
19:32:04 <jmckenty> or am I misreading that
19:32:07 <jbryce> jmckenty: i think we can make that clear in the messaging around the releases
19:32:20 <jaypipes> jmckenty: How can a project be core that hasn't demonstrated its ability to be integrated into the official distribution?
19:32:39 <jmckenty> jaypipes: which official distribution? ;)
19:32:58 <jbryce> jaypipes: something like this: "In general, a project will need to have successfully released at least two milestones and demonstrated a satisfactory level of integration with existing core projects before it will be considered as a core project."
19:33:01 <jbryce> ?
19:33:13 <jaypipes> jbryce: good.
19:33:32 <jbryce> ok
19:33:35 <jmckenty> sure. Maybe we can use that to promote openstack-common ;)
19:33:42 <jaypipes> jbryce: of course "what is a satisfactory level of integration" is the next question a project lead will ask ;)
19:34:10 <jaypipes> jbryce: so we should spend some time over the next few months to brainstorm what we mean by that.
19:34:11 <jbryce> i think there will be a lot of variance between different types of projects. some of it will have to just be PPB discretion.
19:34:24 <jaypipes> jbryce: but leaving it right now with that language is good for me.
19:34:28 <jaypipes> good with me...
19:34:32 <jmckenty> +1
19:34:37 <jbryce> agreed that we should flesh out more of an evaluation checklist for core consideration
19:34:39 <jbryce> revote on the 3 incubation documents?
19:34:51 <jmckenty> #vote +1
19:34:59 <jaypipes> #vote +1
19:35:11 <dendrobates> #vote +1
19:35:22 <jbryce> +1
19:35:26 <notmyname> #vote +1
19:35:29 <ewanmellor> #vote +1
19:35:35 <vishy> #vote +1
19:35:38 <jmckenty> woot
19:36:02 <jaypipes> soren?
19:36:17 <soren> Sorry, got distracted.
19:36:31 <soren> +1
19:36:34 <jbryce> #agreed Approved incubation project documents
19:36:55 <jbryce> #action jbryce to notify list of incubation process
19:37:26 <jbryce> #topic Addition of Dashboard for OpenStack and Scalr as core projects
19:37:39 <jmckenty> ooh, fun
19:37:52 <jmckenty> Do we have an application that matches the new process?
19:37:59 <jmckenty> Or can we push back and ask for that?
19:38:02 <jbryce> exactly
19:38:09 <jmckenty> I'm assuming devcamcar is proposed PTL for dashboard
19:38:24 <jmckenty> and stadil is proposed PTL for Scalr
19:38:36 <jmckenty> but I'd love docs around license, codebase and repo, etc
19:38:46 <jbryce> based off that and the earlier decision to not promote projects in the middle of a release cycle, it seems like we should defer for now and request them to either enter incubation or to apply towards the end of the cycle?
19:39:10 <jmckenty> Well, I can see Scalr taking a substantial amount of debate
19:39:14 <vishy> i thought dash was applying for incubation
19:39:21 <jmckenty> both on the language issues and the guest agent aspects
19:39:33 <dendrobates> jmckenty: me too
19:39:37 <jmckenty> so I would recommend they apply early
19:39:43 <jaypipes> yeah
19:40:07 <jmckenty> if dashboard is applying for incubation, I think we could get devcamcar to fill out the app pretty quickly
19:40:11 <jbryce> vishy: according to his openstack list email, it sounds like he wanted to move to core
19:40:33 <jbryce> i can respond to both and ask them to fill out incubation application. i'm sure they'll respond pretty quickly.
19:40:38 <jbryce> is that the route we want to go?
19:41:01 <vishy> yes
19:41:03 <jmckenty> I think so
19:41:08 <vishy> I think incubation is the best for both
19:41:22 <notmyname> application for incubation :-)
19:41:35 <jbryce> ok
19:41:46 <jbryce> #action jbryce to contact dashboard and scalr and request they apply for incubation
19:42:18 <jbryce> #topic Meeting schedule
19:42:25 <jmckenty> can we wait
19:42:29 <jmckenty> last comment on that
19:42:41 <jmckenty> can we make sure we have a separate agenda item for each application in the future
19:42:41 <vishy> the incubation process wasn't totally clear before, but now that we have agreed on it, they should follow it...
19:43:01 <jmckenty> we may also want to limit the number of apps we consider per meeting, otherwise we could get buried before summits
19:43:09 <jbryce> jmckenty: agreed
19:43:43 <jbryce> #info currently the meeting schedule is everything Thursday at 1900UTC/2:00 PM central
19:44:02 <jmckenty> That still works well for me, mostly
19:44:09 <jmckenty> Are there concerns?
19:44:10 <jbryce> i've had a few requests to decrease frequency, which i am ok with
19:44:20 <jbryce> it seems like we don't always have a full agenda so we've been ad hoc skipping them
19:44:21 <jmckenty> bi-weekly for 1.5-2 hours?
19:44:41 <jmckenty> I don't mind ending early, but I would hate to not have enough time
19:44:47 <jbryce> i'd rather have a fixed schedule that we stick to and have good attendance
19:45:20 <jbryce> what do others think? bi-weekly? 1-1.5 hours?
19:45:28 <notmyname> -1
19:45:38 <jmckenty> notmyname: what's the thinking?
19:45:42 <jmckenty> too slow to respond?
19:46:24 <notmyname> I'd prefer shorter meetings (as needed) normally scheduled weekly as we are currently doing instead of long bi-weekly meetings
19:46:26 <dendrobates> I'd rather do it every week and have it be shorter
19:47:04 <jmckenty> side note if anyone wants an irccloud invite, I'm loving it.
19:47:14 <ewanmellor> I'm OK with this slot, and either weekly or biweekly, as long as we get the calendar entries straight.
19:47:16 <jmckenty> +0
19:47:24 <jbryce> ok
19:47:26 <jmckenty> I'd prefer an iCal feed
19:47:28 <jbryce> i'm fine with that as well
19:47:30 <jaypipes> biweekly.
19:47:34 <jmckenty> that way I can track cancellations
19:47:35 <jbryce> there is an ical feed from the google calendar
19:47:40 <jmckenty> oh, nice :)
19:47:51 <jbryce> and the google calendar is correct on the time
19:48:08 <jaypipes> prefer biweekly, but I'm flexible on it :)
19:48:21 <vishy> +0
19:48:22 <soren> I don't particularly enjoy this time slot, fwiw.
19:48:30 <ewanmellor> I ended up with two entries, one after the other, when the time changed.  I presume that feed didn't cancel the first one, or something.
19:48:45 <jbryce> #info ical feed: https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/6i49nddt8eqqi1kv0uoc8noh94%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics
19:48:49 <notmyname> ewanmellor: now you have a free hour!
19:49:00 <jbryce> #info html: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=6i49nddt8eqqi1kv0uoc8noh94%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Chicago
19:49:03 <soren> I have much more interesting things I could do on a Thursday evening.
19:49:12 <jmckenty> soren: tmi
19:49:15 <soren> (9-10 PM)
19:49:21 <soren> jmckenty: You ain't seen nothing yet.
19:49:34 <jbryce> i'm a little offended that soren doesn't find us interesting. = )
19:49:42 <jmckenty> we could go to 12pm Central (1700UTC) as far as I'm concerned
19:49:55 <jmckenty> Earlier than that is evil
19:50:00 <soren> that's even worse.
19:50:09 <jmckenty> later, then?
19:50:11 <jbryce> i am completely flexible on timing and happy to try a different time slot if there's one that works, but we haven't seemed to come up with something better
19:50:34 <soren> Maybe an hour before the weekly openstack meeting?
19:50:44 <soren> s/an/the/
19:50:47 <jmckenty> that's Tuesday, right?
19:50:51 <soren> It is.
19:50:51 <jbryce> so 2000 UTC / 3:00 PM central on tuesdays?
19:50:56 <soren> Yes.
19:51:07 <soren> I'm working then anyway, because that evening is screwed.
19:51:10 <jbryce> ok
19:51:12 <dendrobates> +1
19:51:13 <jmckenty> +1
19:51:23 <jmckenty> running away now, sorry.
19:51:42 <jbryce> i'll send a note to the list suggesting that
19:51:43 <soren> toodles
19:51:45 <dendrobates> me too, another meeting to prepare for.
19:51:52 <jbryce> that's all i've got for today anyway
19:52:00 <ewanmellor> That slot is fine by me.
19:52:01 <jbryce> any last pressing issues from anyone?
19:52:19 <jbryce> #action jbryce to send email about new potential PPB meeting time of 2000 UTC on tuesdays
19:52:35 <jbryce> all right. thanks everyone!
19:52:38 <jbryce> #endmeeting