23:00:35 #startmeeting product-team 23:00:36 Meeting started Wed May 13 23:00:35 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is sarob. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 23:00:37 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 23:00:39 The meeting name has been set to 'product_team' 23:00:40 roll call 23:00:47 Carol here 23:01:13 Good afternoon all. Last meeting before our F2F! 23:01:23 hello hello 23:01:29 Morning all! 23:02:15 agenda 23:02:27 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/product-team 23:02:56 #topic xcross project review review 23:03:09 Lol 23:03:17 take it away barrett 23:03:22 OK 23:03:44 We had a slot on the cross-project agenda yesterday 23:03:47 Shamail kicked off the session, outlined the source of the content and how it was being used 23:03:59 Asked the PTLs to review the content and put comments in the doc 23:04:08 #link § https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ecgIygeGb5RJT4ASjyDTSV_TGKc2d-8YjFc3D2KhcSg/edit#slide=id.gafcf66499_0_42 23:04:19 o Lots of good discussion, more than the previous session 23:04:38 Think that's a good sign! Discussion on timing for establishing priorities &  design summit timing 23:04:55 Discussion around Developer Roadmap vs Operators Roadmap 23:05:12 PTLs don’t want to me middle man trying to define priorities and align developers - happy to have help there 23:05:28 The PTLs are using the term SIG to refer to Win The Enterprise, Telco and other Work Groups. They see value in having us consolidate the input and do 1st level analysis on commonality, cross project, where specs are needed, etc. 23:05:42 Thierry was supportive and sees eventually the content he’s publishing on what’s in flight for a release being replaced by roadmap 23:05:52 SIG = Special Interest Group 23:05:54 barrett: cool 23:06:05 Shamail - Thanks 23:06:10 Log from the xproj session 23:06:12 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/crossproject/2015/crossproject.2015-05-12-21.03.log.html 23:06:23 They gave us helpful links where we could get info to cross-check what we have on the roadmap 23:06:41 The next steps are: 23:06:52 Get feedback from Operators and Sigs at the Summit 23:07:02 Develop work flow and timeline for gathering feedback 23:07:13 Ideally, draft a process for setting priorities 23:07:32 Then bring that back to a cross-project meeting for another round of discussion and feedback 23:07:49 o/ 23:07:56 We did mention that the Board is looking to us to produce a roadmap for Tokyo 23:08:04 Rockyg: \o 23:08:04 Hi Rocky 23:08:15 hey all! 23:08:23 Tokyo will be interesting 23:08:26 good breakdown in the slides 23:08:33 Think that's all from the meeting. Shamail - Anything to add? 23:08:55 I think that captures it, a few points that stuck out to me: 23:09:16 Disclaimer is needed since teams feel uncomfortable using the term roadmap since it feels like commitment 23:09:57 We still need to work on separating our work from just aggregating to also how we will help engineering wise 23:10:12 But all in all, positive meeting. Seems like people think we are on the right track 23:10:20 very exciting 23:10:58 now that we have a start 23:11:07 barrett: did anyone commit to being at the roadmap session? I forget 23:11:16 it should attract more dev mgr, and product people 23:11:29 sarob: +1 23:11:35 Shamail - Yes, the Docs PTL committed and I've gotten a couple of others in email 23:11:41 Ideally we'll have at least 3 23:11:42 Awesome! 23:11:53 thats a start 23:11:56 Shamail +1 23:12:24 I think Doug Hellmann was interested, but can't remember if he was double booked. Thierry and Sean Dague are double booked. 23:12:54 Rockyg: I don't recall either. Can someone reach out to Doug? 23:13:00 yeah, monday is bad 23:13:08 lots of overlap 23:13:10 Monday + Tuesday are bad. :) 23:13:46 it'll be a long week! 23:14:02 I will. Doug, Anne and the Horizon guys are *very* interested because they have to predict all the projects as they provide services to them 23:14:26 And Doug could use some Dev love on Oslo 23:14:59 I am thinking of being 40 late to the first product working session 23:15:17 because i supposed to be part of the defcore panel 23:15:43 sarob: we might miss each other. I have to miss the cross project session for PWG. 23:15:54 pwg? 23:16:18 Sarob: I can kick off the session. I passed on the DefCore panel to make this session. 23:16:19 Didn't want to type Product WG 23:16:46 I'll help too Barrett... I cleared my conflict for the first session. 23:16:48 oh 23:17:07 barrett: im on the panel, so i figure i should show up 23:17:09 Shamail: Great! 23:18:04 thanks people 23:18:20 This is a goof segue to a topic we need to discuss later in the agenda. Interest in additional "unofficial" meet-up later in the week. We can discuss that when the time comes. 23:18:32 we will be starting off focusing on the data collected anyway, right? 23:18:43 Sarob: Yes 23:19:27 #topic session content and speaker plans 23:19:50 segue to this instead? 23:19:56 The content review is well under way and I will actually be working on the the polished deck tonight. We have a review scheduled for tomorrow at 10A PT. (Mscohen will send link). 23:20:18 I will also be gluing together slides for session #2 (which has changed objectives again) 23:20:24 shamail: for which session 23:20:30 11:15 monday 23:20:42 The first comment was for Session 1 (Monday 11;15) 23:20:45 or 11:15 tuesday 23:20:48 okay 23:20:50 Second comment was the Tuesday session 23:21:02 i cant make the first talk 23:21:10 We normally end up reviewing and discussing both sessions in the meetings 23:21:11 im triple booked 23:21:16 All good 23:21:22 We need you for the second one though 23:21:45 im hooked on that one 23:21:52 I will send a link out to read only copies of the polished decks later tonight to the WG ML 23:22:02 The other thing we need to touch on is presenters 23:22:23 But before we go there... I have a question regarding session 2 content... 23:23:11 Would it be okay/appropriate to do a logo slide of all the organizations that came to our mid cycle? This will show the diversity in our team and also the fact that we might be able to help with resources. 23:23:20 Thoughts? Good idea/bad idea? 23:23:51 i can pull the info from our etherpad 23:23:54 im good with that 23:24:06 Shamail - I like it! The PTLs asked what companies were involved. I think others will have that question too. Think proactively addressing this is good. 23:24:20 Great, I'll include it. 23:24:38 so you have a deck going for the second product talk? 23:24:46 As for speakers, we think that we should try to maybe target 3 per session (6 unique in all) 23:25:15 Yes, partially.... It is the non roadmap content from the deck mscohen built originally for session 1 before we pulled them apart 23:25:23 we discussed focusing on the xproject work, irght 23:25:46 first one on data collected 23:25:47 Sarob: Yes..work flow, deliverable, how to set priorities 23:26:02 We did but we are using session 2 as an overview of the WG and its alignment across the community 23:26:23 reed, zehicle, allison have kinda dropped back lately 23:26:34 We will highlight xproj through workflow but also need to address what the need was, what we need to do, etc. 23:26:44 * reed is swamped 23:26:46 anyone ping them lately on if they are planning on joining? 23:26:55 Yes sarob, Allison did join our call last week 23:27:01 i read things :) 23:27:02 Sarob: Allisson joined a work meeting last week, she was fine with changin gspeakers 23:27:06 barrett: can you give an update from the call? I'm mobile. :-) 23:27:17 barrett: ah, cool 23:27:18 Shamail - Need to find my notes 23:27:20 and I'm fine with changing speakers too 23:27:32 Thanks reed 23:27:37 i'm very glad to see the uptake in leadership 23:27:53 thanks Shamail, barrett 23:28:15 reed: Happy to help out 23:28:18 I would still be very interested if the 4 of you could at least get on the stage for 3-5 min and give an overview of what lead to the creation 23:28:31 Time permitting after content is built :P 23:28:38 okay, we should submit changes to claire, laurensell? 23:28:42 of course, I'm happy to help 23:29:00 sarob, there is a more appropriate alias 23:29:04 * reed searches 23:29:33 whats about zehicle, anyone ping him? 23:29:39 speakersupport@openstack.org 23:29:40 As far as speakers, I talked to mscohen since he led the PTL feedback collection process... He recommended Scott, himself, and I as a possible option for session 1 23:29:43 Update from Monday's call - We reviewed the draft content that was used in Tuesday's Cross-project meeting 23:29:46 I can ask awhile 23:29:50 zehicle: 23:30:31 I would like the team to discuss their thoughts on speakers for session 1 too. (After update from the call w/ Allison) 23:30:39 Identified needed content, divided the work amongst the attendees and then discussed needing to get a plan of attack for the speaking sessions 23:31:05 I'd like to volunteer as a speaker in the 2nd session... 23:31:17 cool 23:31:21 For session 2, the thought was sarob, barrett, plus one more. 23:31:29 barrett: +1 23:31:36 dvorkin? 23:31:38 He's busy, but I'll ping. I know he's double booked for some things 23:31:44 Both session speakers are up for debate... Thoughts? 23:32:10 thx reed 23:32:28 np 23:32:43 Should we take up this over ML or can we lock in? 23:32:59 im good still with the second session speaking 23:33:04 Could we do 4/4 or is 3/3 ideal? 23:33:12 I think we should go for breadth of companies in the speaker roles - reinforce the community effort 23:33:23 shamail: whats that mean 23:33:28 I think 3 is actually better - 4 starts to get mob-ish. :) 23:33:33 4 speakers each versus 3 23:33:34 * sarob is 5by5 23:33:45 oh 23:34:03 * sarob thinks mobs are bad 23:34:13 Okay, 3 each. 23:34:27 Are we good with the suggestions for session 1 or do we want to modify? 23:34:27 arkady? 23:34:35 for second session 23:34:39 One session at a time :) 23:34:54 sniff 23:35:06 :P 23:35:16 I'm good with the plan for Session 1 23:35:36 what's the time on the 2nd session? 23:35:44 Okay, if anyone feels strongly another way.. Please let me know. 23:35:52 Tuesday 11:15 session now... 23:36:01 (That's session #2) 23:36:10 I +1 sarob and barrett 23:36:28 Now we can discuss candidates for the session plus nominate someone from slot 3 23:36:45 Shamail: What do you mean candidates 23:36:47 ? 23:36:57 You mentioned arkady earlier... 23:37:04 yup 23:37:07 Who else should speak 23:37:17 That's what I meant by candidate :) 23:37:37 Do we know his availability? 23:37:42 nope 23:38:00 I don't have a strong preference on the 3rd slot - other than a unique company 23:38:14 I think zehicle should be available for a short bit for session 2. there's a defcore ops session in conflict, though. 23:38:23 o/ 23:38:30 Are you going to miss it to Rockyg? 23:38:37 Too* 23:38:40 where is mscohen from. No, I'll be therei 23:38:45 Red Hat 23:39:12 mscohen is cisco 23:39:16 We've got Cisco, RedHat, Dell, Huawei 23:39:21 EMC 23:39:31 (already represented, along with IBM 23:39:37 Boo 23:39:38 Cisco 23:39:40 Sorry 23:39:42 Noo* 23:39:45 I was wrong 23:39:59 I had to double check, my fault. 23:40:06 I expect you to slap your own hands, Shamail 23:40:32 * Shamail slaps other hand 23:40:42 Except sarob is no longer EMC. 23:40:51 He's Akanda 23:40:53 AKANDA 23:40:58 yep 23:41:08 i was vmware 23:41:10 actually 23:41:14 ^ 23:41:19 sarob, is it an acronym? 23:41:30 for nicira, yes 23:41:35 sarob: Just a part of the Federation. :) 23:41:40 :) 23:42:11 So, that means Shamail could be there for EMC ;-) as if he's not in enough sessions.... 23:42:13 so did we decide something? 23:42:25 i got lost in the middle 23:42:31 no decisions 23:42:36 Do we want to circulate the plan on ML and ask for volunteer for 3rd speaking spot in session 2? 23:42:48 shirely 23:43:05 it sounds like a plan 23:43:13 lol I wouldn't mind but uniqueness would be good 23:43:25 I can plug EMC participation in the first session 23:43:31 6 unique companies would be ideal 23:43:42 sure 23:43:44 Shamail do you want to include this info in the email you'll send out with the links to the content? 23:43:45 I'm willing, but I think there may be better ones for this talk. 23:43:47 barrett: +1 23:44:03 barrett: +1 23:44:07 Yes. I'll ask for a volunteer and state the only criteria (unique org) 23:44:21 Shamail +1 23:44:27 move on to liberty planning? 23:44:32 +1 23:44:33 gots 16 min 23:44:36 Rockyg: if you want to do it, go ahead. 23:44:49 We're all learning together 23:44:53 Shamail - And knowledgeable on the state of the work...or willing to spend time coming up to speed if needed 23:45:06 Good point barrett 23:45:48 Be happy to unless you find someone better. 23:45:56 #action shamail email ML on session content and request additional speakers 23:46:18 We're going to review content in a call tomorrow AM. Do we want to talk about having a Work Group meeting on Thursday? Gather our learnings and define work plan for next couple of months? 23:46:47 Jsut to clarify: Thursday 5/21 23:46:51 barrett: +1 but morning is bad. 23:47:03 barrett: you jumped topics 23:47:09 I can provide a room that can fit at least 12-15 23:47:10 How about 4:00 - 6:00? 23:47:15 barrett: yes that time sounds good 23:47:33 Anyone have an issue with that? 23:47:36 barrett: +1 23:47:41 That works for me 23:47:42 works for me 23:47:52 I'll block room 23:47:55 Going, going, gone! 23:48:02 Shamail: Thanks 23:48:04 sarob: no congress? 23:48:15 eh 23:48:32 Thursday 5pm 23:48:32 i can only focus on one major project at a time 23:49:20 are we a go for 21may 16:00-18:00? 23:49:20 I may need to duck in and out. Lots of liberty strategizing then 23:49:46 sarob: +1 23:49:47 i wrote it down so its final :) 23:50:01 Since Liberty Planning is next topic... Side bar: Over/Under on someone using "Give me Liberty, or Give me death?" In a marketing pitch in Tokyo. 23:50:07 sarob: +1 23:50:08 #topic liberty planning at the summit 23:50:22 bham 23:50:59 shamail: dressed as who? 23:51:12 That's the wild card. 23:51:29 we have a rug 23:51:34 so its hard to judge 23:51:50 9 min 23:52:05 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Product_Work_Group_Vancouver_Work_Session 23:52:07 I think death is a little harsh 23:52:15 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ProductWG_xProjectSession 23:52:49 rockyg: would encourage timely migration 23:53:59 Not sure what we need to cover on Liberty. Think we need to have folks at the User Committee meeting on on 5/21 from 11:00 - 12:30. 23:54:05 I've got a conflict 23:54:09 so is a charter really that important? 23:54:50 sarob: ? 23:54:54 16:00 = 11:00 ? 23:55:18 barrett: im reading the first design session etherpad 23:55:20 ?? 23:55:23 sarob: ? 23:55:43 I'll make the ops summit user committee session but not this one. :( 23:55:46 * sarob questions all these questions 23:56:25 i guess i can braindump into the etherpad 23:56:30 * Rockyg questions sarob's 16:00=11:00 23:57:00 Our cross-project session is from 3:40 - 4:40; Just after our work group meeting that goes from 2:00 - 3:30. Is that what you're looking for? 23:57:05 barrett mentioned we had conflict with user committee 11am 23:57:08 I think Shamail and I said we'd make that uc meeting 23:57:10 We do need to become focused so a charter would help us do that. Although I like objectives and deliverables more 23:57:34 Sarob: I have conflict with the User Committee, not the group 23:57:44 I'll make the one on Tuesday at 3P PT 23:57:49 Rocky +1 23:57:58 barrett: okay, im confused but its been a long time 23:58:00 day 23:58:30 On the Charter question, I do think it's important to have it. 23:58:31 are we having a cleanup project session 21may 16:00? 23:58:33 Are we talking about the UC on Thursday or Tuesdayv 23:58:39 sarob: Yes 23:58:47 sarob: yes 23:58:47 barrett: whew 23:59:02 okay, back to the other thing 23:59:17 We are definitely having it... I'm finding out when we have meeting rooms until though 23:59:27 we can comment on etherpad post mtg, pre design session 23:59:33 I'll let you know asap if the room falls through (unlikely) 23:59:40 shamail: thx 23:59:49 and we are done 23:59:57 last word? 00:00:06 Word. 00:00:10 #endmeeting