21:00:28 #startmeeting product_working_group 21:00:28 Meeting started Mon Feb 6 21:00:28 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is leong. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:00:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:00:31 The meeting name has been set to 'product_working_group' 21:00:40 o/ 21:00:45 anyone here for Product WG meeting? 21:00:51 o/ 21:00:55 #topic rollcall 21:00:56 o/ 21:01:00 o/ 21:01:21 hi rockyg, meganr, kencjohnston and krishr... 21:01:33 hi Leong 21:01:40 today agenda can be found here: 21:01:45 #link Agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/product-team 21:02:14 hopefully shamail can join us as well.... 21:02:35 anything else that you would like to add to today Agenda? 21:02:49 hello 21:02:57 hi arkady 21:03:10 hi leong 21:03:20 #topic Action items from previous meeting 21:03:25 o/ 21:03:33 * Rockyg waves to everbody 21:03:36 #link Last week action items: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/product_working_group/2017/product_working_group.2017-01-30-21.00.html 21:03:56 * leong wave... 21:04:15 let's have a quick update from last week meeting... 21:04:36 the PWG midcycle location 21:04:49 Rockyg, do you have anything from Huawei? 21:05:57 also a question to everyone, have anyone receive/confirm travel to Milan Ops midcycle? 21:06:13 no on Milan 21:06:14 i think we need to estimate the attendees and size of room 21:06:25 but I planning to 21:06:45 my travel to Milan is approved 21:07:27 I will not be going 21:07:34 I will be there. 21:07:43 I plan to attend 21:08:42 Rockyg, do you have anything from Huawei? 21:08:48 I've got yet another name to track down. Office is about 1/2 hour from ops meetup site by car. very round about. I have to find out how big the office is and who's in charge. 21:09:14 But, a little progress. 21:09:26 any chance we can have it all in one place with ops summit? 21:10:02 i also prefer the same location as with Ops midcycle.... i remember the cost is about euro$300 per day 21:10:08 for a room 21:10:34 Hmm. Lemme run that by Anni.... 21:10:41 if anyone here can get a "sponsor", then we can be at the same place 21:10:59 meeting room or individual hotel room? 21:11:11 meeting room 21:11:45 so, is it two or three days? 21:11:51 I rcealled Intel was also volunteering... 21:11:53 mrhilsman: maybe if you can help us to validate if we can book a meeting room at the same location as Ops midcycle 21:12:23 the plan was two days PWG at Milan 21:12:56 ^^Correct- plan is Mon/Tue preceding the Wed/Thur Ops Midcycle 21:12:57 thanks. 21:13:02 Arkady_Kanevsky: i think u mix up with Aug one.. but Intel is not able to sponsor the Aug one either 21:13:25 got it 21:13:50 Let's discuss the PWG Ops meetup again next week, we also need to make sure we have enough quorom to host the F2F meeting for PWG 21:14:05 I texted Anni. We'll see... 21:14:17 hi shamail 21:14:27 hey, shamail 21:14:28 we were just talking about the mid-cycle location 21:14:47 Hi Leong and everyone! Sorry for being late, just landed. 21:15:02 not a problem.. 21:15:08 can you confirm if IBM can host us? someone also suggest the same location as Ops 21:15:18 IBM can host us during midcycle but I am confirming the final details 21:15:32 It's more than likely that we can find space but I can confirm next week. 21:15:42 great.. thanks! let's follow up this again in next week meeting.. 21:15:58 Did we find out if it would be possible to get space in the same venue as the ops meetup? 21:16:17 #agreed: to follow-up the PWG mid-cycle planning next week 21:16:18 mrhillsman: ping 21:17:18 let's follow that up offline with mrhillsman.. :-) 21:17:40 let's move on to next topic :) 21:17:45 #topic "open" gerrit review 21:17:58 #link gerrit: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/openstack-user-stories+status:open 21:18:07 any one gerrit item that need our attention? 21:19:17 we have some fairly old ones sitting without progress 21:19:29 We'll be discussing Improve Error Codes Story in LCOO meeting this week 21:19:39 +1 andyU 21:19:44 sorry, had to step away 21:19:45 like - https://review.openstack.org/253228 21:19:57 Also tonight in Regional PWG 21:20:06 +1 rockg :) 21:20:15 what shoudl we do with the ones that are not being responded on? 21:20:38 Np mrhillsman, I was trying to find out if it would be possible to use the same venue as the ops meetup in Milan. I'll follow up via email. 21:21:14 Arkady_Kanevsky: I think we leave them alone for now unless the authors have made the necessary changes. We can discuss further at midcycle to see if we need to abandon any. 21:21:16 Arkady_kanevsky, i will go through the list today and tomorrow and will reply on gerrit 21:21:18 if we want movement on specific ones, someone should comment to get discussion happening again. 21:21:25 +1 shamail 21:21:30 ok shamail will keep an eye out 21:21:34 on gerrit, I had an item with a merge conflcit that I just resolved - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/352182/ 21:22:00 Nice kencjohnston 21:22:04 Propose that if a patch was review and have feedback and author is not updating it acroiss releases we abandon it. 21:22:17 thanks kencjohnston.. i will have a look after this meeting 21:22:18 Also, we have a couple of "Abandon potentials" from Piet 21:22:23 Thanks Shamail and Leong. 21:22:36 also, as Carol retired, we need to get more core reviewer 21:22:40 Agree 21:22:44 kencjohnston: +1 21:22:59 I think we need to ping authors before we abandon..... 21:23:00 Without new owners steppign forward I'm willing to get what is there merged, but not going to be able to own it for updates/scope additions. 21:23:10 I am trying to dillegently review any pacthes that are updated. 21:23:16 And should come up with a policy on when to mark abandoned 21:23:18 kencjohnston: +1 21:23:28 nut will not comment on the ones that are already havce comments that are not being addressed 21:23:45 I think we can revisit what needs to be abandoned when we are all together at midcycle 21:23:51 ++ 21:23:54 +1 21:23:58 +1 shamail 21:24:03 Rockyg: +1 on policy 21:24:04 shamail +1 21:24:25 I think that only chair can abandon pull request or the author 21:24:27 Policy should go on midcycle agenda... 21:24:51 Leong can you make an action to review Ken's updated patch and agreement on reviewing old changes at midcycle 21:24:53 i think "core" can abandon 21:25:05 Core is fair. 21:25:07 leong, ++ 21:25:30 I am fine as long as we have formally defined process. 21:25:32 * kencjohnston pulls out his "abandon" baseball bat. 21:25:37 #agreed All review Kenny updated patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/352182/ 21:25:48 lol kencjohnston 21:25:52 That patch was ready for merge, just hit a conflict that I took to long ot resolve. 21:26:00 Yeah, saw that 21:26:09 Should be a quick workflow 21:26:14 #agreed All will review the list of changes at gerrit and define abandon policy at Midcycle 21:27:08 any thing else on this agenda? if not, shall we move on to next topic? 21:27:48 #topic Updates on the proposal for PWG participation in Forum 21:28:27 #link Proposal: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jTlO4UdNjc5cOKboeCNhLDEdttazWWlDgNxxulUrPNg/edit 21:28:50 We will present the above proposal at next UC meeting... 21:29:12 any feedback and comments? 21:29:15 shamail, do you have anything to add 21:29:17 ? 21:29:44 We didn't present at the last UC meeting or did it get cancelled? 21:29:53 (I missed it) 21:30:01 the agenda wasn't added to last UC meeting 21:30:16 and 2 out of 3 UC wasn't there 21:30:48 Oh, okay. Nothing add.. look forward to the team's feedback. I should be able to attend the next UC meeting as well. 21:31:09 5 of us agreed to volunteer and continue this work until the Summit. 21:31:13 yup 21:31:25 I will send a doodle poll once we hear feedback from UC to continue that work. 21:31:33 nice proposal 21:31:35 5= shamail, leong, meganr, kencjohnston and geraldk 21:31:46 Others are welcome to join, just respond to the doodle poll when you see it. 21:31:56 We will also be reaching out more broadly than just PWG 21:32:02 leong shamail - If I can help with the UC presentation let me know 21:32:03 it will be great to get everyone else in PWG to join! 21:32:16 suggest that we are responsible that there is a rep from each required WG to attend. 21:32:24 kencjohnston: absolutely 21:32:43 I can help. 21:32:47 I think Leong and yourself volunteered to present, I'll just be there to help provide support and say "YES!" 21:32:56 haha :-) 21:33:11 I don't want to schedule the doodle poll though until we get feedback from UC 21:33:26 shamail: agree 21:33:27 I have to juggle around my calendar to make the UC meetings so let me know once we get on the agenda and I'll make it a priority to attend. 21:33:29 So that's probably the next step after the UC meeting 21:33:42 kencjohnston: +1, will do 21:33:58 i will take the lead to present the proposal at UC meeting, with support from Shamail and Kencjohnston :-) 21:34:08 leong: do you want to pursue getting it added to agenda or do you want me to? 21:34:34 it is already added to the UC next meeting agenda... i will double check again 21:34:44 Okay, thanks 21:34:58 #action Leong to check the proposal is added to UC meeting agenda 21:35:23 next topic on the agenda is Session Submissions 21:35:32 #topic Session Submissions 21:35:47 for boston summit? 21:35:55 yup boston summit 21:35:57 I have submitted the PWG Working Session and Kenny has submitted the BoF 21:36:12 the deadline is today 11:59pm Pacific 21:36:24 i believe Shamail also submitted a Roadmap session 21:36:41 I submitted the roadmap session and added Ken and Pete for now to ensure we made the deadline. We can revisit the session/speakers if it's accepted 21:37:01 +1 shamail 21:37:20 I'm trying to get a log WG session for Boston. Work on error code stories, spec, etc. 21:37:24 kencjohnston I meant :) 21:37:44 Rockyg: Forum sessions haven't opened yet 21:38:04 Wg group session, not forum 21:38:25 Ah 21:38:54 rockyg: you mean a Logging Working Group? do we have that? 21:39:06 log wg is moribund, but looks like ther's enough interest to get it going again. 21:39:07 is it worth submitting something on Themes? 21:39:26 I have to leave, boarding next flight soon :). I'll catch up via log. Ya 21:39:29 Ya 21:39:36 leong, yup. I am co-chair, but it's not been meeting for a while 21:39:37 Take care!* 21:39:49 take care shamail 21:40:00 SHould we submit one on status on non-disruptive upgrade user story? 21:40:08 rockyg: got it .. 21:40:24 or is an example of roadmap submission? 21:41:10 Arkady_Kanevsky: i don't get you? 21:41:33 upgrade is the olde user story we were driving. 21:42:15 should we submit review of results of that work. And use Tracker for it 21:42:54 do you mean an agenda item in PWG WG session? or a separate discussion session at Forum 21:43:10 the Forum is not opening to accept submission yet. 21:43:12 submission for bosotn summit 21:43:44 deadline it today 21:44:19 Are referring to present a "user story update" presentation for Rolling Upgrade? 21:44:28 yes 21:45:13 i'm not sure how much thing we can update on "rolling upgrade"? Kencjohnston? 21:46:04 kei, andyu and I have submitted a session to "promote / explain" Product WG, we plan to use Baremetal as an example. 21:46:10 my concern that we as PWG are submitting very few things for a summit. so I am thinking what can we submit that are intersteding for community 21:46:16 Hmm, I'd be included to leave the updates on progress to the developers, but I agree on Arkady_Kanevsky point. 21:46:32 Arkady_Kanevsky +1, it would be interesting for the community, and provide visibility 21:46:37 - cool 21:46:52 I'm not sure I could get the submission together in time, I'll try and throw something together tonight. 21:47:09 ok.. thanks kencjohnston 21:47:13 Also the PWG will be helping to guide the PTL project sessions with a presentation template. 21:47:19 #info kei, andyu and leong have submitted a session to "promote / explain" Product WG, and plan to use Baremetal as an example. 21:47:21 for tonight we only need a short blurb. real work will come later if accepetd 21:47:28 I have until 2am right? 21:47:38 11:59pm Pacific :) 21:47:49 Ken, I will be happy wotk work with you on it. 21:47:50 leong Right, like I said, 2am for me 21:48:01 Arkady_Kanevsky +1 thanks, I'll shoot you a note 21:48:13 +1 21:48:33 #info Kencjonston and Arkady_Kanevsky will work on an update for Rolling Upgrade user-story 21:48:57 anything else on this agenda? 21:49:24 #topic Simplifying User Story Submission 21:49:36 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PWG-story-submission-ideas 21:49:36 ++ 21:50:26 i think we can discuss this at Midcycle as well on how to simplify user story submission? 21:50:41 +1 leong 21:50:51 Please continue to brainstorm and put your suggestion on the above etherpad 21:51:21 #agreed Leong to include "Simplifying User Story Submission" in PWG Midcycle Agenda 21:51:34 #topic Open 21:51:37 Is the name going to possibly change? From "Story" to something higher level sounding? 21:52:12 AndyU: someone brought up that point as well, can you add that into the etherpad? 21:52:21 will do 21:52:34 will comment on etherpad 21:52:44 any open item for the remaining 8 mins 21:53:17 i have one item for Open discussion... 21:53:26 is about LCOO 21:53:50 LCOO is a new WG that initiated by few large operators (AT&T, Orange, NTT, etc...) 21:54:22 they are still in a planning phase.. and AndyU is a co-chair of LCOO roadmap team 21:54:31 I saw that. do we really need a new group for it? 21:54:36 leong, thanks for bringing this up. 21:55:01 I was involved/engaged in recent conversation.. i think we, as in Product WG, can help to group to integrate with the community? 21:55:16 LCOO is keen to adopt our PWG workflow 21:55:21 Why is Telco group not sufficient for it? 21:55:26 It would be great if they could just integrate into existing WGs 21:55:39 Additional topic: FYI, I'm distributing roadmap survey request today to PTLs - 25 projects covered - for the Ocata cycle & beyond. 21:55:44 Might give the WGs some extra energy 21:55:44 the Telco group is a different function from LCOO 21:55:55 thanks heidijoy 21:56:02 Love it if they use our workflow 21:56:15 #info Heidijoy is distributing roadmap survey request today to PTLs - 25 projects covered - for the Ocata cycle & beyond 21:56:38 The foundation is looking to the PWG for help in prioritizing/highlighting Ocata features that support our "one platform" message. 21:57:06 heidijoy Where can we get more details on what we mean by "one platform"? 21:57:31 our “one platform” message—that OpenStack enables users to coordinate virtual machines, bare metal, containers and other emerging technologies from a single platform. If your team’s features support this effort, please explain how they do so on the survey so we can highlight your project. 21:57:34 i am hoping that PWG members here can help to collaborate with LCOO... one example is the Logging feature 21:58:08 heidi what help do you envision from PWG? 21:58:10 kencjohnston: I'll follow up for a better description 21:58:20 heidijoy No worries, that gets me started :) 21:58:30 LCOO is definitely seeking to collaborate with PWG 21:59:01 arkady_kanevsky: Looking for a few PWG folks to review the spreadsheet of answers and make notes (Google Sheets) on what has strong end-user benefit and/or significance for "one platform" 21:59:18 heidi - I will be happy to help 21:59:32 any questions for LCOO? 21:59:56 are LCOO meeting at Milan? 21:59:58 Will anyone be attending tonight's PWG from LCOO? 22:00:06 Arkady, heidijoy, ken: will take note on that discussion with "one platform" 22:00:11 If yes, can we invite them to "joint: meetong? 22:00:18 yes... AndyU from LCO is planning to 22:00:26 Thanks1 22:00:31 RockyG: not that I know of, but perhaps 22:00:39 sorry... i refer to Milan meeting 22:00:45 10pm PST 22:00:57 Rockyg, i will discuss that in tonight regional meeting 22:00:59 Late for folks with farms 22:01:10 Yes, I'm hoping to join you in Milan. Not approved to travel yet though. 22:01:16 Rockyg: people can stay up late on the farm too :) 22:01:25 neec to drop 22:01:30 Rocky G; ha ha 22:01:39 we hit the hour.. 22:01:50 please direct questions to mailing list if necessary 22:01:57 #endmeeting