20:03:40 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:03:41 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jan 22 20:03:40 2013 UTC.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:03:42 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:03:44 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:03:45 <jaypipes> ttrifonov_zZzz: o/
20:03:53 <jaypipes> crap.
20:03:55 <jaypipes> o/
20:03:58 <ttx> Agenda for today is:
20:04:03 <ttx> #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/TechnicalCommittee
20:04:28 <ttx> (heckj, annegentle not on channel...) oh, jgriffith.
20:04:35 <ttx> #topic Discussion: Voting procedure to decide the H release name
20:04:42 <ttx> Super important
20:04:50 <ttx> The most lightweight and relatively-painful-to-hack method remains to use Launchpad polls as we did in the past
20:05:01 <ttx> The main issue with Launchpad polls are that they are single-choice
20:05:10 <ttx> which doesn't work so well when there are 35 options.
20:05:18 <ttx> So to reduce that problem my suggestion would be that the TC comes up with a shortlist of 4 names
20:05:27 <ttx> then using single-choice polling is not so much of a problem.
20:05:35 <ttx> If you agree with that, I can quickly setup a Condorcet vote for the TC
20:05:44 <ttx> so that we efficiently pick the 4 best options out of http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNaming
20:05:51 <ttx> Thoughts ?
20:05:54 <notmyname> why not a codorcet vote globally?
20:06:09 <danwent> notmyname: my question as well, but i'm guessing ttx has a reason :)
20:06:20 <ttx> notmyname: two reasons... we would change who gets to vote compared to previous polls...
20:06:48 <ttx> and we would have to send emails, while I don't want people to feel like they are constantly asked to participate in elections
20:07:18 <mordred> well, we're going to have to ask them to participate in electoins whether it's 4 choices or 35
20:07:18 <ttx> hence the lightweight "polling" on the ~openstack LP group announced via various low-touch social media
20:07:26 <markmc> 4 seems just a little low, might take some of the fun out of it
20:07:40 <mordred> I do not support low-touch social media announcement only
20:07:45 <ttx> mordred: not really. We'll annoucne the vote on the ML, not send them all personal emails
20:07:52 <russellb> Halfway, lol ...
20:07:59 <russellb> the Halfway release ...
20:08:08 <danwent> i don't see either of the two reasons for not using codorcet are that critical.  what is the difference in the set of people who would vote?
20:08:08 <mordred> ok. well, honestly, I'd rather get a vote email than a mail to ~openstack mailing list, which I regularly ignore
20:08:37 <ttx> danwent: we'd have to pick between technical contributors or foundation members
20:08:42 <mordred> (I'll know about the election from being in here, but I'm imagining I'm not the only person)
20:08:51 <notmyname> mordred: +1 (most people I know filter the ML pretty heavily too)
20:08:58 <mordred> is this a board or a TC call?
20:09:05 <ttx> also IT'S NOT VERY IMPORTANT :)
20:09:17 <mordred> because if it's a TC call, then the vote comes from the Tech contribs quite clearly, since they are our constituents
20:09:21 <markmc> ttx, *nod*
20:09:28 <mordred> if it's a board call, then the vote needs to come from the foudation membership
20:09:48 <mordred> ttx: I think you might underestimate how much people care about the name
20:09:50 <ttx> I don't really want to get caught in setting up a 6K voters condorcet
20:10:06 <markmc> was grizzly what was voted for last time?
20:10:10 <mordred> yes
20:10:16 * markmc recalls something about going with something different from the vote
20:10:23 <bcwaldon> the Waldon exception
20:10:23 <markmc> my mistake
20:10:29 <russellb> there had to be an exception to get grizzly to be a valid choice
20:10:36 <markmc> ah
20:10:43 <russellb> it was campaigned for, heh
20:10:47 <vishy> Hamlet, Harbor, Homestead, Hood
20:10:49 <ttx> anyway, I'm fine with all condorcet, but then someone else shoudl volunteer to irganize it
20:10:52 <mordred> vishy: ++
20:10:53 <vishy> there are the four choices. done.
20:10:57 <vishy> :)
20:11:04 <mordred> if we go with 4, I support vishy's four
20:11:15 <ttx> mordred: TC-level condorect is easy to set up, I've it ready to go
20:11:24 <mordred> ttx: then why don't we just do that?
20:11:39 <mordred> OR - just do your original suggestion with vishy's four :)
20:11:49 * mordred is being useful and agreeing with everyone
20:12:04 <ttx> mordred: do what ? A 13-viters condorcet to pick the 4 other people will vote on ?
20:12:08 <ttx> voters*
20:12:11 <mordred> oh
20:12:21 <ttx> or something else ?
20:12:21 <mordred> I thought you meant you had an ATC condorcet set up already
20:12:48 <ttx> mordred: well, not really
20:12:57 <ttx> it's a tad more difficult to set up
20:13:08 <ttx> given the numbers of people involved
20:13:16 <mordred> ok. well, I don't have time to set it up either ... so I think that's an excellent point
20:13:26 <ttx> I bet non contributors would bitch about not being able to say something
20:13:36 <danwent> Hatfield: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud
20:13:38 <mordred> someone is always going to bitch
20:13:54 <ttx> mordred: not if you don't change the system
20:14:04 <mordred> ttx: someone is ALWAYS going to bitch
20:14:11 <ttx> and continue to use the same system... just select the set of possible answers
20:14:15 <mordred> s/Harbor/Hatfield/
20:14:21 <ttx> (which we did the other times as well)
20:14:33 <mordred> harbor will ellicit silly spelling issues from our harbour-spelling uk friends
20:14:37 <bcwaldon> I can just suggest something arbitrary again, if that helps
20:14:43 <ttx> So to ask it differently, are you OK with what I propose or are you going to run the election yourself ?
20:14:54 <mordred> bcwaldon: I've already suggested the waldon-exception invoking choice for this cycle
20:14:55 <markmc> heh, nice
20:14:58 <ttx> I'm fine either way
20:14:58 <russellb> Harbor, *because* it will elicit silly spelling issues
20:15:03 <mordred> russellb: hehe
20:15:24 <mordred> bcwaldon: hood isn't technically a town, there's a mount hood, a hood river and it's (barely) on the flag
20:15:40 <mordred> bcwaldon: but it's a really big mountain, and it's 4 letters, so - you know
20:16:07 <russellb> Hood it is
20:16:12 * russellb really just doesn't care on this topic ...
20:16:19 <mordred> hehehe
20:16:30 <mordred> ttx: I think russelb just suggested that we decide by fiat and just tell people :)
20:16:37 <bcwaldon> done
20:16:44 <russellb> done and done
20:17:01 <ttx> ok, CIVS sent :P
20:17:29 <ttx> then we can decide if we poll people on first 4, or just pick ourselves
20:17:52 <ttx> We can get back to it at the end of the meeting, time permitting
20:18:06 <ttx> #topic Discussion: Evolution of the TC membership to support potential growth
20:18:19 <ttx> We started that discussion at the last meeting two weeks ago.
20:18:27 <ttx> Since then I started a ML thread detailing options at:
20:18:32 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-January/004513.html
20:18:42 <ttx> So far the general feedback is that people prefer option (3), but could accept (4) if that's where consensus was
20:18:49 <ttx> (potentially with a 7 guaranteed PTLs instead of 8)
20:18:58 <ttx> They generally prefer (3) because (4) adds complexity in election setup for no obvious gain.
20:19:05 * jaypipes could go either way
20:19:09 <ttx> Anne hinted that she would prefer some per-theme representation but that option is still very much on the drawing board
20:19:09 <notmyname> with the outlier proposal from anne about categories
20:19:24 <ttx> We need to make a decision quick as it affects the upcoming elections we have to start setting up
20:19:34 <ttx> So if there is opposition to option (3), I'd like to hear it (especially on the thread)
20:19:47 <ttx> And if people prefer detailed alternate options, they should add them to the thread as well.
20:19:59 <ttx> Otherwise I'll just draft a motion based on (3) for us to vote on at next meeting.
20:20:07 <ttx> Comments ?
20:20:10 <mordred> I second a motion based on (3)
20:20:16 <markmc> thirded
20:20:30 * markmc checks what (3) was :)
20:20:41 <markmc> yeah, that one
20:20:48 <mordred> with a poison pill added that if that results in absolute chaos, a unanimous decisions by all standing PTLs can trigger a re-election  :)
20:20:53 <ttx> I'm all for (3), just thought (4) would be where lazy consensus would lie
20:21:08 * mordred is kidding - just do 3
20:21:14 <notmyname> I think 3 was the least-bad of the options given, but I prefer the category approach
20:21:38 <mordred> I think at some point we should explore the idea of project categories in general
20:21:42 <ttx> notmyname: I'm fine with exploring the category approach further, but for the Fall election
20:21:51 <mordred> but I think we might need some beer at the summit to really sort that one out
20:22:13 <ttx> since I think it will take time to come up with something good, balanced and practical to organize
20:22:36 <ttx> s/take time/be near impossible/
20:22:38 <vishy> have we discussed any kind of limitation about people serving on both the board and the tc?
20:22:57 <ttx> vishy: we haven't, you think we should ?
20:23:04 <danwent> I am concerned that small projects will not get good respresentation, but worry that categories won't be flexible enough as the set of projects evolve.  I still like the idea of having PTLs elect a set of PTLs to represent all PTLs on the board.  That way, several small projects could decide on one person that will represent them all.
20:23:22 <danwent> BUT, i don't have the cycles to push this, so am up for going with 3 as the other least bad :)
20:23:32 <ttx> danwent: you shouldn't think of it as representation for everyone, but more about electing wise people that care about everything openstack
20:23:52 <notmyname> danwent: sounds like a consensus government
20:23:57 <ttx> and provide a variety of opinions
20:24:21 <russellb> is anyone against #3?
20:24:31 <notmyname> ttx: that's true no matter what method is chosen. you always want to have good people. the trick is making sure you have a system that handles when you don't have a good person
20:24:36 <danwent> ttx: its really more about awareness to me…. its not that the wise people aren't wise, its just hard to know everything that's happening in all of the projects, no matter how wise you are :)
20:24:48 <russellb> seems like general agreement on 3 being the best/least bad
20:25:10 <danwent> I guess a PTL can always show up and plead their case, as long as they keep an eye on the agendas and understand their potential impact on their project.
20:25:41 <markmc> danwent, notmyname - this stuff would make for really good discussion on the list
20:25:50 <markmc> I thought that was the idea with starting a thread on the list
20:26:00 <markmc> give people a chance to consider each others in-depth opinions a bit more
20:26:05 <ttx> yeah, I was suprised to see almost direct consensus
20:26:37 <ttx> ok, so I fucked up the CIVS thing, let me retry that
20:28:26 <markmc> I guess the question is whether more discussion on list will change the consensus on what to do in the short term?
20:28:33 <markmc> allow the discussion to be more about the best thing to do for future elections?
20:29:04 <notmyname> why does something need to change in the short term? the proposed changes are to protect against future problems
20:29:57 <markmc> that's a fair point indeed
20:30:09 <russellb> well, we have 2 projects in incubation, i guess that's the pressing issue?
20:30:19 <russellb> what happens if they are brought into the coordinated release
20:30:21 <ttx> russellb: yes
20:30:23 <notmyname> does that push us over some tipping point?
20:30:28 <russellb> heh
20:30:31 <markmc> oh, if they graduated, they'd be automatically granted seats
20:30:32 <ttx> 15 is a pretty big board
20:30:44 <markmc> which could happen at the start of the H cycle
20:31:12 <ttx> right, the idea is to pick a mechanism for next elections before that becomes a problem
20:31:26 <ttx> OK, poll sent ok this time
20:32:09 <russellb> your poll email is in French
20:32:09 <notmyname> so 13 members today (and with the 4 proposed options) is ok, but 15 members for the next 6 months (until fall elections) is too much?
20:32:13 <jaypipes> ttx: lol, poll in French :)
20:32:23 <russellb> I do not speak your jibberish!
20:32:31 <ttx> ARRh, not that again
20:32:45 <ttx> stupid sticky language support
20:32:57 <ttx> I can redo it in english
20:33:11 * russellb was just trolling
20:33:14 * ttx is about to delegate that fun thing
20:33:17 <russellb> i could google translate if necessary :)
20:33:47 <markmc> notmyname, would we aim to reduce back to 13 again in future ?
20:33:49 <ttx> CIVS creates the poll with the language set in the browser you use to create it, which is rather lame
20:33:54 * markmc thinks 15 is getting too big
20:34:11 <ttx> I think 13 is already big, personally
20:34:17 <ttx> but I can live with that
20:34:19 <notmyname> markmc: if that's the decision we come to
20:34:57 <ttx> I also don't want the dilution to affect people's decision on accepting new projects
20:35:12 <mordred> ++
20:35:16 <ttx> i.e. people rejecting projects because a 15-people board would be too much in their opinion
20:35:38 <ttx> we should accept on technical grounds
20:35:47 <ttx> not because our current membership setup makes it a problem
20:35:51 <mordred> or reject
20:35:59 <mordred> yah
20:36:14 <ttx> so the only way would be to fix the membership BEFORE we discuss those
20:36:18 <ttx> and they are quickly coming
20:36:27 <ttx> hence me raising this thread now.
20:37:10 <ttx> but yeah, I'm fine with someone pushing the alternate option on the thread: "just accept to potentially have a 15-member TC"
20:37:20 <markmc> I'm still happier to go with (3) now
20:37:25 <russellb> same
20:37:26 <mordred> ++
20:37:29 <markmc> not convinced this isn't just kicking the can down the road
20:37:53 <notmyname> markmc: of course it is :-)
20:38:05 <ttx> ok, so if you care and don't like (3), please comment on thread... next topic
20:38:14 <ttx> #topic Update on the "Future of Incubation / core" joint committee
20:38:24 <ttx> We had meetings on January 10 and 17...
20:38:27 <ttx> markmc: quick update ?
20:38:28 <mordred> well, sometimes the can needs kicking
20:38:31 <markmc> there's not much to report
20:38:35 <markmc> 2 meetings
20:38:45 <markmc> both got into discussing "use cases" for OpenStack users
20:38:50 <markmc> types of OpenStack users
20:39:00 <markmc> one class are the users of our core APIs
20:39:10 <markmc> now, I understood the purpose of the discussion was ..
20:39:25 <markmc> ... to come up with a way of deciding what should be core, based on satisfying the needs of those users
20:39:48 <markmc> and the other types of users we were considering was for potentially other categories, for other types of trademark programs
20:39:54 <markmc> so real board territory stuff
20:40:05 <markmc> (we said we wanted the TC to avoid getting into trademark stuff)
20:40:15 <markmc> but there was some disagreement about the purpose of the use cases
20:40:20 <markmc> so ... not sure, really
20:40:27 <markmc> that was it
20:40:35 <markmc> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/IncUp
20:40:43 <markmc> the consensus still seems to be that
20:40:52 <markmc> Core vs "Integrated"
20:41:02 <ttx> hopefully it should start moving forward again this week, or the next
20:41:08 <markmc> (where "Integrated" is "part of the OpenStack release" may have a different name"
20:41:20 <markmc> Core is the board's domain, Integrated is the TC's domain
20:41:26 <ttx> in time for us to be able to tell the incubated projects what they may apply to (or not)
20:42:13 <ttx> markmc: done ?
20:42:17 <markmc> yep
20:42:28 <ttx> OK, since we have a bit of time left...
20:42:32 <ttx> #topic H name campaigning
20:42:44 <ttx> So you should all have the link to vote in your email
20:42:58 <ttx> in the diplomatic tongue of the 19th century
20:43:04 <ttx> Time to convince people to place your favorites toward the top in the poll
20:43:13 <russellb> ha, and 17 minutes to do it
20:43:24 <ttx> Personally I like Havana
20:43:37 <russellb> I request that Halfway be voted 35th
20:43:43 <russellb> that's terrible.
20:43:53 <ttx> russellb: careful what you wish for
20:44:20 <russellb> :)
20:44:37 <russellb> Hood is pretty good
20:44:46 <russellb> because we can talk about features 'in the Hood'
20:45:10 <ttx> I also like Heppner and Helvetia
20:45:39 <notmyname> a harbor is a safe, calm place. reliable and trusted
20:45:40 <markmc> Hood is short too
20:45:44 <markmc> we'll be typing it a lot
20:45:55 <notmyname> helvetia is too close to the font name
20:46:06 <ttx> notmyname: good point
20:46:13 * ttx downgrades it
20:46:24 <russellb> Hood!
20:46:24 <mordred> hood is a mountain in the clouds
20:46:38 <russellb> mordred: nice
20:46:39 <ttx> Hamlet is good too. To be or not to be...
20:47:22 <notmyname> isn't mt hood a dormant volcano that may explode and take part of the NW with it?
20:47:33 <russellb> notmyname: even better
20:48:49 <iccha> Helix sounds cool http://www.theus50.com/oregon/city.php?cityName=Helix
20:49:35 <ttx> iccha: it was removed because it's the name of an openstack distro
20:49:43 <creiht> http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1260
20:49:57 <ttx> http://www.morphlabs.com/products/
20:50:04 <bcwaldon> ttx: why isnt Helix on the list?
20:50:17 <ttx> bcwaldon: because "openstack helix" already exists
20:50:19 <russellb> seems like a good reason
20:50:23 <bcwaldon> son of a beesting
20:50:26 <russellb> a shame though, that's a good name
20:50:28 <iccha> ah darn
20:50:33 <ttx> yeah, was my favorite
20:50:37 <notmyname> creiht: openstack hell hole? I love it :-)
20:50:40 <russellb> iccha: +1 for digging it up :)
20:50:58 <creiht> goes well with some of the other names chosen in the past
20:51:30 * russellb wants to get his feature in the Hell Hole
20:51:35 <russellb> doesn't have a good ring to it
20:52:22 <russellb> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Hood_reflected_in_Mirror_Lake,_Oregon.jpg
20:53:09 <russellb> go Hood
20:53:34 <ttx> so, please cast your vote before the end of the day, and i'll create the LP poll with the first 4 options we collectively pick, to be started Thursday
20:53:54 <ttx> and on that note let's close the meeting
20:53:58 <ttx> #endmeeting