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