08:10:26 <tobberydberg> #startmeeting publiccloud_sig
08:10:26 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Wed Jan  4 08:10:26 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is tobberydberg. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:10:26 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
08:10:26 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'publiccloud_sig'
08:11:06 <tobberydberg> Have a little bit of vacation here these days so missed to send reminder and haven't prepared much to be honest
08:11:31 <gtema> :)
08:12:13 <fkr> I actually wondered, wether they ("OpenInfra meetings") happen this week or not :)
08:12:38 <gtema> you are at full speed already fkr ?
08:13:03 <gtema> after one month vacation in December I am just slowly starting
08:13:15 <tobberydberg> One thing though that seams important to touch base around is potential forum sessions for Vancouver... Submission is due 10th...
08:14:25 <tobberydberg> Prior that used to be closer to the Summit if I recall correctly...
08:15:01 <gtema> yeah, seems to be. Forum submissions deadline is in April
08:15:31 <fkr> gtema: somewhat, I was very sick before x-mas and as such still have a tad of backlog
08:15:36 <tobberydberg> Is it really? hmm...then I've crewed this up in my head :-)
08:16:40 <gtema> fkr, very similar to me. Just that I was spending 1/3 of my vacation with serving medical care to family and 2/3 with renovations in addition to own sickness
08:18:24 <tobberydberg> A lot of different crap is flying around these days....
08:18:37 <gtema> right, real crap
08:18:47 <fkr> tobberydberg: am working on my proposals for the summit, will come up with something for the public cloud track
08:19:16 <gtema> cool fkr
08:19:54 <tobberydberg> great fkr
08:20:02 <tobberydberg> As a forum session?
08:20:29 <fkr> we should do a forum session, but I also thought about submitting a talk for the public cloud track
08:20:43 <tobberydberg> Sounds great!
08:21:39 <fkr> tobberydberg: have you had anything in mind for a forum session?
08:22:24 <tobberydberg> Are you both planning to travel to Vancouver?
08:22:35 <gtema> well, it depends on company and budget
08:22:52 <fkr> I'm planning on doing that.
08:22:56 <gtema> at least my legal issues got resolved and now I am free to travel
08:23:47 <gtema> so I plan, but no guarantee that company pays
08:23:57 <tobberydberg> My thoughts have mostly been around 2 sessions. One for further discussions regarding the "standard set of attribues", and the second regarding the central testing/verification/refstack thing
08:24:40 <fkr> tobberydberg: naturally everything that goes towards 'standardization' would be a big gain for me
08:24:49 <fkr> me == scs obviously
08:25:15 <gtema> tobberydberg - a big plus from me on both
08:25:17 <tobberydberg> sounds good! My plan is to go there as well, and looks like I've got the budget for it from the company as well
08:26:25 <tobberydberg> Are your thoughts along those lines as well fkr or are you thinking of any other forum session?
08:27:15 <fkr> yes, I was thinking along the lines of standards, which fits with your thoughts
08:28:09 <fkr> well and the other is on how to get more CSPs to actively chip in with work in OpenStack. muahahaha ;)
08:28:13 <tobberydberg> I can create an etherpad where we can collect different sessions and can collaborate around it if that sounds like a plan?
08:28:16 <fkr> +1
08:28:25 <tobberydberg> Hehe
08:31:15 <tobberydberg> https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/publiccloud-sig-vancouver-2023-forum-sessions
08:31:18 <fkr> last time we had the topic of co-chairing the SIG
08:31:42 <tobberydberg> yes
08:32:20 <tobberydberg> Would be great for me and for the SIG in my opinion
08:32:56 <fkr> I'd be open to that and would like to throw my hat into the ring for that
08:33:01 <tobberydberg> Been a lot of traveling lately and that looks to continue so might be hard some times to make all meetings
08:33:18 <fkr> never done that in the openinfra scope so I'd need some help in the beginning but if that is OK for you
08:33:24 <tobberydberg> That sounds great fkr
08:34:23 <tobberydberg> absolutely :-)
08:35:28 <fkr> objections anyone?
08:35:55 <tobberydberg> clearly not from me :-)
08:36:14 <gtema> nope
08:38:24 <tobberydberg> So, found one email here indicating April 21st as Forum submission deadline, but that didn't get confirmed...
08:38:43 <tobberydberg> Well, ones logged in that seams to be the case, so you were right gtema
08:38:45 <gtema> I was yesterday looking on the website and it was there
08:39:18 <gtema> I love this statement tobberydberg ;-)
08:39:21 <tobberydberg> Then that is no rush but good that we've started the planning for it
08:39:42 <tobberydberg> :-)
08:42:35 <tobberydberg> Another thing that I've thought about lately is to update the SIG wiki page...that is a little bit out of date ;-)
08:42:38 <tobberydberg> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PublicCloudSIG
08:42:55 <fkr> very good point
08:43:34 <tobberydberg> So, initially just present the current work we do and the goals we have...
08:43:59 <tobberydberg> I'll try to find some time for that
08:44:08 <fkr> dito
08:44:30 <NilsMagnus[m]> +1 (I am in ro mode today mostly)
08:44:55 <tobberydberg> lucky you NilsMagnus[m] ;-)
08:46:51 <fkr> tobberydberg: so we're now meeting bi-weekly in the odd weeks (since this is CW 1) at 08:00 UTC (which would be the first item to update on that wiki page)
08:47:29 <tobberydberg> Yes, correct ... and a good thing to have there indeed
08:50:24 <tobberydberg> As I think I mentioned before I got an email from Martin Kopec from interop SIG to align regarding the testing... I'm thinking that we try to invite him to one of our upcoming meetings. How does that sound?
08:50:38 <gtema> sounds good
08:54:53 <tobberydberg> gtema Have you received more credentials for testing than just from me? :-)
08:55:17 <gtema> sadly nope. Only Rax (that were only partially working)
08:55:19 <fkr> which reminds me, that I'll poke my fellows again
08:56:15 <gtema> on the other side during all that time I am now only 1 remaining step before automating things properly, tests themselves are mostly reworked and some sketch for automation job is there
08:56:43 <tobberydberg> the latter part sounds great gtema
08:56:58 <gtema> btw a tricky question to the round regarding interop test:
08:57:06 <gtema> with the "powered by" cloud must run OpenStack in the backend
08:57:24 <gtema> but I know lot are running CEPH with rados for swift
08:57:30 <gtema> and swift is pretty much mandatory
08:57:39 <gtema> what are your thoughts on that?
08:59:17 <tobberydberg> My thoughts might be flourished by our setup, but since most (what I think) are running ceph and rados gw today I think test should be aligned with that
08:59:42 <gtema> well, it is not the test itself, it is rather the "legal" part of that
08:59:57 <tobberydberg> ah, ok, you mean like that
09:00:05 <gtema> with that it is not really "powered by" - it is "compatible"
09:00:15 <fkr> gtema: in the sense of wether object storage via radosgw is fine as well instead of requiring native swift?
09:00:50 <gtema> fkr - in the sense that swift tests are mandatory in the "powered by openstack" label
09:01:02 <gtema> and this label requires running real openstack in the backend
09:01:08 <gtema> but ceph is not real openstack
09:01:15 <tobberydberg> hmmm...well...the more legal part of it, I assume that is a question for OpenInfra foundation, right?
09:01:36 <gtema> so the whole label is not applicable in reality and tests are only verifying "openstack compatible" cloud
09:02:17 <gtema> tobberydberg - you are right, this is a legal question to be answered by foundation, but public clouds are the one who should understand implications of that
09:02:24 <tobberydberg> yea, that can become hairy if you take that further...
09:02:27 <tobberydberg> for sure
09:03:11 <gtema> and I have another feeling some public clouds may be putting some apigw in front which are also "altering" the game to some extend
09:03:17 <tobberydberg> interesting question though, and something that will have to be clarified.
09:03:29 <tobberydberg> exactly
09:03:40 <gtema> so I have no clue how foundation is supposed to verify that a real openstack is running in the backend
09:04:13 <tobberydberg> nope ... that is hard.
09:04:53 <tobberydberg> OpenStack Powered and OpenStack Certified are 2 different things in that sense
09:06:25 <tobberydberg> Also something that we can discuss around with Kopec if we get thatmeeting to happen ... he might have historical information around the topic
09:06:50 <gtema> yupp
09:06:51 <gtema> ok
09:07:39 <tobberydberg> Well, out of time since a couple of minutes. Good discussions and welcome as co-chair fkr :-=
09:08:09 <fkr> ;)
09:08:17 <tobberydberg> No stress with the Forum topics concluded as well :-)
09:09:12 <tobberydberg> I'll shoot an email to Martin and check his availability to join our meeting, and hopefully we are back to full steam in 2 weeks :-)
09:09:23 <tobberydberg> Thanks for today!
09:10:23 <fkr> thanks for moderating!
09:10:25 <tobberydberg> #endmeeting