21:00:24 <Carolbarrett> #startmeeting product_working_group
21:00:25 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Oct 10 21:00:24 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is Carolbarrett. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:26 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:30 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'product_working_group'
21:00:48 <Carolbarrett> Hi - Who's here for the Product WG Meeting?
21:01:37 <KrishR> o\
21:01:40 <pchadwick> hello
21:01:46 <leong> o/
21:01:53 <Carolbarrett> You can find the agenda here
21:02:02 <Carolbarrett> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#OpenStack_Product_WG
21:02:20 <Carolbarrett> i meant here
21:02:22 <Carolbarrett> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/product-team
21:02:40 <GeraldK> hello
21:02:40 <Carolbarrett> Let's start with our working session in Barcelona
21:02:44 <MadhuKashyap> Hi
21:02:49 <Carolbarrett> #topic BCN Working Session Planning
21:03:10 <Carolbarrett> Hi GeraldK and MadhuKashyapp
21:03:24 <Carolbarrett> #link  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PWG_Session_Oct16_BCN
21:04:23 <Carolbarrett> Looking at the etherpad, it looks like defining Ocata Goals and Defining PWG's role in the Forum are high interest
21:04:31 <Arkady_Kanevsky> hello
21:04:43 <Carolbarrett> we have time for 1 more topic - what do you think?
21:04:59 <shamail> hi everyone
21:05:05 <Carolbarrett> Hi Shamail
21:05:21 <GeraldK> going through the user stories seems to be important as this is a core part of the PWG
21:06:12 <MadhuKashyap> Just wondering if PWG's role at Forum events should be in the BoF
21:07:13 <shamail> MadhuKashyap: It’s more of an open item (e.g. working topic) as we haven’t had a chance to agree on our role yet
21:08:02 <Carolbarrett> Our working session is before the BoF, so if we do have something we want to share about our role, we can add it.
21:08:10 <shamail> Carolbarrett: +1
21:08:40 <Carolbarrett> Do we want to include User Stories as the 3rd topic? If so, what
21:08:46 <Carolbarrett> angle would we want to take?
21:09:15 <Carolbarrett> I'm just thinking that the design summit wouldn't have concluded so the leads of the top 5 user stories probably won't have an update
21:09:26 <Arkady_Kanevsky> review the status of user stories we are currating now? the 5 we did for newton.
21:09:34 <shamail> I’d rather defer user stories to an IRC meeting (IMHO) since that topic is fairly easy to discuss via IRC
21:10:08 <Arkady_Kanevsky> discuss how many new stories we can take on our plate for Ocata.
21:10:45 <shamail> thats reasonable Arkady_Kanevsky
21:10:52 <GeraldK> yes. IMHO, reflecting the current top 5 user stories and see what we have achieved could be a good topic. IMHO, our reach during the Summit would be greater compared to IRC meetings.
21:11:39 <Carolbarrett> We could review our capacity, revisit the list, identify what's done (maybe rolling upgrades?) and then prioritize to get to our capacity?
21:11:58 <shamail> Carolbarrett: +1
21:12:00 <Arkady_Kanevsky> <Carolbarrett +1
21:12:16 <GeraldK> +1
21:12:33 <GeraldK> also check what's missing, what did not went that well.
21:12:43 <MadhuKashyap> It would be good to make progress with existing user stories instead of discussing new user stories IMO
21:13:42 <Carolbarrett> MadhuKashyap: I agree completing user stories takes time and persistence. If we have capacity in the team to advocate for more, would like to get that going.
21:13:42 <pchadwick> By capacity - do we mean this groups capacity or what we think is capable in the broader technical community?
21:13:44 <Arkady_Kanevsky> agree. But we should get new members from Telco. HPC and other user community if they understand and accept the process.
21:13:58 <Carolbarrett> +1
21:14:21 <pchadwick> Ok - so this team's capacity.
21:14:23 <pchadwick> thanks.
21:14:39 <Arkady_Kanevsky> yes
21:15:19 <Carolbarrett> Are we set? Lines 22-25 in the etherpad?
21:15:38 <shamail> Carolbarrett: I had just added “Discuss the role of PWG as a market research consultant for project teams”
21:15:43 <shamail> Sorry for the late addition
21:15:57 <Carolbarrett> If so, are there volunteers to lead the discussion for each topic? Pls add your name to the topic in the etherpad.
21:15:58 <shamail> I added this topic due to a request from the Swift PTL
21:16:09 <shamail> I added it after the vote though
21:16:42 <Carolbarrett> Shamail: That's a good one. We could add an Open Discussion section to the agenda. As time permits we could cover them...?
21:16:50 <shamail> Perfect
21:16:55 <shamail> I wouldn’t expect this to be more than 5 min
21:17:35 <Carolbarrett> OK - Do we also want to add roadmap self-service approach to this discussion list?
21:17:38 <shamail> Please sign up on lines 23-27 :)
21:17:45 <Arkady_Kanevsky> carol can you post etherpad piinter again?
21:17:45 <shamail> We can add it under opens as well
21:18:23 * shamail just realized that our roadmap timeframe will change as well since it is release align
21:18:28 <Carolbarrett> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PWG_Session_Oct16_BCN
21:18:59 <Carolbarrett> Shamail: Good point! Have added a discussion on timing and self-service to the list
21:19:12 <shamail> thanks
21:19:52 <pchadwick> shamail: What does "self-service" mean or is that what you want to discuss in BCN?
21:19:56 <rocky_g> ola!
21:20:00 <Carolbarrett> Anything else on our Working Session in Barcelona?
21:20:03 <Carolbarrett> Hi RocjkyG
21:20:09 <Carolbarrett> oops - RockyG
21:20:15 <shamail> pchadwick: It means building a process where project teams can input to roadmap as part of release process
21:20:28 <pchadwick> shamail: thanks.
21:20:35 <shamail> e.g. create RST template that can be submitted to our repo by project teams instead of us reaching out to them
21:20:38 <shamail> pchadwick: np
21:22:01 <Carolbarrett> We still need more volunteers to lead discussions....
21:22:23 <Carolbarrett> moving to the next topic
21:22:31 <Carolbarrett> #Topic Review BoF slides
21:22:43 <Carolbarrett> #link https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12C16giMZ_XOcG36aD-O7k0P498Yn6gZuTs8ndfG3hsE/edit?usp=sharing
21:22:52 <shamail> LOL @ “We really, really want to herd cats ;-)”
21:23:21 <Carolbarrett> It's a good one....and certainly a role most of us play much of our days...
21:23:53 <shamail> Carolbarrett: Is HP still involved
21:24:08 <Carolbarrett> On Slide 2 - I think the proposal was to outline the discussion that led to the formation...hidden influencers, etc.
21:24:28 <Carolbarrett> Shamail: Yes, MadhuKashyap is with HPE
21:24:35 <shamail> Cool :)
21:24:51 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I will need to update Dell logo and replace with DellEMC one.
21:24:58 <Carolbarrett> We've come a long way from Atlanta and hidden influencers. What do you all think about that slide?
21:25:11 <pchadwick> carolbarrett: you probably have the best context for that no?
21:25:44 <Carolbarrett> pchadwick: Shamail and Rocky have the background too
21:25:59 <pchadwick> thanks.
21:25:59 <shamail> I think we can remove slide 2, we have been going long enough that the context for why this was formed is less important than what it is we do and why
21:26:16 <Arkady_Kanevsky> great question. How much do we influence our developers to work on our prioritized user stories.
21:26:33 <shamail> IMHO: Remove slide 2, leave slide 3
21:26:47 <Arkady_Kanevsky> shamail +1
21:26:58 <Carolbarrett> +1
21:27:07 <Carolbarrett> pchadwick: Are you OK with that?
21:27:36 <pchadwick> Or we just take bullet 3 from slide 3 and move it to slide 2.
21:28:37 <pchadwick> like so
21:29:10 <Carolbarrett> works for me
21:29:18 <pchadwick> I am in favor of more slides with less density.
21:29:37 <Arkady_Kanevsky> that bullet is already covered on slide 4
21:30:09 <pchadwick> arkady_kanevsky: 4 is the logos, do you mean 5?
21:30:10 <Carolbarrett> I updated slide 3 to remove redundancy
21:30:13 <shamail> pchadwick: +1
21:30:16 <Arkady_Kanevsky> yes 5.
21:31:15 <shamail> We can turn slide 5 into a “how we do it”
21:31:33 <pchadwick> shamail: +1
21:31:45 <Carolbarrett> +1
21:31:46 <Arkady_Kanevsky> agree. that slide 2 can be removed. We can say all these bullets on slide 4 (really 4) where we have diagram and bullets on the left
21:32:03 <pchadwick> Why do you want to remove slide 2?
21:33:05 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I think all bullets of sldie 2 are covered on flow of slide 4. I am OK to repeat the message.
21:33:34 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Slide 2 is the group goal. Sldie 4 shows what we are doing to macth it
21:33:48 <pchadwick> +1
21:33:55 <MadhuKashyap> Slide 5 looks more like a workflow
21:34:37 <Arkady_Kanevsky> that is slide 4 - workflow
21:34:49 <Carolbarrett> I agree, slide 5 is the how we do slide 2 and 3
21:35:21 <shamail> Yeah, I can update slide 5 to show workflow and build slide 6 to seperate roadmap out if that makes sense
21:35:27 <Carolbarrett> Shamail: Do you have an update work flow from our NYC midcycle?
21:35:54 <pchadwick> I think that Arkady starts counting slide with the title slide as 0
21:35:58 <shamail> Not yet, I can put one together this week
21:36:08 <Carolbarrett> Shamail - Thanks
21:36:30 <Carolbarrett> pchadwick: LOL - his engineering is showing
21:36:33 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I am seeing only 6 slides including title one - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxtM4AiszlEyWnhITHBSMjE3R3M/view
21:36:40 <GeraldK> slide 5 currently shows the ideal work flow. what about reviews, gates, going back to an earlier step, and the like?
21:37:04 <shamail> Arkady_Kanevsky: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12C16giMZ_XOcG36aD-O7k0P498Yn6gZuTs8ndfG3hsE/edit#slide=id.p9
21:37:25 <pchadwick> Ah - now it makes sense.
21:37:55 <Arkady_Kanevsky> thanks shamail
21:38:00 <shamail> n[
21:38:02 <shamail> np
21:38:11 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I followed the link from https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PWG_Session_Oct16_BCN
21:38:27 <Arkady_Kanevsky> we need to update it to point to latest
21:38:58 <Carolbarrett> ahhh - I'll delete that section from the etherpad
21:39:26 <Carolbarrett> let's keep going - only 20 mins left
21:39:32 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Is redhat really droped? I recalled Steve Gordon show pu once in a while...
21:39:37 <Carolbarrett> Want to look at slides 7 & 8
21:40:23 <shamail> I really like slide 7
21:40:31 <Arkady_Kanevsky> for slide 5 do we want a table in left low corner to be specific to shorter Ocata cycle?
21:41:06 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +1 on slide 7
21:41:07 <pchadwick> I think we can just say that we will run a shorter cycle
21:41:23 <Carolbarrett> Arkady_Kanevsky: Yes, I think we need to rework the timeline given Ocata cycle
21:42:05 <pchadwick> But I assume that Ocata is an anomaly
21:42:15 <Arkady_Kanevsky> or maybe have a slide that is specific to ocata while keeping current slide 5 as generic one
21:42:40 <Carolbarrett> On slide 7 - does anyone have info to add to the Newton or Ocata/Pike sections?
21:42:41 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Expect Pike to be shorter also till we lined up forum and summit
21:42:48 <MadhuKashyap> Nothing on Capacity Management for slide 7?
21:42:48 <pchadwick> and given that: a - Ocata is mostly maintenance so we likely won't have much added and b - we will go back to this flow for Pike, I would leave it as is.
21:43:35 <rocky_g> I think we should use the summit to work on the timeline
21:43:44 <Arkady_Kanevsky> ok with that. Carol and Shamail and verbal state what is being planned for Ocata and Pike
21:43:46 <KrishR> MadhuKashyap: feel free to start adding Capacity Mgmt details on slide 7 - I didn't have the info
21:43:50 <Carolbarrett> I'm good with that approach for slide 5 - speakers notes that the cycle will be shorter for Ocata
21:44:01 <shamail> same
21:44:16 <Carolbarrett> MadhuKashyap: Do we have accomplishments around Capacity Management to list?
21:44:53 <MadhuKashyap> Sorry, I don't know for the Newton release.
21:45:09 <Carolbarrett> KrishR: Thoughts
21:45:11 <Carolbarrett> ?
21:45:34 <Carolbarrett> On Slide 7 - I think Keystone has also implemented Rolling Upgrades in Newton
21:46:14 <Carolbarrett> Leong: Are you here?
21:46:25 <leong> yes
21:46:51 <Carolbarrett> can you add the info into slide 7 for HA and bare metal?
21:47:21 <KrishR> Carolbarrett: I'll ahve to do some research on Capacity mgmt; also, you're right about RU for Keystone, and I think Cinder didnt make it at the end
21:47:47 <Carolbarrett> OK - I added Keystone. Will leave the Cinder update to you to check out
21:47:53 <Carolbarrett> What about slide 8?
21:47:57 <leong> yes for Baremetal...
21:48:22 <Carolbarrett> Who is the best person to update for HA?
21:48:30 <leong> as for HA_VM, probably pchadwick?
21:48:38 <pchadwick> yes I can follow up on that.
21:49:03 <pchadwick> how is slide 8 different from slide 7?
21:49:08 <Carolbarrett> Thanks - updated comment on the slide
21:49:16 <KrishR> pchadwick: thanks; i was going to ask if you could talk to Adam and get an update
21:49:27 <Carolbarrett> I think slide 8 covers non-user story contributions
21:49:31 <pchadwick> krishr: I will
21:50:35 <shamail> MadhuKashyap: would you like to take over leading capacity management?  I was owning it to continue refinement until we had enough momentum for resource allocation
21:51:42 <MadhuKashyap> Shamail, Can we take it offline? Not sure how much work is involved. I don't mind though...
21:51:53 <shamail> Sure, glad to email you about it!  Thanks.
21:52:15 <Carolbarrett> I propose we delete slide 8, unless we want to use it to say more about the Community Roadmap...?
21:52:52 <pchadwick> +1
21:53:18 <pchadwick> We cover it on slide 5.
21:53:18 <rocky_g> +1
21:54:21 <shamail> Yeah, that was the plan.. make slide 5 cover both input/output
21:54:32 <shamail> e.g. stories workflow and roadmap
21:54:36 <Arkady_Kanevsky> +1
21:54:52 <pchadwick> Slide 7 is good because it shows specific accomplishments.
21:55:01 <shamail> yeah
21:55:11 <Carolbarrett> +1
21:55:30 <GeraldK> +1
21:55:42 <Carolbarrett> But it only represents user stories - not the other PTL/Project feedback we provide or impact through the roadmap
21:55:59 <Carolbarrett> I'm OK with that, though more help on the roadmap would be good.
21:56:16 <shamail> Carolbarrett: Are you thinking we should highlight roadmap beyond slide 5?
21:56:29 <KrishR> Carolbarrett: agreed we need to talk about roadmap process in addition to user stories
21:56:52 <Carolbarrett> If we can articulate the value/impact of the Roadmap, then I think we should include it
21:56:53 <pchadwick> carollbarrett: or are you thinking of using slide 8 as "here is where you can get involved"?
21:57:09 <shamail> That might be difficult, I can ask the web team if they have stats on downloads
21:58:24 <Carolbarrett> shamail: That would be good - I wonder if there's anything from the press/analyst sessions that we could use to showcase the value
21:58:53 <shamail> ah good point
21:59:02 <shamail> there might  be something there
21:59:19 <Carolbarrett> pchadwick: not sure I'm following your Slide 8 comment
21:59:39 * shamail has to drop off (sneaks out) (cya)
22:00:02 <pchadwick> Your comment "though more help on the roadmap would be good."
22:00:19 <Carolbarrett> Gotcha - yea, that would be good to include there
22:00:33 <MadhuKashyap> If we are done with the slides then I do have one question. I sent out to the PWG ML an email with a couple of new user stories to the capacity mgmt user story. Should the next step be to submit a review patch?
22:01:13 <Carolbarrett> MadhuKashyap: I saw that, but haven't dug into yet. Yes, I think that's a good next step.
22:01:19 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I was not able to see attachments for it
22:01:31 <MadhuKashyap> Carolbarrett: Thank you
22:01:35 <Carolbarrett> We're out of time for today. Pls add coments/changes to the slides during the week and we'll finalize in our team meeting next week.
22:01:40 <Carolbarrett> Thanks all
22:01:42 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I had updated one of my patches so they are ready for review
22:01:51 <Carolbarrett> #endmeeting