21:00:47 #startmeeting product working group 21:00:48 Meeting started Mon Jan 18 21:00:47 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is shamail. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:00:49 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:00:52 The meeting name has been set to 'product_working_group' 21:00:59 Hi everyone 21:01:02 Roll call? 21:01:09 Kau 21:01:17 wow - can't type Jay 21:01:21 :) 21:01:26 Hugh o/ 21:01:33 * MarkBaker here 21:01:36 o/ 21:01:37 o/ 21:01:52 Hi cloudrancher, hughhalf, MarkBaker, MeganR, and rockyg 21:01:58 o/ 21:02:04 Hi thingee 21:02:05 o/ 21:02:15 hi kencjohn_ 21:02:18 pretty good turn out! 21:02:37 o/ 21:02:52 Before we get started, MarkBaker... Can you please do a brief introduction since you are new to the team? 21:03:03 hi sgordon 21:03:18 o/ 21:03:22 welcome back 21:03:30 shamail thanks :) 21:03:43 ping MarkBaker 21:04:00 Today's agenda... 21:04:03 shamail, of course: I am OpenStack Product manager at Canonical where I've been for 5 years. Previously Red Hat and MySQL 21:04:21 Thanks MarkBaker! 21:04:26 Welcome to the team. 21:04:41 Here is the agenda for today: 21:04:43 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/product-team 21:04:54 #topic User Story Status Review 21:05:11 Let's start with user story status updates... anyone want to begin? 21:05:16 I'll start 21:05:21 thanks. 21:05:41 For rolling upgrades I was slow to submit a new patch based on initial comments 21:05:51 but patch set 6 is up that I think clears up most of the comments 21:05:58 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/255633/ 21:06:09 Most of them came from arkady, who I don't see here. 21:06:19 But he had great feedback on incorporating both updates and upgrades into the story 21:06:28 so you will see that throughout, not just in the gaps analysis 21:06:41 Next step is incorporating current state into the tracker 21:06:42 ++ 21:06:44 which I thnk is still pending review 21:06:48 Arkady is unable to join today but I am sure he will see the change. 21:07:12 Thanks kencjohnston! I'll review the new user story in the next couple of days too. 21:07:20 thanks shamail 21:07:27 any questions? 21:07:35 comments, concerns, highfives? 21:07:44 * shamail gives kencjohnston a high five 21:07:58 * hughhalf throws a streamer 21:08:12 Who's next? sgordon, cloudrancher? 21:08:14 thanks shamail hughhalf I'm just going to take the rest of the year off 21:08:18 lol 21:08:26 * rockyg pops a bottle of champaigne 21:08:29 seems legit kencjohnston 21:09:03 sgordon, can you please provide an update on CIM? 21:09:43 cloudrancher, are you here? 21:09:49 yes I am 21:10:02 Okay, let's move on to onboarding legacy infra 21:10:06 Any updates? 21:10:14 submitted patch to user story to incorporate toleration of changes by non openstack management 21:10:24 primarily driven by VMware 21:10:24 no change atm, still clawing my way back to the top of the pile 21:10:36 i have a separate submission i am working up to put in draft state 21:10:47 Thanks sgordon 21:11:12 cloudrancher, thanks... I haven't had a chance to review the user story submission yet. I'll put that on my list as well 21:11:13 other than the patch to the user story work is proceeding on blueprints. 21:11:34 that's it for now 21:11:51 cloudrancher and all. I had a question about the intent of our review process. 21:11:55 Do you have a team identified that is helping with that piece? Has gaps analysis been completed already? 21:12:05 Perhaps an agenda topic for another day. 21:12:17 sounds fair 21:12:26 What's the question kencjohnston? That way we can either take it up or add as an agenda item? 21:12:50 While reviewing should we debate the usefulness/priority/value of the user story? 21:13:16 My take is that it depends on the stage of the user story 21:13:24 I don't think we should during submission to "draft" 21:13:32 OK, fair. 21:13:37 but anything above that stage should include discussion on the usefulness 21:13:56 ++ 21:14:06 got it shamail thanks 21:14:33 Thanks, good question though... Maybe we should create a FAQ and add it (along with other questions that I am sure will come up) 21:14:49 sure, I can take an action item to start that FAQ 21:14:52 Thanks for the update cloudrancher!! 21:14:57 np 21:14:58 thanks kencjohnston 21:15:14 #action kencjohnston will create FAQ on wiki for us to start building a knowledge base. 21:15:14 and just so I'm not speaking obliquely cloudrancher I'm sure you saw my review comments on your resent patch. 21:15:23 trying to find the link now 21:15:24 yes 21:15:29 I understand 21:15:53 ok, cool 21:15:54 the whole synchronization issue is peculiar to onboarding legacy 21:15:58 Alright, we'll skip onboarding legacy apps 21:16:06 Leong is off today! 21:16:38 For lifecycle management, we still don't have a team but I know there is some interest in IBM 21:16:42 ping nateziemann, are you here? 21:17:15 He might be afk, but i'll ask him later if we can identify people to help with that one. 21:17:25 Thanks for the updates everyone! 21:17:40 #topic Review of action items assigned at previous meeting 21:17:47 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/product_working_group/2016/product_working_group.2016-01-11-21.00.html 21:18:09 There were a few action items from the last meeting and I believe most are closed... 21:18:27 A new etherpad has been created (by rockyg) to capture potential session ideas for Austin 21:18:45 we will go through that during a later section in the agenda 21:19:04 I have not created the "CPL updates" calendar yet 21:19:14 I will create one this week and send to our ML 21:19:34 Leong did create a patch to make user stories be folders inside the "proposed" folder. 21:19:58 kencjohnston, the patch that you linked earlier... that one uses the new format... does it override the patch submitted by Leong? 21:20:16 We currently have 2-3 patches open for rolling upgrades and I think only one needs to move forward while the others can be abandoned 21:20:17 shamail yes, he abandoned that patch due to dependency on my ongoing review 21:20:26 Perfect! thanks. 21:20:52 Moving to the next topic! 21:21:05 #topic Review non-merged patches 21:21:10 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/openstack-user-stories 21:21:51 The link directs you to all the open patches for openstack-user-stories... I would kindly ask that people save this link and try to review the patches once every week or two (at a minimum) 21:22:07 Rolling upgrades is ongoing 21:22:10 Tracker is ongoing 21:22:14 It would be great to get additional feedback on the user stories (and templates) via gerrit 21:22:29 I have updated tracker to include your suggestions kencjohnston 21:22:35 Please revisit it when you have time 21:22:38 cloudrancher I think https://review.openstack.org/268207 was in error 21:22:53 and was supposed to be a new patch on https://review.openstack.org/266068 21:23:06 agreed 21:23:27 The ones with -1 on workflow should be abandoned 21:23:31 I think they have been superceded 21:23:54 Does everyone agree? 21:24:00 shamail +1 21:24:13 +1 21:24:26 +1 21:24:42 kencjohnston or I will abandon them by the end of the week... Please let us know via email if you think that action is incorrect. 21:24:50 (in case people who want to raise objection aren't here today) 21:25:20 ok, yeah you can assign that action to me shamail 21:25:21 I think tracker and rolling upgrades both would benefit from additional reviews at this point. 21:25:35 Rolling upgrades needs to be +2'd so that we can continue moving forward 21:25:52 is rockyg our only hope? 21:25:53 #actionitem kencjohnston will abandon changes that have -1 workflow by the end of the week (please email if you object) 21:26:03 #action kencjohnston will abandon changes that have -1 workflow by the end of the week (please email if you objec) 21:26:06 I'll review it....;-) 21:26:08 not sure where I got the item from :P 21:26:33 kencjohnston, I can +2 it as well but I was hoping other team members would +1 it 21:26:41 actionitem = corporate speak 21:26:43 action = ninja speak 21:26:48 This goes back to your earlier question... rolling upgrades is at a poin where the usefulness, approach, etc should be reviewed 21:26:52 so the more eyes the better. 21:26:58 shamail agreed 21:27:45 I personally think rolling upgrades should a topic at the ops summit, so we can gather more reviews/input 21:27:51 dumb question 21:27:58 #action Please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/255633/ and add your feedback on usefulness, approach, additional gaps, etc. 21:27:58 why do people not like items being -1 workflow? 21:28:24 sgordon, do you mean why we don't leave them in that state or why were they -1'd to begin with? 21:28:44 well i have an item that is -1 workflow, i set it as that because it is - as that flag states 21:28:49 Work In Progress 21:28:58 Ah, got it. 21:29:06 the point of it is to be able to upload the WIP to gerrit without risk that it gets merged ahead of time 21:29:36 otherwise you are back to sharing WIP via etherpad etc 21:29:45 got it sgordon - I will refrain from abandoning it 21:29:51 I thought that one was -1 because it had been replaced either through inclusion in another user story or as a new submission that was accepted 21:29:56 good point sgordon 21:30:03 I had used -1 workflow on the other commit in question because I felt like it was in error. Perhaps a misuse of the -1 workflow. 21:30:04 no 21:30:04 You were using -1 workflow the proper way 21:30:10 if it's superseded then you use abandon 21:30:13 which is different :) 21:30:27 nateziemann, ++ on a session on rolling upgrades at the ops summit... 21:30:34 sgordon, exactly.. but we had people not doing that so we started using -1 to identify those items so the cores could abandon them in the future 21:30:41 Your method is the right method 21:30:47 We will stop abusing -1 workflow :) 21:30:50 and use it properly 21:31:24 Please feel free to add -1 on the 253228 again, we won't abandon it. 21:31:54 The other one (268207) does need to be abandoned (not necessarily because it has a -1 workflow but because it has superceded) 21:32:10 Thanks for bringing it up sgordon 21:32:30 yes. KencJohnson helped me out there 21:32:44 Thanks for the clarification on the -1 reason kencjohnston 21:32:56 shamail np 21:33:04 nateziemann, I think that is a good suggestion.. we can revisit in an upcoming topic on the agenda. 21:33:21 Any other items on this topic before we move on? 21:33:38 #topic Austin Talk Proposals 21:33:42 it appears, at least in my company getting strong operations participation is easier at events then day-to-day. 21:33:44 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/austin_summit_product_wg 21:34:13 We started brainstorming on sessions that could be proposed by product working group members at the upcoming summit 21:34:33 The etherpad contains all of the ideas so far... 21:34:47 Item #1 is more of a FYI 21:34:55 since it is being submitted by the OpenStack UX team 21:35:07 Who submitted items 2,3, and 4? 21:35:25 (in the etherpad) 21:35:35 nateziemann, ++ It's easier to schedule one-offs for ops folks then insert stuff into their firefighting/interrupt-driven daily work mode 21:35:54 Okay, I guess the people might not be here... 21:36:04 I'm feeling like an idiot, what is BOF? 21:36:09 BOF 21:36:11 Birds of a Feather 21:36:19 tweet tweet 21:36:19 Birds of Feather 21:36:25 It is a session that is meant to bring together people of similar interests 21:36:34 ahh, gotcha 21:36:34 to discuss topics (not a presentation, but more brainstormy) 21:36:43 * hughhalf nods 21:36:44 not a working session either though 21:36:52 @kencjohnston: thank you for asking 21:37:01 Yeah guess it tends to be more informal as shamail points out 21:37:25 we might consider a talk on rolling upgrades if we get the info we need to move forward on that... 21:37:32 It basically is meant to be a spark... and if it takes, then usually a working session is the next step 21:37:59 True rockyg 21:38:01 So are we brainstorming ideas for Product WG related sessions at the broader summit? 21:38:06 that could be a part of "user story update" 21:38:10 Or ideas for our PWG meetings? 21:38:18 kencjohnston, yes for the broader summit 21:38:26 these would be talks that we would propose for various tracks 21:38:29 got it, ok 21:38:49 The agenda for our own meeting is not related to this... 21:39:07 Do the topics make sense? 21:39:25 If so, any volunteers to write the abstract and act as a lead for building the team/content? 21:39:43 They do, just typing aload, I'd like a discussion around the real or perceived complexity problem for people investigating OpenStack. 21:39:48 I have added the roadmap session as item #5 21:40:32 kencjohnston, can you expand on that? Is this about believing its "hard" without even trying it or the other way around (it's harder than it looks) 21:40:36 kencjohnston, +1 on complexity problem - happy to help draft 21:41:08 shamail I added some notes in the etherpad, but that potential users often shy away for a variety of reasons that aren't software/feature focused 21:41:19 kencjohnston, can you add yourself as the lead for item #6? 21:41:22 ++ It's harder than most realize. Especially devs, since they usually use devstack 21:41:24 like - I have to hire a team of openstack developers. I don't udnerstand the projects or governance. 21:41:41 MarkBaker also volunteered to help! It looks like 50%+ of your team is already established now. :-) 21:41:42 I have to have a 24 hour ops team. 21:41:52 perfect : thanks MarkBaker 21:41:55 thanks kencjohnston, that makes complete sense. 21:41:59 I'll help... 21:42:01 good topic 21:42:10 Any takes for items #2, 3, or 4? 21:42:13 takers* 21:42:29 If not, i'll send out an email on the mailing list to see if we can identify who added them.... 21:43:09 it would be good to have a success story, and talk about navigating the complexity. vs just discussing the 10 ways Openstack is indeed complex. 21:43:12 I think we can get Carol's help/lead on the state of... 21:43:26 nateziemann agreed, I have some ideas there :) 21:43:27 Maybe I can help on endusers? 21:43:40 #action shamail will send an email to mailing list to identify sponsors for Austin talk proposals. 21:43:50 shamail, I am +1 on topic 4, let me know when you find out who proposed it 21:44:00 MarkBaker, will do 21:44:12 great suggestion rockyg, especially since she started the dialog with Doug. 21:45:03 On a related note, I will be sending an email to ask for volunteers again for the roadmap sub-team 21:45:05 I'm definitely +1 on helping more substantially w/ the roadmap session this go aroudn. 21:45:20 We will probably have to do a lot of work around March. :) 21:45:30 Thanks nateziemann 21:45:44 Are we done with this topic? 21:45:55 Once we had a roadmap, it would be great to start creating specs for projects, or cross-project specs to start getting attention on PTLs 21:46:13 Agreed thingee, this is something we need to discuss at our upcoming mid-cycle 21:46:17 and start talking amongst the product working group to know who can provide resources 21:46:28 the "roadmap" as it stands today is only a read-out of the plans from the various project teams 21:46:37 I'd like to see the most developed user stories get some airtime in the roadmap for "N" this time. 21:46:38 it doesn't include information on our user stories themselves 21:46:58 ok, well anything *we* want to drive from user survey should be on the roadmap, no? 21:47:05 thingee: +1 21:47:28 Hopefully we can make the roadmap a read-out + some future topics of interest 21:47:30 some of that stuff projects aren't going to be aware of which goes back to http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-user-stories/workflow/workflow.html 21:47:47 #link http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-user-stories/workflow/workflow.html 21:47:57 * thingee has an item for open discussion relating 21:48:06 Yeah. Rolling upgrades hopefully will make the roadmap 21:48:40 That's great... thingee, please share details about the open discussion once its scheduled. I'm certain some of us would love to participate 21:49:18 I meant I have an item for open discussion in this meeting 21:49:31 Ah, gotcha 21:49:37 let's get there then! :) 21:49:40 #topic Ops Summit Topic Proposals from PWG 21:49:47 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/MAN-ops-meetup 21:50:18 I put this item on the agenda in case we want to add potential topics to the upcoming ops-summit 21:50:22 ok so the workflow document talks about cross-project spec liaisons, but that team doesn't exist yet. If you have been part of the cross-project meetings, you would know that group is being defined 21:50:23 I know Carol has already submitted some topics 21:50:24 http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/cross-project.html 21:51:11 On the MAN-ops-meetup, I added an item for OSIC Bug Collection, working with Tom Fifeld to get that officially on the agenda. 21:51:16 Please add items that you think might be beneficial (e.g. rolling upgrades, etc.) we can revisit next week... 21:51:19 awesome kencjohnston 21:51:27 so this project team guide doc defines the liaisons role. These are people once signed up, should be people the product working group works with for various projects 21:51:32 I'm moving on to opens for now, this topic was more to start the brainstorming 21:51:36 #topic Opens 21:51:36 in cross-project related specs 21:52:04 oh whoops 21:52:07 anyways there ya go 21:52:08 thingee, that makes sense 21:52:22 The product WG itself has CPLs assigned to various projects too 21:52:37 So it will most likely be the CPL from the Product WG working with the CPL from the project 21:52:52 While the user story owners are working with all the various CPLs from the Product WG 21:53:04 This lets us build a scalable model to discuss/implement user stories 21:53:18 shamail I would still want the CPL from the PWG to be sitting with the project team in regular meetings 21:53:22 yes, but these people are technical in their specific project. You'll need them to make sense of whether something fits with their project based on user survey and to work with there team on putting something in our roadmap on their prioritiy list 21:53:25 not just interfacing one to one with a project CPL 21:53:43 I did see the email about cross-project spec liasons, do you have a link handy to your message Mike? I'd like to include it in the meeting minutes 21:53:43 The point is, I want to avoid the product working group working with PTLs if they don't want to be part of this effort. 21:53:52 or anyone for that matter 21:54:26 http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/cross-project.html 21:54:34 thingee can you talk a bit more about that "want to avoid PWG working with PTLs" 21:54:35 kind of difficult to drive broad cross project user stories without the support of the PTLs at some level... 21:54:56 http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-January/084136.html for thingee's message to the ML 21:54:59 kencjohnston: sure, so if a ptl doesn't have time to work on this effort, they're not the best person to reach out to 21:55:02 i think i understand the intent 21:55:12 which is to funnel everyone through one place 21:55:14 thingee agreed, so that is a concern about PTL bandwidth 21:55:15 which I get 21:55:16 versus distracting the PTLs 21:55:17 because I think every working group is saying "oh we'll go to the ptl for this" 21:55:19 who are already slammed 21:55:30 sgordon thingee understood and agreed 21:55:38 kencjohnston: yes and also not every ptl is up=to-date on cross-project initiatives. Which some of user stories touch on 21:55:57 thingee, makes sense... We weren't planning on working exclusively with PTLs in the first place.. The goal of our CPLs was to be able to bring up items at the project meetings and get a volunteer identified from the project team to work with us 21:55:59 our intent was to have CPLs who participate in each individual team, not interface directly with the PTL specifically. 21:56:08 so with history of ptls being unreliable here, I'd like to have a designated group for this. It defaults to PTLs but they can delegate to another group 21:56:41 the cross project spec liaisons will be setup here eventually https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons 21:56:43 in this new scenario of cross-project specs, we would be working with xproj liaison to make our case to the project teanm 21:56:55 thingee - I see, so instead of saying we are working with the Nova team and the Nova PTL is our point person, we should say I'm workign with teh Nova team and the Nova CPL is my point person. Correct? 21:57:06 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-January/084136.html 21:57:24 kencjohnston: sure, but you need to hold someone accountable to doing something in the group 21:57:43 saying you're going to talk to a group of people has no one accountable for what you asked 21:58:00 Our user story team would work with our CPL to Nova, who would then work with the cross-project liaison for Nova in this new workflow. Does that sound right? 21:58:29 hmm thingee I think my mindset wasn't that we just ask for things and then they get assigned and happen. 21:58:32 so product working group liaisons and the CPL interaction can be seen here 21:58:35 The product WG CPL and cross-project liaison would both be attending the nova meetings but one will be the technical point of contact while the other can provide context on the story 21:59:19 * shamail looks at watch, 1 minute left 21:59:30 shamail: yes 21:59:34 We're almost out of time but I think it would be helpful to use real world examples instead of speaking in generalities of what cross projects might occur in the future. 21:59:36 thingee, I will make this an agenda item for next week. Will you be able to attend? 21:59:46 I can take the action to take a stab at summarizing and sending around to the list? 21:59:58 that would be good too kencjohnston 22:00:01 And then thingee you can provide feedback if I got it right? 22:00:06 shamail: unfortuantely no 22:00:10 ML discussion followed with an agenda item on the weekly meeting 22:00:18 or aligned with your thought process 22:00:23 thingee, which Monday would be good for follow-up? 22:00:30 kencjohnston: take a look at http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-user-stories/workflow/workflow.html 22:00:45 it pretty much lays it out already 22:00:48 #action kencjohnston to summarize discussion on cross project liaisons and product WG 22:00:57 #endmeeting