19:01:00 <barrett1> #startmeeting Product Working Group 19:01:00 <Shamail> Dallas in August... bring t-shirts. 19:01:00 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Jul 6 19:01:00 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is barrett1. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:01:02 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 19:01:04 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'product_working_group' 19:01:17 <janonymous> o/ 19:01:29 <barrett1> Let's start will roll call, for the record. 19:01:34 <geoffarnold> o\ 19:01:34 <Shamail> Hi 19:01:37 <janonymous> o/ 19:01:44 <jimhaselmaier> Hello 19:01:51 <cloudrancher> Hi 19:01:54 <DericHorn-HP> Hi 19:02:22 <Rockyg> o/ 19:02:31 <barrett1> 1st agenda item is Tokyo Session Proposals 19:02:32 <MeganR> o/ 19:02:38 <barrett1> #topic Tokyo Session Proposals 19:02:52 <barrett1> #link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fwAKjAFEw3jVW8NcDxkfzh0TMmMcftyoQEx5bjFJTxc/edit#gid=0 19:03:02 <barrett1> You can find the google doc at the link. 19:03:32 <Shamail> I have a few questions... 19:03:44 <barrett1> Go for it 19:03:57 <Shamail> 1) Are the two that I proposed ones that the team wants to move forward with? Any questions on the concepts? 19:04:08 <Shamail> 2) Anyone else want to volunteer to co-present/create material 19:04:39 <Shamail> 3) Do we want to at least add one more session that we can use to show PTL support? A follow-up to state of PM if you will. 19:04:50 <Shamail> End of my list :) 19:05:17 <geoffarnold> Interesting q. I was thinking of two possible additions (1) at the PTL interface, (2) at the user WG interface 19:05:19 <jimhaselmaier> Re Shamail's #2: I'd be more than willing to be a co-presenter on the "Contributing as an OpenStack User" topic. 19:05:41 <Shamail> geoffarnold: I was hoping session #2 would cover user WG interface 19:05:49 <barrett1> Shamail: I added a working session for this team, meant to be similar to Thursday's meeting in Vancover. 19:06:00 <Shamail> along with which work groups exists, user story template, repo submission instructions etc 19:06:12 <Shamail> Thanks barrett1! 19:06:30 <Shamail> Thanks jimhaselmaier 19:06:47 <Shamail> Anyone willing to co-present roadmap? Should I reach out on the mailing list instead? 19:06:49 <geoffarnold> OK, as long as there's a rep from a user group to talk about their experience of the interface 19:06:59 <barrett1> Shamail - I'll join you for What's Next on the Roadmap session and content prep 19:07:05 <geoffarnold> Of course with Win The Enterprise we have that covered 19:07:08 <Rockyg> Roadmap title needs to be xexxed up 19:07:16 <Shamail> geoffarnold: user WG = user committee right? I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing 19:07:22 <Rockyg> ^xexxed^sexxed 19:07:36 <Shamail> Agreed Rockyg, definitely need to re-work both title and abstract 19:07:40 <mscohen> sorry, late to the party. i’m happy to help with the roadmap presentation as well 19:07:41 <geoffarnold> yes - well, user committee and/or vertical 19:07:49 <Shamail> thanks geoffarnold 19:07:53 <Shamail> welcome mscohen and thanks. 19:08:04 <barrett1> Shamail: I'm not following the PTL thread...? 19:08:32 <MeganR> Shamail: I am happy to help with the presentation, not certain if I'll be available to help with the presenting part. 19:08:32 <Shamail> We had spoken about doing a session where we would ask PTL(s) to get on stage with Product WG 19:08:48 <Shamail> to discuss how this WG/process is meaningful/helpful to their design cycles 19:08:51 <Rockyg> Me too. I can present 19:09:01 <Shamail> MeganR: which one? #2? 19:09:20 <MeganR> sorry - yes, #2 19:09:25 <Shamail> MeganR: Thanks 19:09:29 <geoffarnold> Right. People understand how PTLs operate (well.....), so they need to understand how PTLs consume our work 19:09:50 <barrett1> Shamail - Gotcha, it's the process part of things where we want to include PTLs and User Committee folks (though from the email thread, I'm not sure this makes sense) 19:10:20 <Rockyg> How we glue the two together 19:10:31 <barrett1> rockyg: gotcha 19:10:33 <Shamail> Ah, process part we can discuss next week (when workflow is further along) 19:10:46 <Shamail> So we don't need a session anymore to have P-WG and PTLs on-stage together? 19:11:10 <geoffarnold> Not all together 19:11:10 <Shamail> The high-level jist will be covered in #2 anyway 19:11:21 <barrett1> Shamail: I think we do want to have a session that talks about how User Stories are created, posted, reviewed and feed into Design Summits 19:11:49 <Shamail> Yes, that is #2 19:12:16 <barrett1> Shamail: Understand..think that's where we want the PTLs, User Committee participation 19:12:50 <Shamail> To expand on #2: It will provide an overview of UC, the WGs that exist currently (to let users know others share their interest and hopefully spark additional members), overview of user story template, our repo (how to contribute), and how the process works to get their user stories to the devs 19:13:16 <Shamail> Got it... I'll make sure to reach out to UC and a few PTLs so they can be there and provide a quote or two. 19:13:27 <jimhaselmaier> I hope we can get at least one PTL to participate in that session. 19:13:35 <jimhaselmaier> It will be so much more powerful if we do. 19:13:52 <Shamail> I think johnthetubaguy has already expressed support/interest... I will follow-up with him. 19:14:10 <barrett1> Shamail: +1 19:14:24 <barrett1> Anything else on Tokyo Sessions? 19:14:39 <Shamail> Is there one that we mentioned but didnt document? 19:15:00 <Shamail> Can everyone take a quick look at the spreadsheet and see we got everything before we move on please? We will have to work on submission this week. 19:15:12 <Rockyg> We'll think about it. We still have time but need to start on these 19:15:39 <Shamail> Thanks barrett1, I think we are done with this topic. 19:16:01 <barrett1> Shamail: I'll write up the submission for #1, if you want... Are you going to write-up #2? 19:16:31 <Shamail> Sure. Sounds like a plan barrett1 19:16:59 <barrett1> #action: Carol to draft submission for Session #1 19:17:11 <mscohen> barrett1. happy to help on #1 if you’d like (or i can just review) 19:17:12 <barrett1> #action Shamail to draft submission for session #2 19:17:23 <barrett1> mscohen: Great! 19:17:24 <Rockyg> I can help on 3 19:17:37 <barrett1> RockyG: Thanks 19:18:18 <barrett1> #topic User Story Repo Update 19:18:31 <barrett1> Rocky - Can you give folks an update on this? 19:18:37 <barrett1> Or Sean 19:18:52 <Rockyg> So, the reviews have been filed, but I need to update the one for infra (repository creation). 19:19:32 <Rockyg> and, I want to put forth this idea: it seems it would be easier for us to be a "project" as the Product working Group because the repositories are all tied to projects 19:19:55 <Rockyg> So, if that's ok, I'll modify the review commit message to TC for that 19:20:48 <Shamail> Rockyg: I read the comments by ttx 19:21:02 <Rockyg> Did I mention I hate git? Gotta amend the infra files, but git merges backward from what I consider intuitive, so my local repository is all messed up. I'll get Doug Hellmann to help straighten it out. 19:21:12 <Shamail> It seems that he was saying if we want to be under TC, we should consider applying as a project OR we can add the repo to the existing user committee file. 19:21:19 <Rockyg> Shamail: Oh, haven't seen theirs yet 19:21:41 <Rockyg> Kewl. So, how do we want to go? 19:21:49 <Shamail> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187767/1/reference/user-committee-repos.yaml 19:21:54 <barrett1> Shamail: Thanks 19:22:03 <Shamail> The question I have is can we have openstack repos under UC? 19:22:20 <Shamail> If so then my vote would be going that route (since we are already aligning with UC) 19:22:31 <Shamail> If not then we might want to consider a project proposal.... 19:22:52 <Shamail> I think the repo should be under "openstack" and not "stackforge" to help it be perceived as more official. 19:23:11 <barrett1> I've been assuming that the Operators Tag info would be posted under the User Committee... 19:23:11 <sgordon> i assume you can 19:23:16 <sgordon> otherwise they wouldnt be in governance 19:23:22 <Rockyg> Oh, we've appliled under openstack, with it to reside at openstack/openstack-user-stories 19:23:23 <barrett1> Agree with openstack instead of stackforge 19:23:24 <sgordon> the stackforge repos are handled separately atm 19:23:33 <Shamail> sgordon: true 19:23:34 <Rockyg> stackforge is going away 19:23:36 <sgordon> (that is why you wont find telco in that governance repo) 19:23:51 <Shamail> thanks sgordon 19:23:59 <Shamail> didn't know that Rockyg 19:24:01 <sgordon> if by going away 19:24:02 <barrett1> sgordon: What repo does the telco wg use? 19:24:06 <Shamail> stackforge 19:24:09 <sgordon> you mean most things will become openstack namespaced 19:24:10 <sgordon> then yes 19:24:15 <Shamail> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/telcowg-usecases/tree/template.rst 19:24:15 <Rockyg> infra is trying to get rid of it and have a review up. 19:24:23 <sgordon> going away is a bit incendiary ;) 19:24:34 <geoffarnold> The big tent is getting VERY big 19:24:49 <Rockyg> They want everyone interested to just migrate to OpenStack. and if not, to find another host. 19:24:51 <Shamail> So Rockyg, if we can talk to UC and get an openstack repo added for user-stories under their file then that's ideal 19:24:56 <sgordon> barrett1, per the link - on stackforge 19:25:02 <Shamail> if not then we might have to make a case for a separate file/project 19:25:14 <geoffarnold> It's not a bad way to weed out the moribund projects, though 19:25:30 <Rockyg> I'll contact a few UC folks and ask them to be at the TC meeting tomorrow. 19:25:36 <Shamail> Rockyg: You're on the agenda tomorrow for the TC meeting to discuss this 19:25:40 <Rockyg> Then we can get it done tomorrow. 19:25:46 <Shamail> Awesome, thanks Rockyg 19:25:52 <Rockyg> firgured I would be;-) 19:26:06 <barrett1> Thanks Rockyg 19:26:13 <Rockyg> NP 19:27:15 <barrett1> One Q: do we want to wait for the repo to be created to post, review & comment on User Stories? Or do we want to use a temp location to get going on this part of things? 19:27:57 <MeganR> will there be any difference between a temp location and the repo? 19:28:04 <MeganR> don't want to create additional work 19:28:04 <Rockyg> If we use a temp location, then we'd have to migrate. If you're ok with moving the files without the histories, that would be easy. 19:28:27 <Rockyg> Oh, and if we become a project, or go under UC, we still need a Lanuchpad site. 19:28:38 <geoffarnold> Need that either way 19:28:39 <sgordon> barrett1, depends what your proposal for a temp location is 19:28:46 <barrett1> Rockyg: I think that's the basic challenge, tracking comments aside from the gerrit system 19:28:48 <Rockyg> I can get that started as soon as the TC vote. It will inform us where to build the LP site 19:28:48 <Shamail> barrett1: I think that is the main question: do we want history? 19:28:52 <sgordon> barrett1, we found with the telco stuff most other solutions become unweildy 19:29:00 <sgordon> as you need version control and comment tracking 19:29:02 <barrett1> sgordon: google docs directory - but open to other options 19:29:06 <Arkady_Kanevsky> do we have a pointer to a template for usecases? to review and vote on the format? 19:29:09 <Shamail> sgordon: +1 19:29:10 <Rockyg> sgordon: good info 19:29:18 <Shamail> That is one of the topics later today Arkady_Kanevsky 19:29:24 <sgordon> that is what made us explore gerrit 19:29:26 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I have a simple usecase I got from Vancouver I would like to use for test drive. 19:29:29 <sgordon> as we were quickly going insane 19:29:31 <Arkady_Kanevsky> cool 19:30:00 <barrett1> Ok, sounds like waiting for the repo is the way to go 19:30:26 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +1 on gerrit 19:30:33 <barrett1> I'm just watching time go by... our original plan was to complete the prioritization by July 8... 19:31:21 <geoffarnold> To get people to move from stackforge there will have to be tools that preserve history. So we can go for stackforge now and wait for the tools..... 19:31:21 <geoffarnold> I'm not moving my project until the tools exist 19:32:01 <sgordon> geoffarnold, indeed - it will be if thousands of voices cried out at once and were suddenly silenced... ;p 19:32:02 <Shamail> that's a good idea geoffarnold 19:32:25 <geoffarnold> Waiting for a controversial decision with no natural deadline seems risky 19:32:35 <Shamail> Start w/ StackForge and move to OpenStack once the new repo is available. We can keep the old one for history until migration tools exist. 19:32:39 <barrett1> geoffarnold: Has someone committed to creating the tools? 19:32:57 <Shamail> essentially, our stackforge will become archive once openstack repo is up. 19:33:03 <geoffarnold> Not yet. But then they haven't committed to the mandatory move yet, AFAIK 19:33:08 <Rockyg> geoffarnold: so, the repo can be up within a day of the TC vote if there is no repository to move from Stackforge. If a move is required, they have to schedule it for a weekend. 19:33:08 <sgordon> indeed 19:33:15 <sgordon> i cant actually find the patch proposal 19:33:25 <sgordon> and there are in fact new project requests in the review queue still 19:34:00 <barrett1> Rockyg: the TC vote is for a stackforge repo? 19:34:06 <Arkady_Kanevsky> can you post a pointer to stackforge repos? 19:34:10 <geoffarnold> https://github.com/stackforge 19:34:18 <geoffarnold> There are LOTS of them 19:34:20 <Rockyg> No TC needed for stackforge. TC vote tomorrow for OpenStack 19:34:32 <geoffarnold> Agreed 19:34:50 <sgordon> here is the proposal for stackforge going away https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192016/ 19:34:57 <Shamail> How about we wait until Wednesday (after TC meeting)? 19:34:59 <sgordon> not exactly unanimous just yet ;p 19:35:06 <barrett1> Rockyg: Thanks. How about you send out an update on the ML after the TC meeting and give folks a pointer to where they can post? 19:35:08 <Shamail> If there is no progress on actual repo then we proceed with stackforge for now 19:35:39 <geoffarnold> Hmmm Even more -1's than the last time I looked 19:35:44 <Arkady_Kanevsky> no product repo there 19:35:47 <Rockyg> barrett1: will do. And if it's under the UC, it will be even easier to get the rest done. 19:35:56 <barrett1> #action Rockgy to send out an update on Repo after TC meeting on the 7th 19:36:01 <Arkady_Kanevsky> See telcowg 19:36:03 <barrett1> Thanks Rockyg 19:36:39 <barrett1> Anything else on this topic? 19:37:29 <barrett1> Ok moving along 19:37:46 <barrett1> #topic Taxonomy & User Story Template 19:37:56 <barrett1> Shamail - pls take it away! 19:37:58 <Shamail> Thanks! 19:38:07 <Shamail> Let's discuss the user story template first... I posted some ideas to the ML and got great feedback from sgordon. 19:38:14 <Shamail> I didn't realize that telco had an updated template and it looks like the new template aligns better to the sections that we would want to use as well. 19:38:29 <sgordon> i believe the revision was after the ops midcycle 19:38:29 <Shamail> My take-away from the discussion on the ML is that product WG is aiming to create a normalized template for capturing user stories but certain WG (e.g. telco) might have additional details that are needed due to the complexity of the space/apps they are dealing with. In this sense, sgordon raised the question of whether something would be getting lost if telco-wg submits user stories to product-wg. 19:38:41 <Shamail> It looks good :) 19:38:47 <Shamail> The main dilemma is how do we normalize (because not all WGs will have the same amount of detail as a telco-wg user story) while accommodating groups that have additional information. 19:38:58 <Shamail> Updated Proposal: Can we use the new telco-wg template and make sections that might constitute too much detail as optional. This will allow teams to add a minimum amount while other teams can add more details (and not have them get lost as we move the user story forward). Can we still add meta-data fields as mentioned in ML to track WGs supporting the user story and rename some items (e.g. rename examples 19:38:58 <Shamail> to scenarios)? If this sounds reasonable, I can craft another ML reply with more details about this updated proposal. 19:39:01 <sgordon> indeed, that is what i am getting at 19:39:06 <sgordon> telco happens to have a template 19:39:15 <sgordon> product wg will have a template which will likely be loosely aligned 19:39:20 <Shamail> The template fits well sgordon, does the updated proposal sound like a good compromise? 19:39:25 <sgordon> but we will invariably have some differences 19:39:47 <sgordon> yes, i also took a note that i need to make it clearer they are optional in the telco template 19:39:52 <Shamail> Essentially, we leverage the same template as you (I will be asking for certain sections to be renamed) but then make most of the more detailed sections optional 19:39:59 <sgordon> so thats all good 19:40:07 <sgordon> next question is if we have other WGs engaged to do same 19:40:08 <Arkady_Kanevsky> we need a section on known project impacted/requierd for the usecase 19:40:22 <barrett1> Shamail: I like the updated proposal. Having a common format would make it easier for all of us. 19:40:33 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +1 on common format 19:40:43 <geoffarnold> +1 19:40:52 <Rockyg> +1 19:40:53 <Shamail> That will be a part of the "gaps" sections but maybe its a separate section altogether 19:41:04 <geoffarnold> Link? 19:41:06 <Shamail> We basically leave gaps as is and add "Projects Impacted" 19:41:11 <Shamail> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/telcowg-usecases/tree/template.rst 19:41:12 <Arkady_Kanevsky> strongly recommend that we us standard openstrack process to submit format proposal and review/vote on it 19:41:20 <barrett1> sgordon: do you know if other wgs are drafting user stories? 19:41:20 <Shamail> Arkady_Kanevsky: +1 thats the plan 19:41:27 <Rockyg> Shamail: so the telco case is the reason I originally thought we needed WG subdirs 19:41:27 <Arkady_Kanevsky> But we need one for our group not telco one. 19:41:40 <sgordon> barrett1, negative 19:41:49 <Arkady_Kanevsky> We do not them or us to be confused what we are rvewing and asking to change. We are no asking to change teloc format 19:41:54 <Rockyg> But, if we link to the WG repos, then we bring *together* the parts that cross WGs 19:42:06 <jimhaselmaier> I'm a little concerned about Product WG specifying projects impacted. The projects, in some cases, may know better what is impacted. 19:42:09 <Shamail> Rockyg: If we can get everyone on the same format then we can get other teams to support the same user story. The reason I was against seperate dirs is because then if telco and enterprise share a user story 19:42:25 <Shamail> they will be forced to submit two different files for the same story (because they will land in diff. dirs) 19:42:43 <geoffarnold> +1 Shamail 19:42:44 <Shamail> jimhaselmaier: this is high-level... e.g. nova, cinder, glance, etc. 19:42:46 <Arkady_Kanevsky> We are not speciyfing. We arsk asking submitter ot use case to list project he/she knows about that are/willbe impcated by the use case 19:42:55 <jimhaselmaier> I don't have a problem having impacted projects in our Use Case template, but determining which projects are impacted needs some project assessment I would think. 19:42:59 <Rockyg> Right. Which is addressed by just linking to the WGs' repos and creating a "merged" story 19:43:03 <Shamail> It is so the teams know which projects they need to contact INITIALLY. The project team could redirect us after hearing the user story. 19:43:17 <geoffarnold> The user stories will often be cross-project, though - can't align with existing OpenStack projects 19:43:40 <jimhaselmaier> @Shamail: Got it. 19:43:56 <Shamail> Rockyg: If they are using the same format then what value will dirs provide? It just increases the number of steps to create a merged user story. 19:43:58 <geoffarnold> E.g. service federation touch identity, quotas, policy.... 19:44:07 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I think it will be to use to generate blueprint(s) for peoject based on use case once it is voted in 19:44:32 <Shamail> Arkady_Kanevsky: This brings up a good point about the workflow we have to discuss 19:44:36 <Rockyg> Shamail: i'm also saying no dirs. The already exist. The other WG's repos *are*those dirs 19:44:52 <Shamail> Rockyg: Ah, got it. 19:45:10 <Arkady_Kanevsky> geoffarnold: which repo in sourceforge you are using for productWG usecase stories or proposals? 19:45:15 <Shamail> Rockyg: So you're saying that each WG get a folder in the repo... they work against that folder as their active location... 19:45:25 <Shamail> Arkady_Kanevsky: doesn't exist yet 19:45:58 <Shamail> I will move the updated proposal through the ML again. Sounds good? 19:46:00 <geoffarnold> What shamail said - waiting to find out! 19:46:15 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Rockyg: I suggest we do not have directories in our repo for other WG. we just create links in use case to bluepritns/ specs in outher projects 19:46:18 <Shamail> We can discuss the repo structure and workflow impact as a part of the workflow discussion. 19:46:19 <barrett1> arkady_kanevsky: I'm using this directory to collect enterprise user stories right now: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxtM4AiszlEyfllFelZYR2RqNDFfWVRvWWtlb09laGxwR2ljc3UxVEl5VEpfMEhicnlxUFk&usp=sharing 19:46:39 <Rockyg> Shamail: Actually, no. Either they work in the general folder, as the Product_wg has set up, or if they have their own repo, they work there, and build a cross wg user story in the Product WG repo 19:46:42 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Barrett1 - thank you 19:47:09 <Shamail> Rockyg: I'll follow up with you on email to better understand. 19:47:35 <Shamail> Can you make a proposal that captures your thoughts and send it to the ML? 19:47:43 <Rockyg> Arkady_Kanevsky: What geoffarnold said: There will most likely be cross-project spec that will lead to project specs and/or bps 19:47:54 <Shamail> barrett1: Can you give me an action item to send updated template proposal? 19:48:14 <Shamail> So this is probably a good segue to taxonomy (as we are getting into cross project stuff) 19:48:18 <Arkady_Kanevsky> do we go top down starting from use cases or bottom up from spec/blueprints per project? 19:48:18 <barrett1> #action Shamail Create an updated proposal for Repo & User Stories and send out to ML 19:48:20 <Rockyg> Shamail: +1 on AI and talk 19:48:38 <Shamail> Please give Rockyg an AI too barrett1 :) 19:48:55 <barrett1> Shamail: Gladly.. 19:49:20 <barrett1> #action RockyG work with Shamail to send out an updated Repo plan that addresses cross WG and cross Project needs 19:49:22 <Shamail> Okay, moving on to taxonomy which might help with this cross-project discussion we were just having... 19:49:25 <geoffarnold> Arkady_Kanevsky strongly prefer top down 19:49:31 <Shamail> #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WXGImWTvjaT6BzAtbakKUazRr6hcZBtv90P7ke8qYrw/edit?usp=sharing 19:49:47 <Shamail> I have started creating the basis of a page that will eventually be on our wiki. 19:50:01 <Rockyg> geoffarnold: ++ top down 19:50:13 <Shamail> I have gotten as far as explaining what the terms/hierarchy looks like in agile 19:50:26 <Arkady_Kanevsky> me too in favor of top down starting from use case 19:50:30 <Shamail> I will be working on mapping those terms to our stuff next 19:51:14 <Shamail> If you scroll to the bottom of that document that I linked. It has a starting proposal for how the requirements might be categorized/collected and what each contains 19:51:30 <Shamail> At the very top, we will have a theme 19:51:52 <Shamail> the theme, for us, will be definitions that we and the foundation have agreed upon. 19:52:02 <Arkady_Kanevsky> do we need to classify use cases in https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxtM4AiszlEyfllFelZYR2RqNDFfWVRvWWtlb09laGxwR2ljc3UxVEl5VEpfMEhicnlxUFk&usp=sharing into themes? 19:52:55 <Shamail> Side note: The foundation is working to define themes too as they move to themes based releases. 19:53:10 <Shamail> They will want to work with us to make sure our themes and theirs are aligned. 19:53:24 <Shamail> Arkady_Kanevsky: Yes, but we need to define the themes first 19:53:27 <barrett1> Arkday_Kanevsky: Yes 19:53:34 <Shamail> So after themes is the part that has a ? for me 19:53:38 <Arkady_Kanevsky> theme will spend multiple releases. 19:53:42 <Shamail> We need to group user stories into epics... 19:53:57 <Arkady_Kanevsky> And with new tag process I am not usre what release is in this connotation. 19:53:58 <Shamail> Themes will probably be very long-lived... epics will span releases. 19:54:04 <Shamail> Arkady_Kanevsky: +1 19:54:13 <Shamail> So as far as epics are concerned, we can go two ways 19:54:37 <Shamail> 1) We can take an approach (as mentioned by johnthetubaguy) and build epics based on service user types 19:54:47 <Shamail> e.g.: 1 epic for cloud native 19:54:51 <Shamail> 1 epic for legacy 19:55:00 <Shamail> since the theme of "HA" would mean different things 19:55:07 <Shamail> OR 19:55:24 <Shamail> We can use epics to define attributes of themes (e.g. controller HA, data plane HA, etc.) 19:55:29 <barrett1> 5 min warning... 19:55:32 <Shamail> and then map user stories to attributes 19:55:34 <Shamail> thx barrett1 19:55:40 <Shamail> Which way makes more sense? 19:56:06 <barrett1> I like the Theme of HA with different epics beneath it... 19:56:13 <Rockyg> I suspect we'll pick one, then modify as we learn more.... 19:56:14 <Arkady_Kanevsky> both rae having issues. 19:56:23 <Rockyg> Arkady_Kanevsky: ++ 19:56:25 <Arkady_Kanevsky> rae -> are 19:56:27 <cloudrancher> Second makes more sense to me 19:56:27 <Shamail> the user stories are simple -> they map to our files in the repo based on the templates... Tasks in our sense would be blueprints (each task/blueprint will be in one project but a user story can have multiple tasks/blueprints spanning projects) 19:56:57 <geoffarnold> +1 shamail 19:56:59 <Shamail> Thanks, so we'll proceed with documenting the second one first 19:57:20 <geoffarnold> .... while remaining agile 19:57:24 <Shamail> finally, there is a notion of an acceptance test... which is broader than tempest but in our case its the best we can do. 19:57:35 <Rockyg> high level interrupt: Just want to put out there that we get much more done on the phone than on IRC. Just sayin' 19:57:40 <Arkady_Kanevsky> it may sound crazy but maybe tagging for epic is a better way... 19:57:42 <Shamail> We want to ensure there are tests that span the user story to reduce gaps in coverage from the beginning. 19:58:04 <barrett1> #action Shamail to document Theme/Epic/ User Story approach as starting point for M design summit pilot 19:58:05 <Arkady_Kanevsky> where do we put tests? Rally? 19:58:08 <Shamail> Arkady_Kanevsky: that might be the implementation. We would still have to define what those tags mean... that is what I was intending to capture. 19:58:13 <barrett1> RockyG: +1 19:58:23 <Shamail> Rockyg: +1 19:58:28 <Arkady_Kanevsky> it does not fit into Tempest CI since it span multiple projects 19:58:28 <Rockyg> Shamail: It might be worth having a session with QA in the design summit about user oriented tests 19:58:34 <Shamail> After I finish this document, we can schedule a call. 19:58:41 <Shamail> Rockyg: +1 19:58:41 <geoffarnold> +1 19:58:45 <Rockyg> Arkady_Kanevsky: scenario tests 19:58:46 <barrett1> Do we want to add a voice line for next week's meeting? 19:58:51 <Shamail> barrett1: +1 19:58:57 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +1 on voice 19:58:59 <Rockyg> please, please, please! 19:59:01 <Shamail> Can we extend the time too? 19:59:12 <Shamail> Next week, we will be at crunch time for multiple items 19:59:17 <Rockyg> The foundation has some sort of voice solution, too. 19:59:17 <barrett1> 90 mins? or 2 hrs? 19:59:26 <Shamail> starting to review user stories, taxonomy, user template, sessions, etc. 19:59:32 <Shamail> all will be at crit 19:59:39 <MeganR> I have a voice bridge we can use if needed 19:59:40 <Rockyg> ++ 20:00:06 <Shamail> What is the teams vote? I can do up to 2 hours. 20:00:07 <barrett1> OK - Let's go with 2 hrs, and if some folks have to drop they will. I'll update the wiki with phone info too 20:00:13 <Shamail> Thanks barrett1 20:00:15 <Rockyg> +1 20:00:15 <barrett1> We're out of time.... 20:00:20 <Arkady_Kanevsky> 2 hours is fine 20:00:28 <Shamail> Please give feedback on the document I just shared too :) 20:00:34 <barrett1> We'll use the ML to get ourselves set for a long working session for next week. 20:00:38 <barrett1> Thanks everyone! 20:00:39 <Shamail> Sorry for going over. 20:00:39 <geoffarnold> And before we go.... Mid-cycle: please update https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Sprints/Product_WGLibertySprint if you're participating 20:01:03 <barrett1> Thanks Geoffarnold 20:01:05 <barrett1> #endmeeting