21:01:15 <carolbarrett> #startmeeting Product Working Group
21:01:16 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Aug 15 21:01:15 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is carolbarrett. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:01:17 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:01:20 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'product_working_group'
21:01:22 <carolbarrett> Hi Everyone
21:01:33 <carolbarrett> Today's agenda is located here:
21:01:43 <shamail> Hi
21:01:49 <kei> hi
21:01:53 <carolbarrett> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/product-team
21:02:16 <carolbarrett> Great to see everyone here and looking forward to seeing everyone next week in NYC!
21:02:22 <kencjohnston> o/
21:02:33 <pchadwick> +1
21:02:45 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +2
21:02:48 <carolbarrett> Let's get started we have a full agenda
21:02:55 <MeganR> +1
21:02:58 <carolbarrett> #topic OpenStack East Presentation Review
21:03:03 <Arkady_Kanevsky> readin presentation now
21:03:15 <carolbarrett> #link  https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxtM4AiszlEyekVwNDFYampwZGc&usp=sharin
21:03:33 <carolbarrett> Shamail and I are giving a talk on the State of Product Management on Wednesday AM
21:03:49 <carolbarrett> We'd like to walk through the slides with you all and get your help to make them better
21:03:58 <pchadwick> sounds good
21:03:59 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +1
21:04:23 <carolbarrett> You will find ppt and pdf versions of the slides in the google drive, they should be the same (formatting issues aside)
21:04:49 <carolbarrett> Can everyone access one of the files?
21:05:07 <pchadwick> +1
21:05:19 <Arkady_Kanevsky> slide 3. WHat is the rationale of managed private cloud gettinbg more frequent releases than upstream?
21:05:26 <carolbarrett> I'd like to walk through the slides and get comments as we go. Our final version is due to the event team on the 18th.
21:05:45 <carolbarrett> arkady_kanevsky - always ahead!
21:05:52 <shamail> :)
21:06:03 <carolbarrett> Any comment on slide 2?
21:06:16 <Arkady_Kanevsky> expect private cloud to be more conservative then public one
21:06:20 <pchadwick> arkady_kanevsky: this is a recap of what was in the 2nd ebook
21:06:44 <carolbarrett> OK - slide 3
21:06:47 <shamail> carolbarrett: slide 2 including title slide?
21:06:48 <pchadwick> ;)
21:07:07 <carolbarrett> shamail: yes
21:07:09 <pchadwick> 2&3 LGTNM
21:07:11 <pchadwick> LGTM
21:07:13 <shamail> Thanks
21:07:21 <carolbarrett> what's LGTM?
21:07:24 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +1 on slide 1&2
21:07:27 <shamail> Looks good to me
21:07:28 <pchadwick> looks good to me
21:07:34 <carolbarrett> of course!
21:07:53 <pchadwick> of course I have no idea what LGTNM means.
21:08:04 <shamail> lol
21:08:05 <carolbarrett> Slide 4: Shamail, do you want to walk through that one?
21:08:40 <shamail> Sure, slide 4 is there to set context on why we need multiple organizations, roles, etc to participate in user story creation
21:08:50 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Love OSE color - true NYC
21:09:01 <pchadwick> And these two are just examples - correct?
21:09:18 <carolbarrett> pchadwick: yes
21:09:19 <shamail> I used actual topics we've discussed in PWG meetings (specifically the last midcycle) to illustrate how consumption model or market segments can change perspective on requirements
21:09:36 <pchadwick> shamail: makes sense
21:09:44 <pchadwick> It is almost like we are listening.
21:09:51 <shamail> Releases and capacity management were two topics I recalled where we had differing views based on the person providing feedback
21:09:55 <carolbarrett> One of our key messages for this presentation is there's lots of need and opportunity for Operators to get involved with us
21:09:59 <shamail> +1 pchadwick
21:10:20 <carolbarrett> any questions or suggestions on slide 4?
21:10:28 <KrishR> LGTM
21:10:37 <KrishR> :)
21:10:41 <carolbarrett> :)
21:10:45 <shamail> Arkady_Kanevsky: to answer your original question, managed cloud providers were fine with frequent upgrades (not private clouds in general)
21:10:52 <pchadwick> Only question I have is what does "fine with either slower or faster releases" mean?
21:11:08 <shamail> It means there was no bias towards either option
21:11:09 <Arkady_Kanevsky> why are page numbering jumping around?
21:11:16 <shamail> E.g. Comfortable with both
21:11:26 <pchadwick> OK - thanks.
21:11:34 <leong> slide 4: Suggest to rephrase HPC to "Academic/Scietific"
21:11:55 <shamail> Good call leong
21:11:59 <MadhuKashyap> What's the difference between Distribution and DIY?
21:11:59 <carolbarrett> Leong - Good point, will make the change
21:12:23 <carolbarrett> Arkady_kanevsky: What page numbers? Are you looking at the PDF or PPT?
21:12:35 <Arkady_Kanevsky> PPT
21:12:37 <pchadwick> Distribution is you pay someone
21:12:41 <pchadwick> Like SUSE
21:12:46 <pchadwick> to maintain the code.
21:12:50 <shamail> MadhuKashyap:  DIY = from OpenStack source/stable branches, distribution = releases from orgs that are packaging upstream bits
21:12:53 <pchadwick> DIY is you pull from trunk.
21:13:04 <MadhuKashyap> ok thanks
21:14:06 <carolbarrett> Slide 5: Any suggestions?
21:14:38 <MeganR> I am seeing two slide #5 in PPT
21:14:41 <Arkady_Kanevsky> for page #s I see title, 2, 5, 3, 4, 6, 2, 2, 2, ...
21:15:02 <pchadwick> All ok in PDF
21:15:08 <shamail> I see them in order (viewing PDF)
21:15:11 <MeganR> maybe call out the title - "Collecting Requirements"
21:15:29 <MeganR> or I can switch to pdf  :)
21:15:35 <carolbarrett> I don't know what's going on with the slide numbers - google slides and ppt don't play well together. I'll make sure that's fixed in the version we present (pdf)
21:15:53 <pchadwick> ppt doesn't play well with anything.
21:15:54 <carolbarrett> Slide 5 is the 5th slide in the deck including the title slide - for this conversation
21:16:01 <carolbarrett> pchadwick: LOL
21:16:11 <MeganR> pchadwick +1
21:16:16 <leong> arkady_kanevsky, carolbarrett, that could be google drive issues when uploading the ppt file.. it looks fine on the pdf version
21:16:21 <MeganR> looks good in pdf
21:16:27 <Arkady_Kanevsky> switched to ppt
21:16:28 <carolbarrett> Good!
21:16:46 <carolbarrett> Slide 5 (collecting requirements): Feedback?
21:16:57 <pchadwick> I think this is a good flow. Do you bridge from 5 to 6 in the speaker notes?
21:17:30 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Suggest adding review process to suer story - standard OS process
21:17:45 <carolbarrett> My thought was slide 4 sets up the different audience segments that we work with to source requirements
21:17:47 <Arkady_Kanevsky> for slide 5.
21:18:04 <Arkady_Kanevsky> sorry - slide 6
21:18:18 <carolbarrett> arkady_kanevsky: +1
21:18:42 <shamail> +1
21:18:46 <carolbarrett> If nothing else on slide 5, them let's go to 6
21:18:50 <Arkady_Kanevsky> do we want to talk about voting for which user story we will drive forward for next and future releases?
21:19:09 <leong> on slide 5, you might want to talk through where/how the users(enterprise/telco/academic) can propose/suggest new features through the PWG user story channel
21:19:11 <Arkady_Kanevsky> can be covered by priority
21:19:11 <carolbarrett> arkady_kanesvky: Good point. What do others thing?
21:19:14 <carolbarrett> think?
21:19:34 <pchadwick> +1
21:19:39 <carolbarrett> leong: good point, will add that to speaking points
21:19:41 <shamail> I think we can mention both in our talking points
21:20:12 <Arkady_Kanevsky> fine with that
21:20:53 <carolbarrett> OK - slide 7  ?
21:21:11 <Arkady_Kanevsky> need to add feedback on progress of the story.
21:21:28 <Arkady_Kanevsky> That is what goes to roadmap per release
21:21:36 <pchadwick> +1 - This is where we need to ask for input.
21:21:45 <carolbarrett> which slide are you on?
21:21:56 <Arkady_Kanevsky> sldie 7
21:21:59 <pchadwick> 7
21:22:00 <MadhuKashyap> I am new to this, but can we talk about how one would comment on these user stories in one of the slides.
21:22:37 <shamail> That should be mentioned during slide 6
21:22:41 <Arkady_Kanevsky> that is review process of any submissions to openstack
21:22:49 <carolbarrett> MaduKashyap: yes we can,
21:22:53 <carolbarrett> shamail: +1
21:23:04 <Arkady_Kanevsky> correct slide 6
21:23:41 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Looking on slide 8.
21:23:48 <carolbarrett> arkady_kanevsky: Think that's a good way to position it.
21:23:53 <carolbarrett> OK - Slide 8
21:24:02 <Arkady_Kanevsky> This need to include themes.
21:24:15 <shamail> This slide is more talking points
21:24:17 <KrishR> re: slide 8, the first 2 blue boxes on the top left should be "Prioritize requirements" and "Influence Project lists"
21:24:20 <pchadwick> +1
21:24:21 <Arkady_Kanevsky> That means that we need to mention themes whne we create user story
21:24:35 <shamail> Definitely plan to mention themes Arkady_Kanevsky +
21:24:37 <shamail> 1
21:25:24 <KrishR> or "Prioritize User stories"
21:25:25 <carolbarrett> KrishR: I don't think the roadmap is as much an influence tool as it is a communication tool. I view user stories as the influence tool
21:25:35 <leong> krishr, slide 8 is for Community Roadmap, not for the User Story
21:25:44 <carolbarrett> leong: _1
21:25:49 <shamail> Our current roadmap process only lists what the PTLs provide (which could be user story things as well)
21:25:50 <carolbarrett> leong: +1 (oops)
21:25:58 <KrishR> but the text on slide 8 talks about gathering requirements
21:26:14 <shamail> carolbarrett, leong: +1
21:26:18 <pchadwick> krishr: it is building on the series of slides
21:26:31 <carolbarrett> The bullets on the right are the build of our process from one slide to another
21:26:32 <shamail> Are you looking at ppt or PDF KrishR ?
21:26:37 <Arkady_Kanevsky> requirements -> priorities for sldie 8
21:26:41 <carolbarrett> similar to how the balls in the funnel are working
21:26:45 <shamail> Ah , got it
21:26:54 <leong> that might be a "cut-n-pase' error from previous slide?
21:27:07 <KrishR> i'm looking at pdf
21:27:14 <pchadwick> slide 5: Gather, slide 6 Gather + Create, slide 7 gather + create + Team Slide 8 ... + generate
21:27:24 <leong> on slide 8, you probably want to remove the first 3 bullet-point to avoid confusion
21:27:37 <KrishR> ok, i get the build part now
21:27:38 <shamail> carolbarrett: maybe we should highlight which item we are on from the list on slide 8 by using a different font color?
21:27:46 <pchadwick> Shamail: +1
21:27:47 <carolbarrett> It's intentional, but maybe not helpful  - In slide 2 we outline our charter and then use slide 5-8 to explain it
21:28:06 <pchadwick> I think it makes sense
21:28:13 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Add Theme definions on snake item #2
21:28:30 <Arkady_Kanevsky> or after Identifying project list
21:28:32 <pchadwick> I would grey out the previous bullets and leave the current one in normal weight.
21:28:34 <leong> i got your point now.. it is the "presentation flow" :-)
21:28:50 <KrishR> pchadwick: +1
21:28:50 <shamail> Themes are not defined every roadmap release though Arkady_Kanevsky...
21:28:56 <carolbarrett> Arkady_kanesvky: that's a good idea, will
21:28:58 <carolbarrett> do
21:29:02 <shamail> pchadwick: +1
21:29:15 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Shamail. wnot define each release but updated per release
21:29:33 <shamail> We should mention them for sure
21:29:46 <Arkady_Kanevsky> similar to idnetifying projects per release
21:29:54 <pchadwick> Add something like "map to themes"?
21:30:07 <shamail> Cool, will do
21:30:53 <carolbarrett> Slide 9 - Comments?
21:30:57 <Arkady_Kanevsky> great slide 9
21:31:16 <pchadwick> This is good
21:31:24 <KrishR> +1 on slide 9
21:31:35 <carolbarrett> all right!
21:31:40 <carolbarrett> Slide 10 - Comments?
21:31:45 <Arkady_Kanevsky> How do we mention that user_story span multuple releases for tracking
21:32:21 <shamail> W
21:32:33 <carolbarrett> arkady_kanevsky: Where do you think it should go?
21:32:38 <shamail> We will mention it as criteria
21:32:41 <Arkady_Kanevsky> sldie 8
21:33:20 <KrishR> should we add a bullet on slide 10 - "Influence project teams to implement user stories" or something to that effect?
21:33:21 <Arkady_Kanevsky> But the roadmap is release specific so user story will be mentioned on multiuple roadmap
21:33:23 <carolbarrett> How about slide 6? That could be an element of describing the criteria for PWG to get involved in a User Story?
21:34:16 <Arkady_Kanevsky> slide 7 feels like a better choice. This is where we talk about tracking work for user story
21:34:17 <pchadwick> Slide 8 - where we talk about multi-release roadmap
21:34:25 <carolbarrett> KrishR: I like the concept, but don't want to be perceived as ganging up on project teams
21:34:49 <shamail> carolbarrett: +1
21:35:33 <pchadwick> I would put it on slide 8:
21:35:45 <pchadwick> Generate a multi-release Roadmap
21:36:04 <Arkady_Kanevsky> pchadwick> I am OK with it
21:36:05 <carolbarrett> pchadwick: I think we need to be careful about linking user stories tightly to the roadmap. There are lots of non-user story elements included
21:36:27 <pchadwick> Sure - but this is where we specifically track user stories across releases, no?
21:36:53 <shamail> I agree, until we have some stories at a stage where they can be included in the roadmap
21:37:19 <pchadwick> OK - I need to take a call.
21:37:37 <carolbarrett> pchadwick: yes and no. We have a user story tracker where we track the status of user story implementation; the roadmap is broader than that
21:37:51 <carolbarrett> pchadwick: ok
21:38:12 <Arkady_Kanevsky> so what is the final disposition?
21:38:53 <carolbarrett> I think we include multi-project, multi-release in slide 6
21:39:05 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +1
21:39:22 <carolbarrett> great!
21:39:31 <carolbarrett> Slide 10 ?
21:39:42 <KrishR> Am wondering if people ask "OK, the Product WG has been around for 2 years, can you show me which user stories have progressed through the cycle, what stages they are at etc.?"
21:40:14 <carolbarrett> KrishR: How do you propose we answer that?
21:40:24 <KrishR> sorry, may be playing a bit of the devil's advocate :)
21:40:43 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Upgrade fits that bill
21:40:47 <carolbarrett> Which is good! But still wondering how you would answer it
21:41:06 <carolbarrett> Arkady_Kanevsky - that's the 1 I would point to as the starting point for us
21:41:49 <Arkady_Kanevsky> 20 min left...
21:41:52 <KrishR> one way to answer it is to show what's happened in each release for a user story
21:42:18 <carolbarrett> arkady_kanevsky: Thanks for the time check
21:42:23 <shamail> +1
21:42:32 <carolbarrett> Good discussion and feedback - thanks!
21:42:39 <Arkady_Kanevsky> we have a wiki page per user story. the status is up to date there
21:43:09 <carolbarrett> Let's move on
21:43:17 <carolbarrett> If you have other comments, pls send to Shamail and I
21:43:22 <carolbarrett> #topic Ops Midcycle Meetup
21:43:42 <carolbarrett> Last week we discussed creating a coverage map for the sessions
21:43:55 <carolbarrett> I created a spreadsheet for this and posted it here
21:44:04 <Arkady_Kanevsky> What WG# cover?
21:44:16 <carolbarrett> #link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxtM4AiszlEydVhfY3Jvc1J5Tms/view?usp=sharing
21:44:42 <carolbarrett> arkady_kanevsky: those slots have not been assigned yet
21:44:59 <carolbarrett> That will probably happen tomorrow AM In the Ops Team meeting
21:45:16 <carolbarrett> Can you pls add your name to the sessions you can cover?
21:45:22 <Arkady_Kanevsky> OK. WHo is attending Th?
21:45:40 <carolbarrett> We can look this over on Monday and make sure we've got everything covered...?
21:45:50 <MeganR> Carol: I can not edit the document
21:45:55 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I wish I can staty the whole week...
21:46:05 <carolbarrett> MeganR: I'll fix that!
21:46:13 <MeganR> thank you!
21:46:38 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Th first sessoin is very interesting and doe snot overlap with anything
21:47:47 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Carol can we use Product WG phone bridge # for User WG?
21:48:50 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Then I can cover some of TH meetings remotely
21:49:27 <carolbarrett> MeganR: Pls try again
21:49:49 <carolbarrett> arkady_kanevsky: I don't undertand....
21:50:11 <carolbarrett> arkady_kanevsky: I don't think the Ops Meetup is setup for remote participation
21:50:33 <carolbarrett> Can I move on?
21:50:39 <Arkady_Kanevsky> yes
21:50:51 <carolbarrett> #topic PWG Midcycle
21:50:56 <MeganR> Carol: sorry, no luck - I will try after the meeting when I am off network
21:51:21 <carolbarrett> I've posted a link to an etherpad we can use during the session and as a basis for providing update afterwards.
21:51:42 <carolbarrett> Pls make sure you look it over and either send back comments ahead of Monday or we'll work through them during the welcome
21:51:58 <carolbarrett> I want to move on to the next topic before we run out of time.
21:52:02 <carolbarrett> OK?
21:52:05 <Arkady_Kanevsky> yes
21:52:15 <carolbarrett> #topic Regional Team Update
21:52:22 <carolbarrett> Leong: Can you take this one?
21:52:26 <leong> sure!
21:52:34 <leong> just want to provide a quick update on the regional meeting
21:52:59 <leong> i believe kei is also on the chat now
21:53:15 <kei> leong: yes.  i am.
21:53:18 <leong> the co-chair for the regional meeting remains as kei and hugh
21:53:34 <leong> the participation for the past few months varies...
21:54:04 <leong> although mostly from Intel, Fujitsu, NTT, Huawei
21:54:21 <leong> the primary focus now is on the two user story discussion: HA_VM and Baremetal
21:54:50 <leong> for the HA_VM, team from NTT is tracking on that and information is shared at the following etherpad
21:55:07 <carolbarrett> Leong: Are there other companies in the region that we'd like to invite to join?
21:55:12 <leong> #link HA_VM User Story Planning: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-instance-ha
21:55:51 <leong> for Baremetal, Kei and I are tracking on that, and the following etherpad was just created for baremetal requirement analysis:
21:56:04 <leong> #link Baremetal User Story Requirement Analysis https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bare_metal_service_gap_and_overlap_analysis
21:56:17 <leong> that's the quick update from me..:-)
21:56:21 <leong> kei anything to add?
21:56:41 <leong> carolbarrett, that will be something that we need to expand in the next few weeks..
21:56:42 <kei> none for now.  thanks, leong
21:56:55 <leong> i am hoping can get more participation from local companies such as huawei
21:57:22 <Arkady_Kanevsky> how does these etherpad discussion feed back into user story execution?
21:57:24 <carolbarrett> leong: Will you cover that as part of your User Story update at the Midcycle on Monday? Or something you want to discuss separately?
21:58:03 <leong> the etherpad will 'bridge' the implementation/spec into each requirements as defined in User Story
21:58:35 <leong> carolbarrett: i can cover that at PWG midcycle
21:59:17 <carolbarrett> leong: Thanks. I think it would also be good to discuss more about the role of the etherpads vs posting comments to the user story
21:59:27 <leong> I rememer pchadwick is identified as the HA_VM userstory owner, pete do you have anything to add?
21:59:27 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +1
21:59:30 <carolbarrett> Anything else for Leong (1 min to go...)
21:59:44 <carolbarrett> leong: I think pete had to take a call...
22:00:05 <carolbarrett> Thanks for the update - good for laying foundation for next week.
22:00:05 <leong> and also within each users story, it needs to have a requirements priortization section
22:00:18 <kei> leong: the doc has been shared with Ironic PTL and some core reviewers, right?  what i'm going to do next is to put priority (and dependency) to the doc.
22:00:19 <leong> so that developers/project team know which features is more important and to implement first
22:00:22 <carolbarrett> Safe Travels all and see you Monday AM
22:00:22 <Arkady_Kanevsky> see you all next week in NYC
22:00:27 <leong> yes kei..
22:00:42 <carolbarrett> #endmeeting