21:01:56 #startmeeting project 21:01:57 Meeting started Tue Oct 22 21:01:56 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:01:58 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 21:02:00 The meeting name has been set to 'project' 21:02:04 #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting 21:02:12 A special meeting today, focused on the design summit scheduling 21:02:22 dum dum dum duuuuuuh 21:02:25 every meeting is special. 21:02:34 here 21:02:37 But first we'll do a quick release postmortem 21:02:41 like raindrops falling from the sky 21:02:42 #topic Havana release postmortem 21:02:49 So... last week we released Havana 21:02:56 In general I think it went well 21:03:04 All processes worked as planned 21:03:16 We were a little too late for my taste 21:03:38 i.e. we didn't switch to anal-rentention mode early enough 21:03:43 I intend to discuss ways to mitigate that during the release schedule session in HK 21:03:48 hey 21:03:49 also IIRC seemed to be slowness/breakages creeping into the gate towards the end 21:03:50 seemed to happen < 1 week before release? 21:04:00 (which slowed down the merge rate significantly) 21:04:25 russellb: we did some RC2s two weeks before final that were still a bit too significant 21:04:32 well the breakages were all bugs in core projects, it did take a while to nail down those races 21:04:35 People who followed prior releases of OpenStack said these release notes were good. 21:04:43 For a primer you can read http://fnords.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/getting-to-havana/ 21:04:56 I can't take credit for them, but docs writers did some real digging to compile those. 21:05:04 with the ptls 21:05:09 I think we lost a week at the beginning recovering from the intense feature freeze week 21:05:18 annegentle: yep i got a lot of help, it was great 21:05:31 so we either need to make it less intense, or add a week 21:05:37 ttx: +1, i was fried after that 21:05:46 I'm not sure you can decrease the intensity, deadlines kind of do that to humans? 21:06:00 o/ 21:06:09 re. lateness and heavy RCs, reasonable flexibility was shown with FFEs IMHO 21:06:25 Do you have any issue with the release process, or another FAIL to report while you still remember it ? 21:06:25 right, so move the freeze back a week. The mad rush definitely burns up reviewers 21:06:26 ... said as a benificiary of one of those FFEs ;) 21:06:49 sdague, russellb: that's one of the options yes 21:07:21 from the Horizon side, I'd just like to encourage PTLs of other projects to communicate their "banner features" for a release early and often to the Horizon team so we can plan our integration accordingly 21:07:26 ttx: I think my only regret is we didn't get parallel testing in until right near H3, and it shook out a lot of bugs, but would have been nicer earlier 21:07:29 ttx: one improvement, we need to get you a desk so you don't have to fill out your checklists on rocks any longer 21:07:36 gabrielhurley: good point 21:07:43 gabrielhurley: +1 21:07:50 gabrielhurley: we might change the format of this meeting to make that more efficient 21:08:08 ttx: any changes you think would help are welcome 21:08:18 i guess that could help docs, too 21:08:29 gabrielhurley: as in, we might just sync most of the release status offline at some other pre-arranged hour 21:08:33 gabrielhurley: actually same goes for heat, regarding banner features and integration 21:08:44 then use the meeting to communicate about cross-project 21:08:49 and make that part short 21:08:57 stevebaker: +1 21:09:05 and python-openstackclient 21:09:05 this really goes for all the top-of-stack programs 21:09:12 most of what happens in this meeting could happen in a 1:1 discussion between me and ptl 21:09:13 russellb: yep sure would 21:09:34 and then the critical need for cross-project communication is a bit buried in it 21:09:39 ttx: I like that reformat of the project meeting 21:09:45 ttx: +1 21:09:46 yeah, sounds interesting 21:09:58 annegentle: I intend to polish a proposal and present it in the release schedule/process session 21:10:24 +1, I look forward to this proposal 21:10:27 ttx: know when that's going to be yet? 21:10:30 no point in me preparing remarks all day and pasting them in channel while we have everybody's attention 21:10:47 russellb: probably last day, before last slot 21:10:56 last slot would be "the future of design summits" 21:11:07 ah, k 21:11:11 so 2nd to last slot 21:11:21 OK... we also have a number of known issues to backport to stable/havana 21:11:29 I know of bug 1242855 21:11:30 Launchpad bug 1242855 in keystone "Removing role adds role with LDAP backend" [Critical,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1242855 21:11:35 Any other really embarrassing bug that crept in ? 21:11:52 ttx: I have a question about bugs post-release 21:12:00 as in, if it had been discovered last week you would have asked for a new RC to cover for it 21:12:05 annegentle: ask 21:12:23 ttx: do you mark bugs that didn't get fixed in havana as icehouse targeted? Or untarget them completel? 21:13:24 ttx: looking at nova, I think you mass-target to next-release 21:13:44 annegentle: err... what do you mean by icehouse-targeted ? 21:13:56 ttx: Milestone 21:13:59 ttx: sorry 21:14:01 icehouse1-milestone-targeted ? 21:14:10 ttx: right 21:14:36 you mean, bugs that were havana-rc-potential that didn't get fixed ? 21:15:07 ttx: looking at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/BugTriage, it doesn't say if any particular thing happens at release 21:15:29 nothing particular happens at release 21:15:43 you can target some of the deferred fixes to your next milestone 21:15:51 but that would be a manual thing 21:15:58 ttx: and looking at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Bugs it looks like a judgement call, Milestone 21:16:07 the only thing I do is untag havana-rc-potential and make them havana-backport-potential 21:16:15 ttx: ok, so you're not using the launchpad API for moving bugs around? 21:16:20 annegentle: no 21:16:25 ttx: got it, thanks 21:16:44 If you have embarassing bugs in havana, would be great to document them all in the Release Notes so that the early upgraders know about all of them. 21:17:01 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/Havana 21:17:11 and yes, bug 1242855 counts as embarassing :) 21:17:12 Launchpad bug 1242855 in keystone "Removing role adds role with LDAP backend" [Critical,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1242855 21:17:34 anything to add about havana ? 21:17:35 I find that bug hilarious :-) 21:17:37 gabrielhurley: any specific examples for banner features? 21:17:40 * dolphm ++ 21:17:50 gabrielhurley: hiilarious bugs are also release notes material :) 21:18:10 i don't think i have anything hilarious, or severely depressing, but I think that's good 21:18:13 annegentle: the one that brought this to the forefront of my mind in Havana was miscommunication around the VPNaaS and FWaaS between myself and the Neutron guys that led to some FFEs and long nights for folks to get them in 21:18:20 they did a great job getting that done, btw 21:18:27 props to the devs who worked on those 21:18:35 russellb: that would be one of the first release without a OMG bug discovered +1week 21:18:35 but we shouldn't have needed to do that 21:18:45 gabrielhurley: +1 those sub teams did a great job 21:19:07 OK, time to talk Hong-Kong 21:19:14 gabrielhurley: good, I think you're ahead of docs there, people do seem confused about VPNaaS and FWaaS docs 21:19:25 #topic Design Summit scheduling 21:19:26 what's the deadline for PTLs to review and reject/accept design session proposals? 21:19:38 eglynn: We are trying to produce a schedule before the end of the week. 21:19:44 Does that sound doable for everyone ? 21:19:51 good for me 21:19:57 for me too 21:20:01 sure 21:20:09 Then we use the following days to fix conflicts 21:20:16 good for me, mostly done (in an etherpad, not on the site yet) 21:20:24 ttx: well jd__ is on vacation this week, not sure how off-grid he is though 21:20:36 eglynn: all week ? 21:20:50 damn the french with all their vacation time 21:21:00 heh 21:21:05 ttx: hmm, not 100% sure on that, may only be the the 1st half of the week 21:21:08 oui oiu 21:21:19 he's defo out tmrw also 21:21:23 wah 21:21:32 eglynn: if not I could give you the keys if necessary 21:21:37 how do we check conflicts? 21:21:44 ttx: fair enough 21:21:49 I mean, do I click 'push to sched' and then ??? 21:21:55 lifeless: manually and then hope for the best i think 21:22:06 lifeless: we can anticipate them using comments that may have been left by people. Otherwise we just post and wait for complaints 21:22:07 ttx: so how soon will things be in place for us to start pushing things out? I'm mostly done on our schedule, and it would be good to have it out there before the QA meeting on Thurs so we can adjust 21:22:08 russellb: sure, but I mean in a little more detail... 21:22:13 BTW is it clear yet approx. how many sessions will be available to each track? 21:22:20 (modulo horse-trading or whatever ...) 21:22:25 eglynn: nowhere near enough! 21:22:32 lifeless: also we can't please everyone, so pleasing all the PTLs as a first step is good 21:22:35 can we push to sched more than once, if we do change the schedule? 21:22:50 there needs to be a PTL FAQ for this I think ;> 21:22:51 sdague: we need to solve the sched question first. I'll come to it 21:22:53 dhellmann: yep (or i was able to last time) 21:22:55 Everyone: Do you have sessions in your "topic" that you think belong to another ? 21:23:12 russellb: cool, I expected as much but wanted to be sure #n00b 21:23:13 dhellmann: yes, and in the past you can update the schedule even during the event 21:23:15 ttx: yes 21:23:16 I had one, already re-proposed it to Ceilometer 21:23:20 not really 21:23:21 ttx: I mostly kicked those out with comments 21:23:21 ttx: one maybe 21:23:29 just some that we recommended to unconference, mostly 21:23:30 (http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/220) 21:23:31 ttx: I've already dealt with that, so not any more 21:23:31 ttx: I do 21:23:34 jeblair: you can use this meeting to trade 21:23:58 (or try to) 21:23:59 ttx, nope 21:24:01 markmc is not around; is there an oslo ptl proxy here? 21:24:09 I'm here :-) 21:24:11 dhellmann's the ptl now :) 21:24:11 jeblair: that would be dhellmann 21:24:15 haha 21:24:15 gah 21:24:25 wrong wiki page. ;) 21:24:29 not a big deal 21:24:33 markmcclain: ttx: http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/314 21:24:34 oh, which one do I need to update? 21:25:04 markmcclain: I'm gonig to chat with snaiksnat once my run of meetings are done 21:25:16 ok 21:25:21 lifeless: you scheduled it so i suspect you found room for it ? 21:25:22 russellb: do you have any interest in this? http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/220 I think the right technical solution is a nova change rather than a glance change. I'm okay with giving it a glance slot but would love to have relevant nova folks there 21:25:29 dhellmann: if i deep link to http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/124 can you see that? 21:25:33 russellb: I suggested that boris-42 submit some of the db changes he wants to make in the nova track, did you get those? 21:25:35 ttx: I'm oversubscribed by about 3:1 :P 21:25:42 jeblair: yes 21:25:44 i never know what access people have in the summit app 21:25:45 coll 21:25:46 jeblair: reading 21:25:52 markwash: we'd probably reject it as something we could probably cover on the ML 21:25:52 jeblair: ++ 21:25:53 actually, russellb, this one seems mostly about nova unit tests - http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/317 21:25:54 ttx: but we'll muddle through 21:26:03 dhellmann what?) 21:26:03 dhellmann: didn't get that, no, i don't think 21:26:06 lifeless: welcome to hell 21:26:06 jeblair: oh, man, why rebuild chef, puppet, etc.? 21:26:10 dhellmann we have only one DB session 21:26:23 dhellmann: and http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/318 21:26:34 ttx: heh, so to me the value is not in the discussion but in the face to face 21:26:39 boris-42: maybe roman was going to do it? we agreed some of the sub-topics needed a different audience 21:26:46 ttx: plans don't survive more than a few weeks post summit anyhow 21:26:51 boris-42: let's discuss later, if we need to 21:26:51 ttx: but thats a meta discussion 21:26:57 dhellmann: yeah, though i suppose it applies to some other projects ... but don't think I'd give it nova track time. it's not terribly controversial or anything, and is already well in progress 21:26:58 dhellmann Okay 21:27:00 oh! i can change the topic by clicking on it in the list 21:27:22 russellb: ok, I thought the soft delete thing in particular might spark some discussion, since it wants to have nova depend on ceilometer 21:27:25 so the ui paradigm is 'click on the hyperlink for the aspect of the proposal you want to change' 21:27:26 markmcclain: so #openstack-neutron after this I guess :) 21:27:35 sdague: you're not suposed to come up with exciting titles, otherwise you'll attract the crowd (re: "Preemptively Integrate the Universe") 21:27:42 russellb: hmm. . this is just sort of a long-term standstill so far :-( 21:27:43 heh 21:28:01 well I'll let jeblair make the title boring 21:28:03 dhellmann: oops, that was meant for sdague 21:28:05 jeblair: I guess http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/318 could fit with oslo 21:28:14 dhellmann: don't think i've seen a session related to what you're saying 21:28:20 lifeless: sounds good 21:28:23 ttx: where would you suggest that up-and-coming Programs (I'm specifically looking at the proposed UX Program) get time allotted to them in the scheduling process? 21:28:25 russellb: heh, yeh honestly, I think 317 doesn't really need a session 21:28:31 russellb: I'll leave it for boris-42 to submit 21:28:32 sdague: agreed 21:28:36 dhellmann: ok 21:28:41 but I figured I'd let you know before I punted it entirely in case you disagreed 21:28:43 boris-42: if you are submitting anything, please do it asap 21:28:50 sdague: sure, appreciated 21:28:53 russellb okay 21:29:01 gabrielhurley: they don't, unless they are invited by an existing topic -- we can't provide room for all wannabees and the line has to be drawn somewhere 21:29:03 russellb 30 min ok? 21:29:06 sdague: unless you think there's some controversy or important discussion to have around it 21:29:09 boris-42: from now? yes 21:29:12 ttx: so I clicked on push to sched 21:29:14 jeblair: did you want me to take http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/124 over? I don't expect I would approve of a system like that 21:29:15 russellb yeah from now-) 21:29:16 gabrielhurley: there is an unconference room for random things 21:29:18 dhellmann: 318 bumped to oslo 21:29:19 ttx: and it said 21:29:22 dhellmann: let's ask lifeless 21:29:24 lifeless: that should fail 21:29:26 Would have pushed to sched.org: 21:29:27 russellb: not really, it's just a getting stuff done thing I think 21:29:28 ttx: ok 21:29:31 ttx: I see. Way to make me choose, since http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/111 is submitted to the Horizon track... 21:29:32 lifeless: want http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/124 ? 21:29:36 sdague: ok agreed 21:29:37 lifeless: until the sched API key field is filled 21:29:39 ttx: so I'm confused about how we collaborate ;P 21:29:56 lifeless: via IRC, like always :) 21:29:56 lifeless: we need to solve the one sched / two sched question first 21:30:11 dhellmann, lifeless: because i'm not likely to accept 124 in infra) 21:30:12 lifeless: then I'll enter the corresponding sched.org APi key 21:30:22 jeblair: sheese yeah. 21:30:36 yeah doesn't seem infra related really, heh 21:30:37 jeblair: yeah, it doesn't fit there 21:30:38 lifeless: havign a "private" sched would let us push early, push often 21:30:39 jeblair: uhm, I think there are good aspects to having live configuration 21:30:49 jeblair: but it's a) not openstack-infra 21:31:07 jeblair: any idea who the proposer for 124 is? honestly the last time that came up on the ML there was some talk about it being a keystone thing 21:31:10 ooh ooh, what's b) 21:31:13 jeblair: and b) not a library problem per se - there's lots of consequences that that proposal doesn't think about 21:31:24 like graceful operation in mixed version clouds 21:31:25 sdague: joe brue 21:31:29 breu* 21:31:39 lifeless: oh, yeah, agreed. i'm not evaluating the merits. i'm just saying it's not infra. 21:31:58 can reject it saying "consensus is we hate it" 21:32:05 dhellmann: oslo is as good a place as any; it's not a deployment problem per se: I think oslo is a decent place to start the discussion 21:32:18 jeblair: reminds me of issues with the central config mgmt of NDB cluster ... 21:32:22 dhellmann: deployment can certainly inform the discussion (but so can all the API services) 21:32:25 Another question: is there anyone who has TOO MANY SLOTS and wants to give them out to their neighbour ? 21:32:31 lifeless: ok, I'm running out of space but we'll see 21:32:33 ttx: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 21:32:52 lifeless: last summit we had Glance and Horizon giving some slots out :) 21:32:59 ttx: http://summit.openstack.org/scheduling/13 btw 21:33:06 devstack has only 2 proposals? 21:33:15 devananda: it only has 2 slots 21:33:24 ah :) 21:33:26 jeblair: I can't edit 124, but if you want to put it in oslo I'll deal with it 21:33:30 lifeless: busy :) 21:33:32 dhellmann: ok, will punt to you for now then. you can punt it to lifeless later i guess. :) 21:33:43 lifeless: you can edit the common title of those merged sessions fwiw 21:33:44 jeblair: hehe 21:33:59 lifeless: see "Help" at the bottom of the page 21:34:04 devananda: where do you see devstacks sessions ? 21:34:12 it's conference hot potato 21:34:21 lifeless: http://summit.openstack.org/ and click 'topic' to sort 21:34:29 russellb: http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/124 would probably make more sense in oslo and not infra 21:34:46 rackerjoe: it just got moved to oslo 21:34:53 cool 21:35:12 rackerjoe: (for consideration, not approved) 21:35:21 jeblair: understood 21:35:27 * ttx likes the session trading fair 21:35:28 devananda: thanks 21:35:31 rackerjoe: I'll see if I can find space for it, but I was already full 21:35:56 eglynn: since jd__ isn't here, i'd like to point out http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/197 21:36:08 eglynn: moved from ironic track after talking offline with jd__ about it 21:36:30 eglynn: at the time, you guys still had some free slots :) 21:36:37 devananda: yep, I noticed that, we definitely need to discuss those topics in detail 21:36:45 cool 21:36:52 devananda: (so it were up to me, that would be a shoo-in ...) 21:37:20 ttx: thanks! 21:37:31 russellb: anything in the nova track on baremetal? (i'm skimming right now) 21:37:45 Please continue the session trading fair, but we'll address the question of one or two scheds in parallel 21:37:53 #topic Separate or same sched.org ? 21:37:54 devananda: nothing 21:38:09 ttx: #vote separate 21:38:12 We need to decide this ASAP, since we want to start pushing stuff before the end of week 21:38:14 #vote separate 21:38:20 #vote separate 21:38:22 #vote separate 21:38:25 #vote separate 21:38:25 So far, 9 of you said they preferred 2 scheds, and 3 of you preferred one (notmyname, annegentle, SergeyLukjanov) 21:38:26 #vote separate 21:38:29 #vote separate 21:38:31 #vote separate 21:38:31 #vote separate 21:38:31 #vote separate 21:38:34 10 21:38:37 #vote separate 21:38:39 12 21:38:41 #vote oneschedtorulethemall 21:38:43 #vote separate 21:38:51 #vote separate 21:38:58 annegentle: why rule only the mall? 21:39:05 ok http://summit.openstack.org/scheduling/13 seems sanish now 21:39:06 #vote oneschedtorulethemall 21:39:06 jeblair: hee hee 21:39:09 #vote separate 21:39:13 jeblair: annegentle: castle? 21:39:18 jeblair: that's where the cinnabon is 21:39:31 SergeyLukjanov, annegentle, notmyname: would separate scheds work for you, or you prefer to die before we do it ? 21:39:43 annegentle voted separate above 21:39:46 why separate? only to discourage looky-loos from coming by? isn't the whole point to have users and devs come together? 21:39:49 devananda: you want to lead one? could do it on Friday, when we're doing other hypervisor sessions ... up to you. don't mind not having it if nobody wants to talk about it ... 21:39:55 notmyname: not 5000 of them 21:39:57 ttx: yes, we should have either separate or a unified sched 21:40:00 devananda: maybe it makes sense that all the relevant chat is about Ironic 21:40:06 lifeless: not sure who that link was intended for, but i get a 403 21:40:11 ttx, sure, it'll work but it doesn't look very useful for attendees 21:40:23 dolphm: its the deployment schedule, I don't know who can look at it 21:40:28 russellb: i think it makes sense to keep it all in ironic, and i've only got one or two to merge so far 21:40:36 devananda: OK, sounds good 21:40:37 dolphm: ttx: if only ttx + me can, I think that suggests a summit bug 21:40:47 russellb: with the plan of 'stop adding things to noa-baremetal and deprecate it', i think it 's fine not to have a sessiona bout it 21:40:58 devananda: ack 21:41:07 notmyname: having separate schedules does not in any way prevent people from coming to the summit sessions, but it does make it easier for ATCs to find summit sessions 21:41:14 I won't fight long or hard for it but I hate to ask that much work of people this late. It's a known problem, we try to solve it with different solutions, why rush around this week on a second sched.org 21:41:14 notmyname: benefits for separate is: weeding out people, abilityt o use colors to difefrentiate design summit topics, and ability to push schedule early for final tweaking without messing with the "official" one 21:41:27 more summit.openstack.org pages need more read-only visibility 21:41:29 dhellmann: hmm...I didn't think the ATC discovery issue was the problem being solved 21:41:30 devananda: we've got a couple of small things still to go, but then it really should be stoppable. 21:41:32 notmyname: drawback being obviously having to juggle 21:41:42 ttx: can we not use separate colors if we have a single sched? 21:41:46 lifeless: bug fixes notwithstanding :) 21:42:01 dhellmann: you run out of useful colors pretty quick 21:42:02 dhellmann: can, but colors alone won't be effective 21:42:04 dhellmann: that would make a lot of undistinguishable colors 21:42:08 devananda: supporting ephemeral partitions for instance; arguable on the wire but really need it :) 21:42:13 and some of us don't see colors the same way .... 21:42:19 what are colours ? 21:42:29 already 18 used on - http://openstacksummitnovember2013.sched.org/ 21:42:34 ttx: i did like the "warm colors for technical topics, and cool colors for everything else" thing you suggested 21:42:40 sdague: that would make 38 colors 21:42:40 yeah I think solving the colors issue just for ATCs is a LOT of work for just colors and just ATCs 21:42:47 /lots/ of people are partially color blind 21:42:47 but everyone will quickly look past that 21:42:52 lifeless: +++ 21:43:10 * russellb doesn't feel *that* strongly ... just want to make sure we have the right people, and more importantly, not the wrong people in the room 21:43:16 so if a separate sched helps that, then +++ 21:43:17 honestly, the big issue is what we saw with nova on day one last year 21:43:18 ++ not the wrong people ... 21:43:18 ttx: have you re-evaluated the time sink a second sched.org is and come up with it's really not bad? 21:43:23 because it can seriously kill productivity 21:43:31 there will be about 500 colour blind people in HK 21:43:32 optimize colors for tetrachromats 21:43:41 lifeless: yes, only admins and topic leads can see the scheduling screen 21:43:48 russellb: it wasn't jsut on day one ... 21:43:52 i really don't see why it's painful to have a separate 21:43:55 devananda: ++ 21:44:06 annegentle: it's not really long to set up 21:44:12 * notmyname will use whatever is provided 21:44:18 annegentle: especially if you borrow the artwork from the first one 21:44:24 annegentle: there is a cost though 21:44:24 so there are many people that are not actually interested in directly contributing to the design work 21:44:33 they are usually first-time attendees - 2.5K *new* folk this time 21:44:57 the challenge isn't 'keep people out' it's - help the several thousand new attendees get to things that actually help them 21:45:00 sdague: the space in HK is physically separated from the conference, requires a "full access" pass and the design summit starts on the same day as the conference, so I don't expect that many bystanders 21:45:01 do we know what the physical layout is going to be? 21:45:11 cost of 2nd sched <<<<< cost of disrupted sessions by having the room full of the wrong people 21:45:13 I don't really think it's an argument worth having. I'd prefer a unified schedule for the appearance of unity, if nothing else. I'll use whatever, and it seems that the majority wants separate schedules 21:45:19 physically as in 500 meters away 21:45:24 * notmyname is used to being in the minority ;-) 21:45:26 ttx: wow 21:45:30 sdague: layout isn't really important… its the titles and topics that attract 21:45:40 lifeless: not the same building, afaik 21:45:41 * hub_cap converts that to ft 21:45:43 ttx: nice. except for when we need to run between them due to scheduling conflicts ;) 21:45:49 ttx: ok if it's really not hard, it's worthwhile to try to somewhat obfuscate the ATC schedule, but I worry about our "open" claim being a bit disingenous 21:45:57 with two schedules, i'm still slightly worried that people will come across the "wrong" schedule for them 21:45:59 this second sched won't be private or hidden, right? so people can still find the summit 21:46:01 ttx: I'm so going to be rushing from A to B on tuesday 21:46:10 OTOH the rest of the week can be drinking 101, so \o/ 21:46:17 annegentle: wow, i don't think this makes ANYTHING less open 21:46:23 hub_cap: technically its 100 rods, but was rounded 21:46:25 given that it's apparently a separate building (!!) then a separate sched makes even more sense to me. 21:46:36 my preference is one schedule 21:46:41 markwash :) 21:46:45 to rule the mall 21:46:51 vote and move on? 21:46:54 yeah 21:46:55 must rule the mall 21:46:57 we did... 21:47:00 heh 21:47:10 annegentle: we're doing everything possible to avoid having to do something that does physically prevent over-attendance 21:47:11 #startvote How many scheds? One, Two 21:47:11 Begin voting on: How many scheds? Valid vote options are One, Two. 21:47:12 Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts. 21:47:17