15:01:25 <krotscheck> #startmeeting storyboard
15:01:26 <openstack> Meeting started Mon May 19 15:01:25 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is krotscheck. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:28 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:01:30 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'storyboard'
15:01:58 <NikitaKonovalov> krotscheck, hi
15:02:03 <krotscheck> Anyone recovered/back from Atlanta yet?
15:02:10 <krotscheck> NikitaKonovalov: Hey there!
15:02:34 <krotscheck> There was a lot of interest in storyboard at the summit, but I’m not certain everyone’s gotten their meeting agenda updated yet.
15:02:57 <krotscheck> I know that gothicmindfood is stuck in traffic.
15:03:03 <krotscheck> And ttx might be on a plane.
15:03:07 <krotscheck> Anyway
15:03:14 <krotscheck> #topic Atlanta Summit
15:03:23 <krotscheck> So given that right now it’s just the two of us, let me just give you a recap.
15:03:40 <NikitaKonovalov> ok
15:03:42 <krotscheck> Firstly, the etherpad is a good lineup of what Infra wants/needs to start moving over.
15:04:01 <krotscheck> In addition, we did a bunch of sit-down-and-talk-to-users UX testing, which resulted in the videos:
15:04:06 <krotscheck> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6LxnAZQ6G4GUlQxRFNOZlJDa3c&usp=sharing
15:04:23 <krotscheck> I’m still working through this, but the issues raised fall into basically three categories:
15:04:27 <krotscheck> 1- issues with things we’ve already built.
15:04:37 <krotscheck> 2- issues with things that infra needs and we’re going to build shortly.
15:04:59 <krotscheck> 3- Feature requests and things that we’ll build in the future, but may change by the time we get around to them.
15:05:07 <ttx> AAH!
15:05:14 <krotscheck> It’s a ttx!
15:05:20 <ttx> sorry, was distracted bu another long-running meeting
15:05:24 <ttx> by*
15:05:25 <krotscheck> No worries :)
15:05:29 <krotscheck> So, anyway.
15:05:35 <jeblair> o/
15:06:22 <krotscheck> So re: UX sessions, I think it makes sense to actually address the issues with things that we’ve already build. Case and point, the new-story modal received a lot of criticism and needs a little love.
15:06:27 <krotscheck> *built
15:07:01 <jeblair> this session was also very informative wrt to storyboard needs: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-cross-project-tracking-features
15:07:19 <krotscheck> jeblair: Thanks
15:07:49 <ttx> krotscheck: would be interested to see your summary of the "future issues" too, any chance you could summarize in an email (maybe pointing to segments of videos) sometimes this week ?
15:08:00 <krotscheck> ttx: Absolutely.
15:08:07 <krotscheck> That folder I linked actually contains all my notes as I’m working through it.
15:08:22 <krotscheck> Future issues: For instance, we got a LOT of good feedback from the UX team.
15:09:13 <krotscheck> I’ll send a summary out to openstack-dev methinks.
15:09:54 <krotscheck> Last item from the Atlanta summit is that I inquired with jeblair about what the process is to get another +2 on storyboard, and subsequently nominated NikitaKonovalov for that.
15:10:18 <jeblair> krotscheck: clarification: you asked me to consider nominating NikitaKonovalov
15:10:23 <krotscheck> Ah, right
15:10:43 <NikitaKonovalov> krotscheck: thanks
15:10:59 <ttx> krotscheck: I've been considering NikitaKonovalov +1s as a second +2 when the patch was from krotscheck for some time now
15:11:11 <krotscheck> So moving forward on that, I assume that you two will be discussing the matter out-of-band?
15:11:11 <jeblair> i should be able to look into that this week
15:11:19 <ttx> krotscheck: (until you told me to stop doing that)
15:11:31 <krotscheck> ttx: Hey, that wasn’t me :).
15:11:33 <krotscheck> But anyway
15:11:35 <jeblair> krotscheck: actually the process is that we do it publicly
15:11:44 <krotscheck> jeblair: openstack-dev?
15:11:52 <jeblair> krotscheck: yes
15:11:52 <ttx> maybe -infra
15:11:54 <krotscheck> kk
15:11:56 <ttx> ok
15:12:43 <ttx> OK, quick feedback from me on summit
15:12:49 <krotscheck> Go for it.
15:13:20 <ttx> the "Tracking incoming features" workshop definitely gave StoryBoard some publicity
15:13:37 <ttx> There is a good overview of the overarching mission on the etherpad
15:13:49 <ttx> In the "Problem(s) we are trying to solve" section
15:14:03 <ttx> even if that's the goal across the range of tools we are using
15:14:14 <ttx> (i.e. including -specs repos)
15:14:18 * SergeyLukjanov lurking - going to the atlanta zoo
15:14:39 <ttx> After that session (and the StoryBoard one) a lot of projects just proposed dogfooding StoryBoard early
15:14:46 <krotscheck> Really?
15:14:51 <jeblair> yes, lots
15:14:52 <krotscheck> Huhn.
15:14:58 <ttx> As in, almost all of them.
15:15:09 <ttx> I pushed back a bit -- I think it's waaaay not ready for them
15:15:21 <ttx> but there sure is a lot of enthusiasm
15:15:26 <jeblair> it came up in this one too: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-summit-qa-policy
15:15:43 <jeblair> and this one: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-summit-grenade
15:15:48 <jeblair> (just off the top of my head)
15:16:00 <ttx> I think the good targets for early dogfooding are the projects that have a simple release process (like only a master branch)
15:16:06 <krotscheck> I got a lot of interest from devs wanting to be involved as well, and I’m advising the vinz team on toolchain.
15:16:06 <ttx> like Infra
15:16:20 <NikitaKonovalov> if that matters, I've sent one of our deployment engineeres to file a story for nodepool in storyboard
15:16:21 <jeblair> ttx: yes, i discouraged it as well
15:16:25 <ttx> because everything else will require pretty advanced features
15:16:34 <ttx> (from a release management pov)
15:16:35 <jeblair> NikitaKonovalov: cool, thanks
15:17:05 <krotscheck> So the pressure’s on.
15:17:28 <ttx> yes! I generally can help more during the first half of the cycle, so I plan to do just that
15:17:41 <krotscheck> Works for me.
15:18:01 <ttx> but then, I also increased travel / conferences so I prefer not to promise too much
15:18:11 <ttx> anyway, that was my feedback
15:18:18 <krotscheck> Got it. Anything from jeblair?
15:18:30 <krotscheck> (Do you have a summit summary?)
15:18:36 <jeblair> that covers it
15:18:45 <krotscheck> Ok, so just to reiterate:
15:19:00 <krotscheck> 1- Good list of requirements from design session
15:19:10 <krotscheck> 2- needs-to-be-filtered list from UX testing.
15:19:14 <krotscheck> 3- Lots of exposure.
15:19:22 <krotscheck> 4- Lots of interest, people are chomping at the bit.
15:19:25 <ttx> yep
15:19:50 <krotscheck> 5- Some of the process design sessions came up with features we haven’t even anticipated.
15:20:18 <krotscheck> Alright, everyone ok with moving on to Ongoing work?
15:20:27 <ttx> +1
15:20:28 <NikitaKonovalov> sure
15:20:36 <krotscheck> #topic Ongoing work
15:20:44 <krotscheck> NikitaKonovalov? What’ve you been working on?
15:21:27 <NikitaKonovalov> I've spent some time on creating small changes to fix some small issues, misspellings, etc
15:21:47 <NikitaKonovalov> then the change with ProjectGroups api is wating for reviews
15:22:03 <NikitaKonovalov> so I've got the controllers work like I wanted
15:22:24 <krotscheck> Nice. I saw some of your comments in pecanpy, did you get the answers you needed there?
15:22:58 <NikitaKonovalov> krotscheck: I found an answer after a closer look at pecan's source
15:23:10 <krotscheck> Even better.
15:23:18 <NikitaKonovalov> one more thing is change for filtering timeline event in UI https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93563/
15:23:39 <krotscheck> Got it, will look at that.
15:23:47 <NikitaKonovalov> and now I'm working on refresh tokens as we discussed before the summit
15:24:03 <NikitaKonovalov> the change will come soon I think
15:24:09 <NikitaKonovalov> so this is my update
15:24:22 <krotscheck> NikitaKonovalov: Excellent.
15:25:02 <NikitaKonovalov> and I've been testing your dashboard changes locally to see how it works
15:25:10 <krotscheck> Any feedback?
15:25:15 <NikitaKonovalov> and it works!
15:25:21 <krotscheck> Yay things that work!
15:25:53 <krotscheck> As for myself, I was at the summit last week. I have a bunch of outstanding patches regarding the dashboard and/or minor UI tweaks in various locations, including vertically-expanding text areas and typeahead stuff.
15:26:20 <krotscheck> Oh, and I think I put priority in there as well.
15:26:28 <krotscheck> Simple, stupid priority.
15:26:46 <krotscheck> So that’s my update.
15:27:39 <krotscheck> #topic Upcoming work
15:27:43 <krotscheck> LOTS OF IT
15:27:56 <krotscheck> I think that about sums it up :)
15:28:42 <krotscheck> Of the 1.1 list, I think the one that’ll be the most contentious is subscription.
15:28:57 <ttx> krotscheck: how do you think we should track it ? We have an etherpad on one side, and some stories on the other
15:29:12 <ttx> file them all and use the dumb prio ?
15:29:28 <krotscheck> ttx: Well, there’s two things we need; milestone targeting and priority.
15:29:32 <krotscheck> We’ve got priority (more or less)
15:29:38 <jeblair> we also are about to have an infra-specs repo -- obviously we sholudn't use it to track small things, but major changes should probably go through it.
15:29:56 <krotscheck> We don’t have milestone yet, so I’m thinking labeling the stories as [1.1] would work.
15:29:58 <jeblair> we could consider filing a spec that covers each MVP...
15:30:21 <jeblair> krotscheck: ++ filing stories and labeling
15:31:00 <krotscheck> jeblair: MVP-per-spec rather than MPV-per-feature? I feel that having several features in one spec will be difficult to approve.
15:31:38 <krotscheck> We can try eitehr.
15:31:40 <ttx> krotscheck: about milestones: one use of the "task lists" thing was to have per-milestone task lists at the project level ("release task lists")
15:31:57 <ttx> rather than LP-like milestone targeting
15:32:32 <ttx> so we'll probably have to discuss that a bit
15:32:39 <ttx> abusing title for now is fien by me
15:32:49 <jeblair> krotscheck: yeah, i'm trying to not overload the specs repo right now for something fast-moving like storyboard.  i actually think we don't really need it for most of the stuff on the juno-infra-storyboard etherpad.  but i think we will get to a point where larger/more complicated features should have design review pre-impl.
15:33:16 <krotscheck> jeblair: The idea of a pre-impl design review makes me want to change my pants.
15:33:26 <ttx> I'd keep one separate spec for complex stuff (like the ones that have wiki pages at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StoryBoard#Design)
15:33:55 <ttx> but I guess some "basic LP partity" features could be lumped into a single spec
15:33:58 <ttx> parity*
15:34:05 <jeblair> krotscheck: you don't want to get agreement about new features from the core team before writing code?
15:34:16 <ttx> or he does want ?
15:34:32 <ttx> depends on why he needs to change those pants
15:34:35 <jeblair> ttx: oh, i guess i'm not sure whether dirty pants are good or bad...
15:34:37 <krotscheck> jeblair: Wrong kind of pants changing.
15:34:45 <krotscheck> jeblair: I like that kind of review.
15:34:50 <krotscheck> jeblair: LIKE Like.
15:34:54 <jeblair> krotscheck: oh, ok.  i like clean pants.  ;)
15:35:23 <krotscheck> Righto, so enough about my pants.
15:35:45 <krotscheck> Ok, so of the upcoming features, I feel that subscriptions is the one that needs a spec.
15:35:59 <ttx> krotscheck: yes, good example
15:36:14 <ttx> jeblair: when infra-specs is up we can add it as a project so that we can have tasks targeted to it
15:36:17 <jeblair> cool, we should have a repo to put in in within a few days
15:36:18 <krotscheck> Because that’s going to be one of those x-by-x complexity matrixes which will die a horrid death if we don’t implement it properly.
15:36:23 <jeblair> ttx: ++
15:36:34 <ttx> then it's easy to add missing stories
15:36:49 <ttx> krotscheck: agreed
15:37:01 <jeblair> and i suppose it will be good to dogfood the specs integration process that we expect other projects to use
15:37:25 <krotscheck> Feels like Storyboard is the testbed for all things process these days :)
15:37:32 <ttx> krotscheck: it's also a use case for task lists, but I'm not that sure it's the best way to handle personal interest
15:37:59 <ttx> maybe makes more sense to keep subscription more.. atomic and not handle it through a personal task list
15:38:35 <ttx> makes "subscribing to a task list" a thing, too
15:38:52 <ttx> so yeah, spec++
15:39:07 <NikitaKonovalov> +1 for spec from me
15:39:07 <krotscheck> Exactly
15:39:28 <krotscheck> Ok, so we’ll wait on the infra-spec repo and then start discussing the subscription implementation.
15:39:36 <krotscheck> I suspect that emails will also build off of that.
15:40:06 <ttx> ack
15:40:31 <krotscheck> Of the upcoming features in 1.1, are there any others that need a spec?
15:41:13 <jeblair> the lp data import/transition plan might be a good one
15:41:16 * ttx looks
15:42:04 <jeblair> possibly emails.
15:42:20 <ttx> tags ?
15:42:22 <jeblair> (mostly to hash out when/where/how they should be sent)
15:42:25 <krotscheck> jeblair: Agreed, especially since we’ll need some kind of a Rainbow table to map LP to SB from gerrit
15:43:05 <ttx> program groups could use one, so that we actually agree that we mean the same thing by that :)
15:43:26 <krotscheck> Though I feel we already had the discussion and realized that we could actually port the launchpad ID’s verbatim.
15:43:27 <ttx> it's pretty simple from where I stand, but then I'm on the right side of my skull
15:43:53 <krotscheck> ttx: It gets REALLY complicated as soon as you try to get lists of tasks in stories that belong to projects in a group.
15:44:12 <jeblair> krotscheck: the lp one may not be 'contentious', but would be a really good thing to have a reference doc on since it's a long process (it will still be relevant a year from now)
15:44:14 <krotscheck> And subscribing tot hem.
15:44:33 <krotscheck> jeblair: Makes sense.
15:44:46 <ttx> krotscheck: yeah.. just wondering if at this point (since work has started on that) it's not easier to just see the POC rather than work on design spec
15:44:55 <krotscheck> Ok, items that needs specs: Subscription, Emails, LP Migration
15:45:16 <krotscheck> NikitaKonovalov: Any thoughts on that?
15:45:23 <krotscheck> NikitaKonovalov: (What ttx just said)
15:45:29 <ttx> krotscheck: so no Tags, ProjectGroups ?
15:45:45 <NikitaKonovalov> I just wanted to add ProjectGroups
15:46:04 <ttx> (for tags, I think the 1.1 tags can be very simple so no spec needed)
15:46:33 <ttx> once we try to encourage the use of certain tags (like "official tags") then it gets hairier, but we don't really need that  now
15:46:53 <krotscheck> ttx: Wait, don’t you have a design doc for that?
15:46:59 <NikitaKonovalov> ttx: agree tags should be pretty straightforward
15:47:09 <ttx> krotscheck: oooh! I have!
15:47:16 <krotscheck> Linky?
15:47:25 <ttx> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StoryBoard/Story_Tags
15:48:17 <krotscheck> Right, I remember this.
15:48:22 <ttx> funny, I didn't :)
15:48:36 <krotscheck> The idea being that eventually, even things like priority, milestone, assignee, etc are tags.
15:48:43 <ttx> anyway, it could use some iteration and approval, certainly
15:48:58 <ttx> so I can add it as proper spec when infra-specs is a thing
15:49:06 <krotscheck> Yeah, let’s do that.
15:49:15 <krotscheck> Ok, so let’s add tags to the list of specs we want to discuss.
15:49:41 <krotscheck> #action Once infra-specs is up, add discussion specs for subscriptions, email, tags, and LP migration
15:49:52 <ttx> krotscheck: OK, so I'll take tags
15:49:59 <NikitaKonovalov> I guess ProjectGroups will go under LP migrations spec
15:50:04 <krotscheck> ttx: Got it. I’ll take subscriptions.
15:50:26 <krotscheck> NikitaKonovalov: Well, ttx mentioned that actually just using what you’ve built for now might be best.
15:50:34 <ttx> NikitaKonovalov: no, it goes under the "let's implement it and then do a v2 if needed"
15:50:34 <krotscheck> I’m open for discussion on that.
15:50:58 <ttx> I'm fine with writing a spec for it... all depends how advanced you are in impl
15:52:01 <NikitaKonovalov> righ now the groups can be loaded along with project and superusers can modify them through API (no UI support)
15:52:39 <ttx> so far we did a "let's look at what was done and complain afterwards" approach -- I agree it doesn't really scale but we can do it one more time !)
15:52:54 <NikitaKonovalov> ttx: agree
15:53:12 <ttx> NikitaKonovalov: if a v2 is needed, then I'll spec it
15:53:12 <krotscheck> Alright, so moving forward on proejct groups and then whining about it later.
15:53:29 <ttx> +1
15:53:33 <NikitaKonovalov> ok
15:53:55 <krotscheck> That’s it for the agenda, I’ll promise to come up with something more substantial next week.
15:54:01 <krotscheck> #topic Open Discussion
15:54:19 <krotscheck> Incidentally, if any of you have 3 hours, go watch the videos. They’re VERY interesting.
15:54:55 * krotscheck apologizes because he forgot to hit record when David Lyle was doing his thing.
15:55:35 <krotscheck> Anything else?
15:55:37 <NikitaKonovalov> One small question we have already discussed but still, Storyboard or StoryBorad?
15:55:42 <krotscheck> Ah, right
15:55:47 <ttx> StoryBorat!
15:55:58 <jeblair> :)
15:56:02 * krotscheck files that away for april fools.
15:56:19 <NikitaKonovalov> I mean capital B in the middle or ont?
15:56:22 <NikitaKonovalov> not
15:56:23 <ttx> So far it's been StoryBoard, but I don't really care that much
15:56:43 <jeblair> i think at the meetup we said capital b
15:56:45 <ttx> whoever really cares can decide
15:56:53 <ttx> jeblair: yes we did
15:56:57 <jeblair> ttx: you cared then.  :)
15:57:11 <ttx> jeblair: yes, but just can't remember why :)
15:57:15 <NikitaKonovalov> ok, capital B then
15:57:54 <krotscheck> Oh man, that’s going to bug me forever.
15:58:00 <krotscheck> But sure, capital B
15:58:32 <krotscheck> Anything else?
15:58:48 <ttx> nope
15:58:52 <jeblair> nak
15:59:00 <krotscheck> #endmeeting