14:04:18 <dc_mattj> #startmeeting Ops Meetups Team 14:04:19 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Nov 29 14:04:18 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dc_mattj. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:04:20 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:04:22 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ops_meetups_team' 14:05:16 <dc_mattj> Hello all, and welcome to the Ops Meetups Team meeting :) 14:05:16 <dc_mattj> NB: If you're new, or just idling in the channel, be sure to have read: 14:05:16 <dc_mattj> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ops_Meetups_Team 14:05:16 <dc_mattj> for background. 14:05:16 <dc_mattj> Check out our agenda items at: 14:05:17 <dc_mattj> # link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-meetups-team 14:05:19 <dc_mattj> As always: please write your name down on the agenda etherpad as a way of introduction. 14:05:23 <dc_mattj> Secondly, if there's something else burning to put on the agenda, please add it to that same etherpad. 14:05:36 <dc_mattj> #topic Review of action items from the previous meeting 14:05:36 <dc_mattj> First up, a quick run-through of our action items from the previous meeting. 14:06:45 <dc_mattj> so on our action items from the last meeting, I haven't added the regional meeting discussion for today 14:06:56 <dc_mattj> to be honest I think that needs more of a quorum to discuss 14:07:04 <VW> I would agree 14:07:13 <dc_mattj> I'd vote that we put that back for a face to face, perhaps in Milan ? 14:07:47 <dc_mattj> I do have some updates on Milan - I had a video conference with Mariano from Enter this morning 14:07:58 <VW> That could work - just know you might have a limited perspective there - regionally speaking 14:08:07 <dc_mattj> VW, true 14:08:15 <dc_mattj> we could also put back until the Boston summit 14:08:18 <VW> e.g. - I probably won't make Milan 14:08:22 <dc_mattj> where we would have wider participation 14:08:49 <VW> ideally, we could have some more conversation about it, but yes, I think the OPs Meetup session(s) in Boston should explore it in detail 14:08:57 <dc_mattj> +1 14:10:15 <dc_mattj> mihalis68, do you have anything else to add to that point or shall we park that for the minute 14:10:34 <dc_mattj> I've made a note on the ether pad 14:10:35 <mihalis68> Nothing to add 14:10:45 <dc_mattj> ok, so on Milan 14:11:02 <dc_mattj> Mariano and I went through the basics of the logistical stuff 14:11:18 <mihalis68> how is the venue looking? 14:11:58 <dc_mattj> venue looks good - main room 120+, room 2 30+, room 3 and 4 20ish 14:12:07 <dc_mattj> depending if we need all of them 14:12:19 <mihalis68> very good 14:12:30 <dc_mattj> you can see some of the space at http://www.coworkinglogin.it/ 14:12:34 <mihalis68> Do we require the possibility of an all-hands meeting? 14:12:48 <mihalis68> Just thinking about capping the max attendance 14:12:49 <dc_mattj> when ? 14:13:08 <mihalis68> in Milan. Is 120 the de facto maximum number of attendees? 14:13:16 <mihalis68> I'm asking as I don't recall if that's a rule 14:13:26 <zioproto> hello all 14:13:33 <mihalis68> hello 14:13:35 <dc_mattj> we discussed this previously, with 120 as a guideline IIRC 14:13:39 <dc_mattj> hello zioproto 14:14:05 <dc_mattj> so Enter are finding someone to sit in on these meetings 14:14:06 <mihalis68> #info 120 is the likely maximum attendance in Milan as it is the size of the biggest room 14:15:03 <dc_mattj> I have asked Mariano to get some rough costings for the event, so they can decide how much sponsorship they can carry, and if we need to get additional sponsors 14:15:10 <dc_mattj> that will take them a couple of weeks to do 14:15:55 <dc_mattj> they are happy to handle the logistical side, but have requested that we drive the content and moderators piece 14:16:17 <mihalis68> right... precisely why a benevolent dictator is needed on that side 14:16:24 <mihalis68> well done, dc_mattj :) 14:16:51 <dc_mattj> I have explained that is driven via a community process anyway so I don't particularly see any issues with that 14:16:57 <dc_mattj> and I am happy to liaise with them 14:16:59 <zioproto> if Mariano needs a sponsor I can try asking here at SWITCH, but I need to know what kind of cost we are talking about 14:17:11 <dc_mattj> zioproto, great idea 14:17:24 <dc_mattj> when we get the rough costings we will know what sponsorship we need to raise 14:17:38 <dc_mattj> as a guideline, for MCR each sponsor put in around �1000 14:17:51 <dc_mattj> but smaller or larger amounts are also possible 14:17:52 <mihalis68> I have no idea if Bloomberg would stump up again, however I know we are strongly considering sponsoring the first PTG, therefore if you cc: me on the costs and "funding gap" I could find out 14:17:52 <zioproto> that should be something I can ask at SWITCH 14:18:21 <dc_mattj> so lets park this until Enter have done the costings, and can say how much they can contribute 14:18:28 <dc_mattj> then we can work out what additional sponsorship we need 14:18:37 <mrhillsman> o/ 14:18:45 <mrhillsman> sorry i'm tardy 14:19:01 <VW> +1 dc_mattj 14:19:04 <VW> howdy mrhillsman 14:19:15 <mihalis68> dc_mattj agreed. I can't say officially but I would think Bloomberg could go at least up to the $1k mentioned 14:19:17 <dc_mattj> hi mr 14:19:21 <dc_mattj> hi mrhillsman 14:19:28 <mihalis68> morning mrhillsman 14:19:45 <dc_mattj> Enter are also going to look at discount hotel rates locally 14:20:21 <mihalis68> I have now added two things to today's agenda 14:20:29 <mihalis68> so let's move on 14:20:29 <dc_mattj> I saw 14:21:07 <dc_mattj> so basically on agenda item 2, we are waiting on Enter to provide a liaison person and rough costings 14:21:28 <dc_mattj> anything more on item 2 ? 14:21:39 <zioproto> #agreed we are waiting on Enter to provide a liaison person and rough costings 14:21:51 <dc_mattj> ty :) 14:22:02 <dc_mattj> #topic Follow on from session structure review 14:22:20 <dc_mattj> has anyone got any input on the session analysis I circulated ? 14:22:23 <mihalis68> nice work pulling all the ether pad links together and roughing out the popular topics 14:22:33 <mihalis68> I haven't reviewed it more than a brief look, sorry 14:22:42 <zioproto> should we post the link to the google excel doc ? 14:22:44 <mihalis68> have been away since last meeting, so buried in work 14:22:56 <mihalis68> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-WEsEmwms2SLyjt2jtCMvpepmiHwoiDkMWMWk37rkRA/edit#gid=0 14:23:08 <zioproto> #link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-WEsEmwms2SLyjt2jtCMvpepmiHwoiDkMWMWk37rkRA/edit#gid=0 14:23:17 <VW> I'm still going through it, dc_mattj 14:23:29 <mihalis68> my observation is this work will be extremely valuable to the specific milan itinerary work 14:23:35 <zioproto> how do we read this ? is the color a topic ? 14:23:57 <dc_mattj> sorry - colours are a bit confusing, just my shorthand for trying to link things together 14:24:01 <zioproto> the idea is to merge those ones on the same color ? 14:24:07 <dc_mattj> bottom of the coloured section is the summary 14:24:54 <dc_mattj> I suggested a couple of the ways we could look at the data in the email I circulated 14:25:27 <zioproto> I think that upgrades, patches and packaging can go together with config management. These two I think should be merged 14:26:04 <dc_mattj> just some food for thought really when we start to do the session planning 14:26:29 <dc_mattj> not really any definitive take aways, but we can definitely pre-load some sessions which come up repeatedly 14:27:14 <dc_mattj> and we also might consider allocating time slots against a 'track' rather than a specific topic, and we can then add to the tracks more fluidly in the run up to the event 14:27:30 <zioproto> this makes sense 14:27:33 <zioproto> making the tracks 14:27:35 <mihalis68> You mention nova, neutron, logging and monitoring as the popular ones. I would add scaling and containerization (two) 14:27:44 <dc_mattj> +1 14:27:50 <zioproto> +1 14:27:53 <dc_mattj> those were just examples really 14:28:09 <zioproto> making tracks we make sure that people interested in a specific area dont miss talks that happen in parallel 14:28:48 <dc_mattj> I think there's a set of clearly defined topics, plus a set of fairly clearly defined 'tracks', then we can also reach out to the wider community to fill in content under the 'tracks', and to add any other topics not covered already 14:29:07 <zioproto> +1 14:29:30 <zioproto> Should we try to make this track skeleton in the Milano etherpad ? 14:30:10 <mrhillsman> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/MIL-ops-meetup 14:30:42 <dc_mattj> I don't have time for the full hour today so I suggest we aim to start populating the Milano ether pad in next weeks meeting ? 14:31:12 <VW> so, I have one higher level meta observation we should keep in the back of our minds when digesting dc_mattj's work and using it for future meetups 14:31:13 <zioproto> okay 14:31:27 <VW> in theory, the structure of the "Ops" stuff is going to change at the forums 14:31:37 <mihalis68> Tracks seem popular, certainly that seems a good idea, however I think we need some ground rules before people start filling up the ether pad or it will get hopelessly confusing 14:32:04 <VW> since sessions will be much more focused on dev and ops together discussing features, needs, etc 14:32:17 <VW> so, that will put a lot of pressure on what the more general topics are at the meetups 14:32:48 <VW> and should force us to push working group time/meetings back to the forum - where the Foundation seems to be taking over the scheduling of that (at least they did in BCN) 14:32:55 <VW> we should follow up on those assumptions 14:33:30 <VW> but the data in this sheet has meetups where all these kinds of activities took place, and it's worth thinking about the fact that some of that focus may shift around from one event type to another 14:33:32 <dc_mattj> ok, lot of unknown unknowns in that area at the minute but I think I follow your logic 14:33:54 <mihalis68> the forum is the new thing at the summit now that the design summit is no more? 14:34:01 <mihalis68> the Yin to the PTG Yang? 14:34:09 <dc_mattj> yes 14:35:00 <VW> yes, but, as I understood, it it's a melding of the design and ops summit 14:35:17 <mihalis68> VW are you suggesting that for Milan we remove things from that meet up that can be done in Boston? 14:35:19 <VW> the $100,000 question is where there still be an Ops "meetup" at the forum 14:35:25 <mihalis68> Sorry, i'm finding this all hard to follow 14:35:32 <VW> I know - text is hard 14:35:47 <VW> more that we should confirm what the intent is for "ops" activities at the forum 14:36:01 <VW> and then make sure we are maximizing what goes on at the mid-cycles based on that 14:36:25 <VW> in case there aren't opportunities for general sessions in Boston (and beyond) 14:36:25 <dc_mattj> teasing out cross project issues from the ops perspective, which can then inform session schedules at the forum, will be important 14:36:34 <zioproto> so we should avoid WG presentations and updates at the ops meetup, and keep focused on ops discussion, bugs, and features ? But not talking on stuff like update from the XYZ WG .. Did I understand ? 14:36:40 <dc_mattj> and some of that comes out of the more general ops discussions 14:37:30 <VW> I would think so zioproto, but we need to confirm if the Foundation will continue to manage the WGs like they did in BCN 14:37:48 <VW> but I think we decided after NYC, that we can really focus the mid-cycles on topics/discussion 14:37:58 <dc_mattj> agreed 14:38:01 <zioproto> is any operator going also to the PTG in Atlanta ? 14:38:11 <VW> and let the WG/teams meet up at the forums - where they will likely be driving various session topics along with devs 14:38:20 <dc_mattj> zioproto, I think that's our next topic 14:38:23 <mihalis68> I've added PTG to agenda... I can't see how it makes sense for anyone from my team to attend PTG 14:38:27 <dc_mattj> anything else on this topic ? 14:38:33 <VW> none for this one, dc_mattj 14:38:36 <VW> sorry if I confused 14:38:45 <dc_mattj> no, important input 14:38:48 <mihalis68> I think I agree but I would need a clearer statement to be sure, honestly 14:38:52 <dc_mattj> and it is somewhat confusing 14:39:02 <dc_mattj> until we do one cycle I don't think it will get less confusing 14:39:15 <mihalis68> I was confused before BCN, and also after BCN 14:39:55 <mihalis68> maybe having only one person from Bloomberg Engineering attempt to "do" Barcelona was a mistake! :) 14:39:58 <VW> well, we'll just blame Tom till he returns :D 14:40:07 <dc_mattj> #topic Weekly meeting time-slot? 14:40:07 <dc_mattj> #topic Weekly meeting time-slot? 14:40:07 <dc_mattj> #topic Weekly meeting time-slot? 14:40:07 <dc_mattj> #topic weekly meeting time-slot 14:40:11 <dc_mattj> whoops 14:40:28 <mihalis68> Yes that's actually the next item, not that I mind 14:40:34 <dc_mattj> so time slot - who has thoughts on this ? 14:40:38 <mihalis68> 9am for me is doable, but Tom comments it's not doable for him 14:40:39 * VW thinks dc_mattj really wants to talk about the time slot 14:40:54 <VW> I think that was just this week 14:40:56 <mihalis68> it's even earlier for VW and mrhillsman, right? 14:41:04 <mrhillsman> 8am for me 14:41:10 <mrhillsman> for VW as well 14:41:29 <mrhillsman> unless he is earth exploring 14:41:31 <zioproto> what timezone are we talking avout ? 14:41:31 <mihalis68> trouble with this agenda item: everyone for whom this slot is impossible is ... not here 14:41:39 <VW> yep - I can do 8am - it's not as easy as 9 because of school drop offs and such, but I can make it work 14:41:40 <mrhillsman> lol 14:41:40 <mihalis68> i'm in EST 14:41:41 <dc_mattj> if you mean Tom's email, I thought he was saying that he's currently in a bad time zone 14:41:41 <dc_mattj> unless someone knows different 14:42:01 <mihalis68> I thought he was always in a bad timezone, no? Korea? 14:42:08 <mrhillsman> yeah, looks like it is just today 14:42:11 <VW> yeah, it's his current location. His normal time zone, it would be 10:00pm 14:42:12 <mihalis68> bad meaning "for this meeting", obviously 14:42:17 <dc_mattj> is it better at 1500 ? 14:42:20 <zioproto> anything that is in the morning in the US usually works for me 14:42:24 <mrhillsman> we don't need to change it 14:42:40 <dc_mattj> for most folks 14:42:40 <dc_mattj> I am happy with either 14:42:50 <mihalis68> I notice that attendance has been worse since the end of DST here 14:42:55 <mihalis68> can't prove cause and effect 14:42:55 <VW> yeah, I'd hate to push it further back 14:43:02 <VW> it's already 10:00pm for Tom 14:43:09 <VW> and 11:00pm for shintaro 14:43:13 <VW> both of whom we all value 14:43:15 <VW> :D 14:43:19 <mrhillsman> +2 14:43:25 <mrhillsman> one for each :) 14:43:40 <mihalis68> ok, sounds like it's fine 14:43:55 <mihalis68> not easy for me but I was worried that it had become a bad time for too many 14:44:03 <dc_mattj> do we want to vote ? 14:44:11 <VW> I just may be late some weeks - until daylight savings - if I can't get the younger VW's moving in the morning ;) 14:44:12 <mihalis68> we can move on as far as I'm concerned 14:44:18 <VW> +1 14:44:21 <zioproto> +1 14:44:41 <zioproto> Matt left the room ? 14:44:42 <mihalis68> uh-oh, the chair quit 14:44:52 <mihalis68> he said he can't do the whole hour today 14:45:12 <mihalis68> last item was PTG. Bloomberg is sponsoring the first one and sending people from our CTO office 14:45:21 <dc_mattj> sorry 14:45:26 <dc_mattj> wifi dropped 14:45:35 <mihalis68> and they encouraged me to go or send someone, and yet I still can't see it being appropriate for me 14:45:55 <dc_mattj> #topic Operators at PTG? 14:45:56 <mihalis68> the writeup emphasizes you should go if you have a specific speciality 14:46:01 <mihalis68> yes 14:46:08 <VW> I think we need to encourage all Operators to look at the ops mid-cycle in the same light a dev would look at PTG 14:46:10 <mihalis68> none of my guys are interested in the slightest 14:46:13 <zioproto> mihalis68: on the web page they say that should go "Operators that are specialists on a given project (and are willing to spend their time giving feedback on their use case and contributing their usage experience to the team)" 14:46:35 <dc_mattj> Thierry's view on the list was that the sessions are definitely work sessions 14:46:45 <zioproto> I will try to be there to give feedback about Neutron stuff mostly 14:46:48 <VW> Think of it like this. We want the conversation at the forums to be about the 'What' - bugs needing fixing, features, gaps, etc 14:46:48 <mihalis68> There' nothing there for me 14:46:49 <dc_mattj> so unless you want to get involved in development it's probably not that useful 14:46:55 <VW> and the PTG gets in to the "how" 14:47:03 <dc_mattj> zioproto, I think the idea is that the feedback bit is for the forum 14:47:13 <dc_mattj> VW, +1 14:47:28 <mihalis68> i wish Tom were here. I believe he said that some operators need to go to the PTG 14:47:33 <zioproto> dc_mattj: I did cut and paste from here https://www.openstack.org/ptg/ 14:47:36 <VW> so, in a perfect world, general discussions at an Ops mid-cycle lead to WG's and others generating propsoals for forum sessions (ideally with co-opration from some devs 14:47:48 <VW> at those forum sessions, decisions get made on what to do 14:48:01 <VW> and at the PTG, the devs dive in to all the messy bits of how to do them 14:48:10 <dc_mattj> that's my understanding too 14:48:18 <VW> while the Ops folks are back to have general discussions on the next thing on the pile 14:48:23 <VW> simple - right :D 14:48:23 <zioproto> please look at this https://www.openstack.org/ptg/ and there is a section "https://www.openstack.org/ptg/" 14:48:31 <zioproto> section "who should attend" 14:48:35 <zioproto> it says operatios 14:48:48 <zioproto> am I wrong ? 14:48:58 <zioproto> we are referred as "downstream" 14:49:02 <zioproto> is that about the forum > 14:49:03 <zioproto> ? 14:49:24 <mihalis68> yes I've read that repeatedly. It's a qualified set of operators "who are specialists on a given project" 14:49:44 <mrhillsman> not sure why they put upstream and downstream -_- confuse-stream 14:49:49 <mihalis68> I run a team where my guys do quite a bit of nova, cep, cinder, glance, keystone 14:49:57 <mihalis68> but they STILL don't really qualify 14:50:01 <mrhillsman> i agreep on VWs perspective 14:50:16 <mrhillsman> i do not think any operator is "discouraged" from going, if they want 14:50:19 <zioproto> mihalis68: do your guys send patches upstream with the review platform ? 14:50:23 <zioproto> if yes I think they should go 14:50:32 <mrhillsman> but should expect the focus to be on how to accomplish the what 14:50:36 <mrhillsman> vs what to accomplish 14:50:49 <dc_mattj> guys, I'm going to have to drop off in a minute 14:50:56 <mihalis68> we've tried a couple of times. It's really off-putting. Lots of minutiae 14:51:06 <mihalis68> not sure if we got anything merged 14:51:12 <dc_mattj> I'm not sure this particular topic has a definitive outcome ? 14:51:22 <mrhillsman> i think general consensus is, if you want to go, go :) 14:51:31 <dc_mattj> other than we're still somewhat confused :) 14:51:33 <mihalis68> Seems like there's only minimal interest in going from people on this chat, emirate? 14:51:38 <mihalis68> amirite 14:51:51 <mihalis68> yet Tom thinks some of us "should" go 14:51:52 <zioproto> mihalis68: that exactly the point. After meeting devs in person it is easier to get stuff merged upstream 14:51:55 <VW> the tl;dr is - if a n Operator has a reason to go to PTG , then go 14:51:57 <mrhillsman> there's not hard rule to not go 14:52:00 <dc_mattj> mihalis68, +1 from me unless I had someone in my team who was contributing to upstream code significantly 14:52:17 <mrhillsman> pretty sure we should bury this :) 14:52:24 <VW> but if someone is just trying to decide what is best - mid-cycle for OPs should be encouraged 14:52:30 <zioproto> 8 minutes to the end of the meeting 14:52:34 <mihalis68> ok. I'm going to let tom and my CTO colleagues know that it' s not a fit for us, despite us running all the openstack here 14:53:06 <dc_mattj> I have to go, so I'm going to end this meeting here unless anyone has anything else urgent 14:53:14 <mrhillsman> pretty sure after the first or second iteration of the changes things will settle where appropriate 14:53:22 <mihalis68> I know I could go, but I was surprised to hear from two sources that operators should go and make their voices heard. I think not, unless as you say they are deep specialists on a particular chunk of openstack tech 14:53:23 <dc_mattj> next week we will start putting together the agenda 14:53:24 <mrhillsman> nothing urgent here 14:53:31 <dc_mattj> #endmeeting