21:00:47 <notmyname> #startmeeting swift
21:00:48 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Oct 14 21:00:47 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is notmyname. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:49 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:00:52 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'swift'
21:01:00 <notmyname> who's here for the swift meeting?
21:01:04 <minwoob> o/
21:01:05 <cschwede> o/
21:01:06 <blmartin> Hello!
21:01:08 <tdasilva> hi
21:01:09 <jrichli> here
21:01:10 <ho> hi
21:01:10 <m_kazuhiro> o/
21:01:10 <jlhinson_> o/
21:01:12 <wbhuber> o/
21:01:16 <hurricanerix> o/
21:01:19 <nadeem_> o/
21:01:47 <notmyname> welcome, everyone :-)
21:02:01 <scotticus> o/
21:02:14 <kota_> helllo
21:02:22 <notmyname> the summit is quickly approaching
21:02:30 <briancline> o/
21:02:31 <notmyname> I'm supposed to push a schedule by the end of the week
21:02:51 <notmyname> we've all been working on https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tokyo-summit-swift as a place to coordinate topics
21:02:52 <notmyname> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tokyo-summit-swift
21:02:55 <acoles> hi
21:03:09 <notmyname> so let's see what's there and rank them so we can figure out what the schedule will look like
21:03:14 <notmyname> #topic summit planning
21:03:17 <torgomatic> funny how the summit goes from "long ways off" to "oh crap" in the span of a week
21:03:23 <notmyname> no kidding :-)
21:04:17 <notmyname> here's how I think we should do this: go down the list of topics listed, give each a priority (high medium low, 1..10, somehting). then I'll sort them for scheduling later
21:04:31 <notmyname> and there are some interesting thigns (IMO) at the bottom that aren't yet fleshed out
21:04:51 <notmyname> to recap, we've got 2 fishbowl sessions, 12 workroom sessions, and a meetup all day friday
21:05:03 <notmyname> fishbowls are large rooms
21:05:24 <notmyname> workrooms are smaller and won't have a prominant topic on the printed schedule
21:05:29 <cutforth> hello
21:05:35 <notmyname> the meetup is completely ad hoc
21:05:46 * cutforth regrets getting caught in a hallway conversation
21:06:04 <notmyname> any questions on how the summit will look before we talk about the topics?
21:06:38 <clayg> notmyname: it seems like the fishbowls might have some contention - be interesting to see how that works out
21:07:04 <notmyname> (also, I think it's definitely possible to schedule continuous sessions for something that needs more time)
21:07:23 <notmyname> I felt that in vancouver the mental context switching every 35 minutes was pretty rough
21:07:38 <notmyname> ok, first up
21:07:38 <clayg> notmyname: +2
21:07:56 <notmyname> mark seger diagnostics sessions in a workroom
21:08:00 <notmyname> relative priority?
21:08:13 <notmyname> let's do from 1 to 10. 10 is highest
21:08:30 <clayg> notmyname: can't relatively weight w/o a full list?
21:08:54 <notmyname> ok, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much to you want to have this as a scheduled topic?
21:08:54 <notmyname> :-)
21:08:55 <clayg> notmyname: can we stack rank or something?
21:09:20 <notmyname> clayg: yeah, I'll do that after we have a number. or if we make it though all of them in this meeting we can do that at the end
21:09:25 <clayg> notmyname: depends on the synopsis?  I feel like I missed a link to a etherpad or something...
21:09:27 * notmyname votes 3
21:09:36 <notmyname> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tokyo-summit-swift
21:09:39 <clayg> sorry i was late ;)
21:09:59 <briancline> 7
21:10:11 <tdasilva> how about a 5 ;)
21:10:23 * acoles has been scrolling ahead on etherpad
21:10:24 <acoles> 5
21:10:34 <cschwede> 5
21:10:38 <jrichli> jrichli 5
21:10:43 <minwoob> 5
21:10:46 <notmyname> ok, 5
21:10:49 <ho> 5
21:10:54 <notmyname> next up
21:11:01 <notmyname> ops feedback fishbowl session
21:11:03 <briancline> 10
21:11:05 <notmyname> 10
21:11:07 <ho> 10
21:11:07 <kota_> 10
21:11:09 <acoles> 10
21:11:11 <joeljwright> 10
21:11:11 <cschwede> 8
21:11:14 <blmartin> 8
21:11:14 <m_kazuhiro> 10
21:11:15 <torgomatic> 2.7182818
21:11:16 <notmyname> yeah, that one is obvious :-)
21:11:20 <minwoob> 10
21:11:26 <jrichli> 10
21:11:33 <acoles> torgomatic: yep, notmyname did not specify integers
21:11:37 <notmyname> cschwede: just curious, why 8?
21:12:00 <notmyname> and there's a note from someone on it about potentially doing a longer session
21:12:23 <joeljwright> torgomatic: it'll be fine until we get a complex vote :)
21:12:39 <torgomatic> hehe
21:12:48 <cschwede> notmyname: to be able to vote something different higher, but still ensuring it gets enough points to be included ;)
21:12:56 <notmyname> cschwede: heh ok :-)
21:13:21 <notmyname> seeing as we don't actually have any other proposed fishbowl sessions yet, it's very likely to happen :-)
21:13:25 <notmyname> next up
21:13:31 <notmyname> symlink from hrou
21:13:44 <wbhuber> 7
21:13:46 <kota_> 8
21:13:47 <ho> 7
21:13:51 <m_kazuhiro> 9
21:13:54 <jrichli> 7
21:13:57 <briancline> 5
21:14:06 <minwoob> 9
21:14:09 <acoles> 8
21:14:11 <joeljwright> 8
21:14:14 <cschwede> 8
21:14:26 <timburke> 9
21:14:29 <notmyname> ok, I'll write down 8
21:14:36 <notmyname> next
21:14:37 <acoles> hmm, what is cschwede saving his 10 for? :)
21:14:45 <notmyname> production keymaster from jrichli
21:14:57 <cschwede> acoles: next summit ;)
21:15:10 <clayg> notmyname: 10
21:15:15 <cschwede> 9
21:15:18 <kota_> 9
21:15:21 <mattoliverau> o/ (sorry now in waiting room)
21:15:21 <torgomatic> 7
21:15:22 <joeljwright> 9
21:15:25 <briancline> 7
21:15:27 <blmartin_> 7
21:15:29 <acoles> 8
21:15:32 <ho> 7
21:15:33 <wbhuber> 8
21:15:34 <minwoob> 9
21:15:58 <mattoliverau> 7
21:16:09 <notmyname> 8 or 9, writing down 9
21:16:11 <kota_> mattolivearu: we are now voting (rating) for each item.
21:16:13 <notmyname> next
21:16:28 <notmyname> remaining encryption items from jrichli
21:16:29 <cschwede> 9
21:16:31 <wbhuber> 9
21:16:32 <blmartin_> 9
21:16:36 <ho> 9
21:16:37 <minwoob> 9
21:16:39 <acoles> 9
21:16:40 <mattoliverau> I guessed that thanks kota_
21:16:41 <joeljwright> 9
21:16:42 <tdasilva> 10
21:16:43 <kota_> 9
21:16:47 <briancline> 8
21:16:50 <mattoliverau> 8
21:16:55 <clayg> would it be easier to just pick the one topic of the 15 listed that we we don't think will fit into the 14 slots we have and will have to bump out to the ad hoc?
21:17:05 <mattoliverau> Lol
21:17:12 <joeljwright> :)
21:17:12 <notmyname> ok, 9 as well. and these should be scheduled together
21:17:19 <cschwede> clayg: too easy!
21:17:20 <notmyname> next
21:17:26 <notmyname> global cluster improvement from kota_
21:17:29 <cschwede> 10
21:17:32 <wbhuber> 9
21:17:32 <tdasilva> 9
21:17:35 <kota_> 10
21:17:39 <jrichli> 9
21:17:42 <m_kazuhiro> 10
21:17:43 <ho> 7
21:17:44 <minwoob> 9
21:17:46 <blmartin_> 9
21:17:50 <briancline> 7
21:17:50 <acoles> 9
21:18:03 <timburke> clayg: been thinking a lot about that pigeonhole principle lately, haven't you :P
21:18:04 <mattoliverau> Everyone votes the same each time
21:18:11 <notmyname> we have 12 slots, actually. and we may choose to let one topic take more than one slot. or maybe "this afternoon we're covering all these things"
21:18:18 <torgomatic> anchoring
21:18:57 <notmyname> next up
21:19:06 <notmyname> storage tiering discussion from m_kazuhiro
21:19:13 <tdasilva> 7
21:19:16 <acoles> 6
21:19:17 <ho> 7
21:19:17 <briancline> 10
21:19:19 <m_kazuhiro> 10
21:19:19 <wbhuber> 9
21:19:21 <minwoob> 10
21:19:23 <joeljwright> 6
21:19:26 <kota_> 9
21:19:26 <mattoliverau> 7
21:19:29 <jrichli> 8
21:19:31 <torgomatic> 2
21:19:32 <notmyname> more of a split on this one :-)
21:19:38 <cschwede> 6
21:20:04 * notmyname writes down 7
21:20:11 <notmyname> next
21:20:24 <notmyname> role-based access control with oslo.policy from ho
21:20:27 <ho> 8
21:20:29 <briancline> 500
21:20:33 <mattoliverau> 8
21:20:33 <acoles> lol
21:20:37 <notmyname> briancline: :-)
21:20:38 <briancline> i mean 10
21:20:41 <jrichli> 10
21:20:43 <briancline> typo ;-)
21:20:44 <blmartin_> 9
21:20:47 <kota_> 8
21:20:48 <ho> briancline: lol
21:20:48 * torgomatic knows some of those words
21:21:02 <acoles> 10
21:21:04 <minwoob> 8
21:21:10 <cschwede> 8
21:21:17 <wbhuber> i'll go with the status quo
21:21:39 <notmyname> lots of 8s and a 500 which makes the average pretty close to 475
21:21:45 <joeljwright> :D
21:21:46 <briancline> \o/
21:21:51 <ho> yes!
21:21:51 <kota_> lol
21:21:54 <clayg> notmyname: how is 2 + 12 != 14?
21:21:55 <mattoliverau> We can vote that high! Awesome
21:22:02 <briancline> ho: congratulations! you've won
21:22:11 <notmyname> clayg: just separating fishbowl from workroom.
21:22:13 <ho> hehehe
21:22:14 <acoles> clayg: hex
21:22:27 <notmyname> next up
21:22:34 <acoles> clayg: no wait, something else
21:22:36 <notmyname> using keystone session object in swiftclient
21:22:36 <acoles> duh
21:22:50 <clayg> acoles: octal
21:22:51 <briancline> 5
21:23:04 <acoles> notmyname: depends if anyone can tell us how
21:23:06 <clayg> what's a session object
21:23:11 <acoles> there you go
21:23:12 <clayg> acoles: lol
21:23:12 <mattoliverau> Don't know what that really is.. So.. 6?
21:23:15 <joeljwright> clayg: :D
21:23:19 <kota_> 6
21:23:23 <notmyname> keystone has an object thing that does a lot of the auth validation
21:23:27 <notmyname> retries and all that
21:23:29 <clayg> heh - maybe that means we *should* talk about it?
21:23:32 <blmartin_> 6.5 ish
21:23:36 <notmyname> including keeping state between requests
21:23:39 <mattoliverau> Ahh OK 7 then :p
21:23:59 <ho> 7
21:24:04 <clayg> notmyname: it doesn't have a facilitator ( joeljwright ?)
21:24:08 <notmyname> it's supposed to make things a lot better if you're using keystone. also, I think everyone else is doing it (or nearly), so if we don't they won't think we're one of the cool kids
21:24:16 <joeljwright> clayg: not gonna be in Tokyo :(
21:24:18 <cschwede> can we discuss the keystone v4 as well then (grouping keystone topics)?
21:24:23 <acoles> notmyname: so I am 10 for it happening but not sure how far we would get in a session
21:24:25 <notmyname> clayg: bad news is that joeljwright and timburke aren't in tokyop
21:24:30 <notmyname> acoles: yeah
21:24:32 <acoles> cschwede: v4?!
21:24:34 <mattoliverau> digi-joel
21:24:44 <clayg> it's like "Keystone for Dummies^WSwift Developers"
21:24:51 <cschwede> acoles: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181393
21:24:54 <briancline> lol
21:25:11 <cschwede> i said v4 because it will break current clients
21:25:17 <acoles> cschwede: oh that, right, thanks
21:25:30 <notmyname> cschwede: we'll just do that one over sake
21:25:41 <mattoliverau> \o/
21:25:44 <clayg> ... and tears
21:25:49 <notmyname> :-)
21:25:55 <cschwede> notmyname: sounds like a plan! :)
21:25:56 <notmyname> ok, next up
21:26:18 <notmyname> swiftclient docs: improve the docs there, including making sure people know which part of swiftclient to use
21:26:35 <clayg> +2*32
21:26:43 <clayg> ^ that's as big as I go
21:26:47 <mattoliverau> Alex should be at this summit so I'll drag her along
21:26:49 <notmyname> clayg: but even though he's not going to be there, joeljwright helped by adding some of these swiftclient topics
21:26:55 <notmyname> mattoliverau: great
21:26:57 <cschwede> 8.5
21:27:03 <joeljwright> 9
21:27:07 <briancline> 7
21:27:13 <mattoliverau> 9
21:27:35 <clayg> notmyname: that's because joeljwright is gentleman and a scholar
21:27:57 <notmyname> ...and has impeccable taste in clothes
21:27:57 <clayg> briancline: but it's... it's... DOCS!
21:28:03 <kota_> around...7?
21:28:05 <notmyname> heh
21:28:13 <joeljwright> there's a start here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223319/
21:28:20 <notmyname> ok, next up
21:28:35 <timburke> oh yeah, speaking of swiftclient stuff, clayg are we at that point where i should nag you about how it's almost the summit and the client still isn't (that much) better?
21:28:38 <briancline> clayg: i almost had a 5 because of other topics, but i said the same thing in my head
21:28:46 <notmyname> container sync from eranrom (discuss patches)
21:28:53 <clayg> timburke: YUP!
21:28:58 <wbhuber> 9
21:29:01 <minwoob> 9
21:29:02 <briancline> 9
21:29:06 <ho> 9
21:29:13 <kota_> 9
21:29:14 <jrichli> 9
21:29:15 <notmyname> briancline: likes container sync better than docs ;-)
21:29:21 <mattoliverau> Lol
21:29:24 <clayg> well.... idk... like 6 or 7
21:29:24 <mattoliverau> 8
21:29:33 <clayg> maybe 8, probably 7
21:29:35 <cschwede> 7
21:29:42 <acoles> 7
21:29:44 <briancline> notmyname: that's how you can tell i'm a corporate drone
21:29:48 <notmyname> lol
21:29:49 <clayg> it's a lot - that's the point
21:30:12 <notmyname> 9s and 7s. I'll write down 8
21:30:19 <notmyname> next up
21:30:33 <notmyname> EC topics from acoles (and I hope others too)
21:30:36 <acoles> 1
21:30:38 <acoles> 0
21:30:40 <cschwede> 10
21:30:41 <clayg> ROFL
21:30:42 <notmyname> lol
21:30:44 <cschwede> lol
21:30:44 <clayg> 2**32
21:30:50 <kota_> 10
21:30:50 <wbhuber> 100 divided by 10
21:30:53 <minwoob> 10
21:31:00 <jrichli> 9
21:31:03 <briancline> 9
21:31:03 <ho> 9
21:31:08 <blmartin_> 9
21:31:17 <mattoliverau> Lower is better right? :p
21:31:22 <mattoliverau> 8
21:31:35 <blmartin_> All of this has been golf scoring actually
21:31:37 <acoles> mattoliverau: in your hemisphere maybe ;)
21:31:42 <notmyname> next up
21:31:44 <briancline> lol
21:31:46 <mattoliverau> ROFL
21:31:47 <notmyname> container sharding
21:31:49 <minwoob> 10
21:31:55 <joeljwright> 9
21:31:58 <mattoliverau> 10
21:32:01 <notmyname> minwoob: you can't say 10 to everythign ;-)
21:32:01 <briancline> 10
21:32:03 <jrichli> 9
21:32:04 <blmartin_> 10!
21:32:06 <torgomatic> 9¾
21:32:08 <cschwede> 9
21:32:09 <kota_> 8
21:32:12 <wbhuber> 9
21:32:16 <acoles> 9
21:32:20 <minwoob> notmyname: I've only said it twice! :)
21:32:28 <ho> 8
21:32:44 <mattoliverau> This is the summit where we go back to poc #1 :p
21:33:06 <notmyname> next up
21:33:12 <notmyname> pipeline improvements/auditing
21:33:16 <briancline> 9
21:33:22 <wbhuber> n/a
21:33:36 <notmyname> I'd be fine with this one on friday
21:33:44 <clayg> oh - proxy pipelines
21:33:50 <mattoliverau> That's what I said in the ehterpad :)
21:33:52 <notmyname> (although I think it's a great improvement!)
21:34:04 <mattoliverau> All pipelines really but proxy is the main
21:34:06 <notmyname> mattoliverau: oh yeah!
21:34:27 <kota_> i like this but...around 8?
21:34:28 <clayg> idk... 6
21:34:41 <jrichli> 7
21:34:42 <kota_> i'm not sure everyone wants that.
21:34:44 <minwoob> 8
21:34:48 <notmyname> priority as "friday"
21:34:50 <cschwede> seems like there are more important topics?
21:35:00 <mattoliverau> 10 - cause I put it in, but was more thinking of making a group interested on friday
21:35:04 <notmyname> next is the same
21:35:10 <notmyname> swift3 compatibility
21:35:30 <jrichli> 9
21:35:33 <kota_> i like to this priority as friday, too :-)
21:35:43 <clayg> notmyname: idk, if timburke was going to be there I might try to rib him into talking about s3_compat repo and progress
21:36:10 <briancline> 5
21:36:16 <mattoliverau> 8 (just don't do it while I'm involved in pipelines)
21:36:25 <notmyname> I want to leave this one as friday for now, until we see what else we have
21:36:27 <tdasilva> friday
21:36:36 <notmyname> ok, next up
21:36:39 <mattoliverau> Yeah friday
21:36:55 <notmyname> anti-myth replica part placer from clayg
21:37:02 <cschwede> 10
21:37:04 <ho> 10, restoring! great!
21:37:18 <briancline> 10
21:37:21 <torgomatic> 10
21:37:21 <briancline> 1/x
21:37:30 <acoles> 1/0
21:37:40 <minwoob> 10
21:37:42 <kota_> 10
21:37:46 <notmyname> ok, 10. I got it :-)
21:37:47 <clayg> acoles: ^ yeah i think i'll get rid of most of those by toyko
21:37:47 <torgomatic> oh, can we use fish numbers?
21:37:51 <mattoliverau> Going into doctors now
21:37:53 <blmartin_> 10 because graphs and charts
21:38:12 <clayg> blmartin_: probably mostly gifs
21:38:17 <blmartin_> Noooooooooooo
21:38:18 <cschwede> cats?
21:38:25 <notmyname> ok, those are the ones that were fleshed out. next up are general ideas, some need to be expanded
21:38:26 <clayg> blmartin_: of c... ^ exactly
21:38:29 <notmyname> eg this one
21:38:34 <notmyname> hummingbird update
21:38:54 <notmyname> or combine with hummingbird sync protocol unification
21:38:58 <clayg> redbo_: dfg: hurricanerix: nadeem_: do eet!
21:39:12 <clayg> mmmmmm... get the syncs in sync - so sexy
21:39:14 <briancline> oops, by 1/x i meant something that graphs very differently. fuzzy brain
21:39:44 * notmyname wonders if any of those people are online
21:39:47 <hurricanerix> i defer to dfg & redbo =)
21:39:55 <clayg> hurricanerix: no YOU do it
21:39:57 <notmyname> hurricanerix: will you be there?
21:40:00 <clayg> DEW EET!
21:40:01 <hurricanerix> notmyname: yp
21:40:04 <hurricanerix> yup
21:40:07 <notmyname> yay!
21:40:08 <clayg> ok, done
21:40:08 <briancline> i'd actually really like to hear about the progress on that
21:40:10 <clayg> 2**32
21:40:14 <redbo_> We can do that.  There'll be some stuff in our talk, but we have a lot of data we can share.
21:40:20 <briancline> 9
21:40:30 <tdasilva> 9
21:40:41 <dfg_> hello?
21:40:48 <ho> 9
21:40:52 <clayg> redbo_: I might watch the video of the business track session - but I'm not going to participate if I can be obnoxious and ask questions
21:40:53 <tdasilva> dfg_: just say 10 ;)
21:41:13 <minwoob> 9
21:41:14 <redbo_> I assume you meant "can't" :)
21:41:18 <notmyname> redbo_: dfg_: yeah, somehting not a presentation but figuring out how we can unify some of the backend stuff from hummingbird and listen to some of the progress there
21:41:37 <dfg_> 10
21:41:43 <notmyname> dfg_: oh good :-)
21:41:44 <clayg> dfg_: good job
21:41:45 <dfg_> nadeem told me to write 10. i trust him
21:41:50 <kota_> lol
21:41:58 <nadeem_> lol
21:41:58 <clayg> dfg_: srly, nadeem_ is whicked smart
21:41:58 <dfg_> as oppose to the rest of you jokers
21:42:00 <notmyname> dfg_: I'll expect the rough draft first thing monday
21:42:07 <notmyname> ;-)
21:42:20 <notmyname> ok, next one
21:42:26 <notmyname> chaning policy on an existing container
21:42:31 <notmyname> *changing even
21:42:38 <clayg> notmyname: was tiering already up there?
21:42:48 <notmyname> yup. scratch this one
21:43:01 <notmyname> ok, next
21:43:08 <notmyname> how to contribute intro
21:43:15 <tdasilva> friday
21:43:27 <notmyname> (maybe) friday ;-)
21:43:55 <clayg> notmyname: we've had some new folks helping cleanup the onboarding docs in tree - been kinda nice - hope to see more of that
21:44:21 <notmyname> yes! I'm very willing to help with new contributors, especially in person at a summit
21:44:36 <clayg> "how to contribute" ==> "email notmyname"
21:44:37 <notmyname> but it's an "as-needed" priority
21:44:47 <notmyname> clayg: yeah, that. (seriously)
21:44:55 <notmyname> ok, next
21:45:06 <briancline> clayg: are the onboarding docs in the usual swift.openstack.org docs? i know some folks who would like to see those
21:45:07 <notmyname> per policy constraints (ie stuff from swift.conf)
21:45:14 <notmyname> briancline: not quite
21:45:25 <clayg> briancline: oh, heh - i was about to say yes :)
21:45:27 <notmyname> briancline: sortof, but they could be better. that's on my list (somewhere)
21:46:05 <clayg> mmm... yeah per-policy settings/constraints... umm... 2**32 for a patch, 1 for a non-friday session
21:46:14 <acoles> briancline: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/first_contribution_swift.html
21:46:32 <acoles> briancline: there may be other docs too
21:46:37 <notmyname> clayg: what do you mean by "1 for a non-friday session"?
21:47:11 <briancline> 5
21:47:18 <briancline> acoles: thanks
21:47:26 <torgomatic> 1
21:47:32 <clayg> notmyname: I just think we can talk about it but it's not a huge debate over implemenation or design or w/e
21:47:33 <tdasilva> 7
21:47:41 <clayg> so we don't really need an organized session
21:47:56 <notmyname> ok, "friday" priority
21:48:00 <tdasilva> friday sounds good
21:48:13 <clayg> just like "hey sort_method should be per-policy" - "yeah totally!" - "how should we do that?!" - "umm... with vim?"
21:48:15 <notmyname> last one listed (unless I missed something)
21:48:25 <notmyname> high-latency media (tape) update
21:48:30 <notmyname> 1
21:48:36 <torgomatic> 1
21:49:20 <clayg> idk, something there seems to suggest there's an API to discuss?  I'd listen to that (probably).
21:49:22 <notmyname> anyone else/
21:49:30 <clayg> be even better to get to read it
21:49:31 <cschwede> 5
21:49:42 <tdasilva> friday
21:49:50 <cschwede> out of curiosity
21:50:53 <clayg> well I'd like to know more about who's *working* on this - and what they've accomplished - I have very little business/project/personal reason to think tape is KEY
21:51:09 <clayg> I guess that's a 1 or a 2?
21:51:14 <notmyname> I'd like to see this as part of a tiering thing and something to read. instead of taking an hour on friday to discuss
21:52:18 <notmyname> I think we've got enough stuff to fill up the slots anyway
21:52:24 <clayg> how about the API is just a COPY that returns a 202 real quick but then a GET to the target might 404 for awhile
21:52:26 <notmyname> but that being said, there's still one open issue
21:52:44 <notmyname> we've got one topic proposal that's a fishbowl session (ops feedback)
21:52:49 <notmyname> and we have 2 fishbowl slots
21:52:52 <clayg> the client request drops something in a internal container q somewhere
21:52:55 <clayg> DONE
21:52:58 <notmyname> so what's the other fishbowl slot
21:52:59 <jrichli> its like the last donut
21:53:09 <blmartin_> Haha
21:53:14 <acoles> notmyname: just realised i didn't write fast-post on the etherpad :P
21:53:24 <joeljwright> :)
21:53:26 <clayg> YES FISHBOWL ON FAST-POST!
21:53:30 <notmyname> heh
21:53:37 <acoles> you see how i played that hand
21:53:38 <torgomatic> yeah, fast-post is important
21:53:39 <clayg> acoles: well hold everyone hostage until it's merged!
21:54:13 <clayg> notmyname: acctually maybe just a "review acoles' patches" session?
21:54:18 <notmyname> yeah
21:54:26 <acoles> seriously, idk there's a session there, its been discussed plenty before
21:54:45 <notmyname> actually, yes. I'd love to see workroom stuff as code review time. I think that's fine
21:55:05 * acoles goes to read the corporate guidelines on bribery...
21:55:17 <notmyname> fishbowls can be more of "discuss something or present something with a big group". workrooms are like the hackathons: do what it takes to make progress on the topic
21:56:06 <notmyname> so what do we have that needs to gather feedback from a large group or discuss with a larger group? ie for a second fishbowl
21:56:22 <notmyname> also, it could be that we have 2 ops feedback sessions, if we think that will be better than just having one
21:57:13 <timburke> acoles: no, you should go read the corporate guidelines on "gifts to aid collaboration". you should never *start off* calling it "bribery" :)
21:57:24 <acoles> notmyname: symlinks???
21:57:38 <notmyname> acoles: encryption?
21:57:41 <acoles> timburke: right! :)
21:57:50 <tdasilva> notmyname: maybe the container sync from Eran
21:57:57 <notmyname> ec overview?
21:58:21 <notmyname> something about figuring out what to do with dependencies and requirements.txt?
21:58:35 <notmyname> how to make pyeclib sane? (sorry, better)
21:58:47 <jrichli> deps and requirements +1
21:59:00 <acoles> ec performance results?
21:59:06 <clayg> notmyname: yeah it needs to be the thing where we think people outside of swift developers and deployers will be valuable to engage in the conversation - since only fishbowls are the publiziced sessions
21:59:13 <notmyname> acoles: peluse_ and I are already giving a talk on that :-)
21:59:20 <notmyname> clayg: right!
21:59:24 <acoles> well give it twice!
21:59:44 <acoles> notmyname: is that on tuesday?
21:59:54 <notmyname> ok, I'll think on it
21:59:58 <notmyname> but we're out of time for today
22:00:00 <notmyname> acoles: maybe?
22:00:08 <clayg> notmyname: oh oh oh - S3!
22:00:09 <notmyname> thanks for coming and helping
22:00:11 <acoles> notmyname: hope it doesnt conflict
22:00:12 <notmyname> :-)
22:00:17 <torgomatic> S4!
22:00:18 <notmyname> thanks for working on swift
22:00:23 <notmyname> #endmeeting