20:10:27 #startmeeting 20:10:28 Meeting started Tue Dec 6 20:10:27 2011 UTC. The chair is jmckenty. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:10:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 20:10:45 #topic cloud-audit background 20:10:48 jmckenty: I guess I see evidence gathers similar to monitoring plugins - which aren't normally kept in the core project ... 20:10:57 anotherjesse: agreed. 20:11:19 jmckenty: Could the gatherers be created in an openstack-common type library (which seems always to be on the verge of getting started - maybe this could move it along)? Or how deep is the introspection you need? 20:11:29 I also agree they should be built as plugins, but I was hoping to have them somewhat symmetrical across projects 20:11:36 zns - exactly what I'm hoping for 20:11:54 common config looks like it might kick off openstack-common 20:11:57 e.g., that cloudaudit's requirements are a good use-case for openstack-common 20:12:26 _0x44: FYI, typo in https://github.com/piston/openstack-cloudaudit/blob/master/cloudaudit/evidence_engine/idle_session_lock.py ( grep for eivdence) 20:12:31 +10 to common config. How can I help, get some, …? 20:12:51 vishy: common config and also melange, which depends on openstack-common 20:12:52 <_0x44> jaypipes: Grazie... 20:12:53 zns: keystone middleware should be there -but this is getting off the topic 20:13:20 zns: have you been following the ML? 20:13:24 there is a proposal in 20:13:41 anotherjesse: no disagreement from me. 20:13:46 jmckenty: is there anything specific you need from the ppb? 20:13:49 vishy: obviously behind... 20:13:51 jmckenty: it seems like before proposing to the pbb it would be good to bring it to the ML? 20:14:10 we're not proposing 20:14:19 vishy: I'll trawl through the emails and catch up... 20:14:33 this is pre-proposal, just checking with the PPB on status of openstack-common 20:14:40 and whether it's going to be in Essex 20:15:36 jmckenty: well it isn't exactly an official project 20:15:50 jmckenty: but it looks like projects will be depending on it 20:16:19 vishy: it's a rather specific case, we might need to fast-track it. 20:16:24 I don't know if we have a process for this. It is kind of like an external library 20:16:25 jmckenty: afaik there are several code "projects" (the common config, perhaps keystone middleware, perhaps a base for openstack cli tools - that novaclient, keystoneclient, … can use) - and then a place for blueprints about the project as a whole 20:16:48 so as a specific point, 20:17:00 the root_wrapper stuff ttx has been working on for nova 20:17:09 vishy: imho openstack-common is more an expression of commonality between projects. 20:17:16 is a key requirement (or something equiv) for evidence gatherers 20:17:20 vishy: not a new project per-se 20:17:29 ttx: good so we don't need to vote it in 20:17:31 ttx: yes, but it's still a project with a lifecycle and will need reviewers and a core team 20:17:32 and hopefully would move into openstack-common 20:17:35 we just need to make it work. 20:17:48 mtaylor: sure, I'm just finding excuses for fast-tracking it. 20:18:01 * mtaylor doesn't think we need to vote it in - but we may have to deal later with issues - I think we're fine for right now 20:18:22 core could initilaly be all core members? 20:18:28 *initially 20:18:30 ttx and vishy - are you happy to make openstack-common a dependency for nova, and move root_wrapper into it? 20:18:37 yup 20:18:39 at the moment, I've got the poc members and anotherjesse in the openstack-common-core team 20:18:43 and common config 20:19:02 well, I've invited openstack-poc, the invitation hasn't yet been accepted 20:19:05 jmckenty: the reason why it's done in Nova is that the other projects don't really need privilege escalation 20:19:05 great - that will unblock us on cloudaudit 20:19:14 ttx - they will for cloudaudit plugins, though 20:19:17 that's my point 20:19:22 was also going to add markmc and jvoelker, since they've been doing the most hacking on the project so far 20:19:33 jmckenty: in which case, yes, it would make a good candidate for openstack-common. 20:20:12 s/nova-rootwrap/openstack-rootwrap 20:20:19 :) 20:20:28 I'm happy - any other topics? 20:20:38 I would ask for a foundation update, but we've got no Jonathan 20:20:49 I could give a FITS update - which is that it's hung on foundation updates 20:20:53 jmckenty: I'd like to check in with folks on the CLA stuff I mentioned in the CI meeting 20:21:30 k 20:21:39 #topic Management of CLA 20:21:40 so - in case you weren't in the CI meeting ... 20:21:47 I overhead it 20:21:54 proposed that gerritt manages CLA, right? 20:22:11 gerrit has a facility for managing CLA signing and not allowing proposals from people who haven't signed it 20:22:17 That only addresses individual contributor CLA and not organizational CLA 20:22:18 +1 20:22:19 this seems nicer than asking reviewers to check a wiki page 20:22:21 yes 20:22:26 yes 20:22:40 +1 notionally, would like to see how we manage org. CLA as well 20:22:46 * wonders if he should have been checking a wiki page before accepting reviews! * 20:23:04 is there a discussion necessary? 20:23:07 zns: ya - I had thought it was done for us - but that is it is just the mailmap that was checked 20:23:13 sounds like our tools just fell behind 20:23:15 mtaylor - can we do this without requiring anyone to resign their CLA? 20:23:29 jmckenty: I believe so 20:23:30 jmckenty: I think we can pre-seed the database 20:23:55 jmckenty: although I want to double-check that before I 100% commit to being able to do it 20:24:01 does this need to be something we decide on as a PPB or just something that needs to be done? 20:24:19 I think changes to how CLA is managed is a PPB issue 20:24:25 but only if it's a substantive change 20:24:26 I think it might be a ppb decision, since it affects how we'd be telling folks to contribute 20:24:34 and this seems like simple tools issues 20:24:43 go for it +1 20:24:47 +1 20:24:52 ok. well, I mean, we can certainly do a POC, show some folks and then move forward 20:24:54 awesome 20:25:02 #vote CLA will be managed by Gerritt 20:25:07 +1 20:25:08 +1 20:25:13 +1 20:25:15 +1 20:25:16 +1 20:25:16 +1 20:25:20 +1 20:25:24 ship it 20:25:25 I think currently it's not managed at all. +1 20:25:44 I think we've got quorum and that seems like enough votes... 20:25:55 #agreed CLA to be managed by Gerritt 20:25:57 (tarmac used to check the list up, I'm pretty sure the current Ci doesn't) 20:26:07 awesome. thanks guys. 20:26:17 Any other topics? 20:26:22 * jmckenty loves finishing meetings early 20:26:23 lunch? 20:26:24 lunch! 20:26:26 +1 20:26:30 +1 20:26:35 #endmeeting