20:03:41 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:03:42 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jul 15 20:03:41 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:03:43 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:03:45 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:03:55 <ttx> Agenda for today is:
20:04:00 <anteaya> mordred is actually still in north america I believe
20:04:08 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee
20:04:22 <ttx> looks like markmcclain is around too
20:04:25 <markmcclain1> o/
20:04:30 <ttx> #topic Core Capabilities TC scoring
20:04:35 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/100722
20:04:51 <ttx> I got a bit of clarification on what to do when the capability name doesn't really match the set of underlying tests, and around the meaning of "complete":
20:04:56 <dhellmann> ttx: do you want a new draft with the references to the ML discussion included, or is having those links in the review history good enough?
20:05:01 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/2014-July/000247.html
20:05:09 <ttx> no I think it's good enough
20:05:14 <dhellmann> ok
20:05:15 <ttx> With that clarification, I think the currently-proposed scoring for havana is as good as any
20:05:26 <ttx> We just need to gather enough +1s on it now
20:05:33 <russellb> agree
20:05:36 <ttx> Unless someone questions a specific score and wants us to discuss it here
20:06:00 <ttx> so we need 4 more +1s to pass it
20:06:30 <zehicle_at_dell> Thank you all for getting the scoring complete!
20:06:38 <ttx> if all the attendance is ok with it, we could pass it now
20:07:03 <ttx> if there is anything blocking you from +1ing it, we can discuss it now
20:07:23 <ttx> annegentle: o/
20:07:25 <russellb> zehicle_at_dell: thanks for the clarifications
20:07:42 <ttx> annegentle: we are discussing https://review.openstack.org/100722 and trying to get the last +1s on it
20:07:46 <zehicle_at_dell> russellb, thanks.  Let me know if I should update the source materials too
20:07:53 <zehicle_at_dell> happy to take suggestions to update there
20:08:14 <markmc> ttx, +1ed
20:08:22 <russellb> biggest thing i think is what we discussed before ... a text description of each capability
20:08:29 <russellb> because it's not always obvious what it's covering
20:08:36 <annegentle_> russellb: or a link to a doc
20:08:50 <ttx> russellb: that will also let us suggest better tests to cover that capbility
20:09:00 <russellb> ttx: indeed
20:09:14 <russellb> i submitted one pull request to the list to fix one issue :)
20:09:21 <zehicle_at_dell> russellb, I'd love to have collaboration on that.  I'm updating the json source and we'd take pull to fix them
20:09:38 <dhellmann> russellb: was that the mis-placed test or the name of compute-auth? or was that the same issue?
20:09:47 <russellb> i put a patch up for the mis-placed test
20:09:53 <ttx> vishy, annegentle: let me know if there is anything blocking your +1 on that one
20:09:58 <russellb> didn't fix compute-auth yet, because we didn't have the clarification yet
20:10:05 <russellb> as in ... was the name right, or the test right
20:10:09 <dhellmann> right
20:10:24 <russellb> based on the clarifications, sounds like the list of tests was the important part, and we could suggest a better name
20:10:30 <zehicle_at_dell> DefCore's expectation was the technical community owns which tests are in the capabilities
20:10:41 <russellb> orly...
20:10:48 <zehicle_at_dell> you will not get push back from changes like that
20:11:14 <annegentle_> ttx: I still would like an explanation for a 0.5
20:11:24 <annegentle_> ttx: in the text itself, but I won't block because of it
20:11:27 <russellb> annegentle: hm?
20:11:32 <dhellmann> annegentle_: 0.5 was DefCore's way of saying "we don't know"
20:11:33 <russellb> which 0.5s?
20:11:37 <dhellmann> oh, you want that added...
20:11:41 <ttx> annegentle: you mean, what 0.5 would mean ? There shouldn't be any left
20:11:44 <zehicle_at_dell> yes
20:11:47 <annegentle_> ttx: on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100721/3/resolutions/20140617-defcore-capabilities-scoring.rst
20:11:54 <zehicle_at_dell> that's exactly right.  We don't want them in the final
20:11:58 <annegentle_> right
20:12:01 <ttx> annegentle: oh on the original version?
20:12:22 <russellb> that was just the import, to make it easier to then see the specific changes we were making
20:12:23 <ttx> I think that original version was just a convenient way to get proposed scores up. We shouldn't block on that
20:12:39 <ttx> 0.5 was basically like "??" asking for feedback
20:12:50 <annegentle_> right original version. but it's also okay to bring it in as it was without an explanation for 0.5s
20:12:55 <zehicle_at_dell> ttx, +1
20:12:56 <dhellmann> that's right, I imported the data from the spreadsheet exactly as it came in so the 2nd patch could show the diff
20:13:07 <annegentle_> ttx: and all I wanted was an explanation of what 0.5 meant
20:13:08 <ttx> yeah, at this point I wouldn't block it on that
20:13:14 <russellb> can we add that as a follow-up patch?
20:13:18 <annegentle_> ttx: fair enough
20:13:19 <russellb> then we won't lose existing +1s on that point
20:13:28 <annegentle_> russellb: that makes sense esp. if it's a full-on exactly copy import
20:13:29 <dhellmann> annegentle_: line 36 of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100721/3/resolutions/20140617-defcore-capabilities-scoring.rst
20:13:30 <russellb> but can still add it to clarify i suppose
20:13:46 <annegentle_> dhellmann: ah there we go!
20:14:08 <ttx> ah, it's already there :)
20:14:16 <russellb> yay
20:14:25 <annegentle_> woo
20:14:57 <russellb> so do we have +1s from everyone here?
20:15:10 <dhellmann> annegentle_ hasn't voted on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100722/
20:15:14 <ttx> no vishy and no annegentle  yet
20:15:32 <ttx> anyway I'll confirm the vote tomorrow, to give a chance for people not present at the meeting to scream
20:15:44 <ttx> but this sounds like 99% there
20:15:45 <russellb> ah, makes sense :)
20:15:59 <devananda> yea, those changes LGTM
20:16:13 <ttx> devananda: hi!
20:16:19 <devananda> ttx: hi :)
20:16:24 <ttx> cool, let's move on
20:16:24 <annegentle_> on it, thanks ttx, voted
20:16:30 <ttx> #topic Integrated projects and new requirements: Gap analysis for Heat
20:16:34 <ttx> zaneb: o/
20:16:38 <ttx> We are left with two projects in this analysis: Swift and Heat
20:16:40 <zaneb> hola
20:16:48 <ttx> I tried to get Swift on the agenda for today but John wasn't available
20:17:02 <zaneb> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/heat-gap-analysis
20:17:06 <ttx> Zane accepted that we do Heat instead, so here we go ^
20:17:16 <ttx> thanks for the last minute run :)
20:17:37 <zaneb> np, it turned out to be less work than I expected
20:17:59 <ttx> ok, let's go through that
20:18:32 <ttx> zaneb: so you'll need to propose the mission statement for addition to the governance repo
20:18:33 <russellb> sounds like the biggest (only?) thing is more functional test coverage?
20:18:33 <dhellmann> zaneb: for "leverage existing functionality" on line 78, does heat still use ceilometer alarms to trigger operations?
20:18:46 <ttx> #info Gap: missing mission statement
20:18:50 <zaneb> dhellmann: yes
20:19:11 <dhellmann> zaneb: ok, I added a note about that
20:19:18 <zaneb> thanks :)
20:19:53 * russellb thinks Heat has done an excellent job
20:20:31 <russellb> i think we just need to add #info Gap: need increased functional test coverage
20:20:36 <zaneb> thanks russellb :)
20:21:00 <mikal> Well, and the mission statement thing
20:21:06 <russellb> right, that was noted above
20:21:15 <zaneb> yep, and the grenade stuff is in progress, but it wouldn't hurt to track it
20:21:23 <mikal> Ahhh, I see, you're proposing an #info, not summarizing
20:21:27 <ttx> #info Gap: need increased functional test coverage
20:21:33 <russellb> d'oh, missed the grenade one
20:21:34 <annegentle_> \o
20:21:41 <devananda> zaneb: was the name "Heat" checked for TM conflicts?
20:21:42 <zaneb> russellb: right at the bottom
20:21:47 <russellb> yep see it now
20:21:49 <zaneb> devananda: not that I know of
20:21:50 <annegentle_> I have a question about how backwards compatibility for Identity API v2.0 is handled
20:21:56 <devananda> zaneb: i see your comment regarding "OpenStack Orchestration" bu tI think taht line refers to the short name as well
20:22:02 <annegentle_> or if it is already and I missed it
20:22:14 <russellb> ttx: #info Gap: need upgrade testing using grenade
20:22:16 <markmcclain1> zaneb: what does good unit test coverage work out to be?
20:22:16 <markmcclain1> (numberically)
20:22:45 <devananda> zaneb: so that seems like it should be done
20:22:49 <ttx> russellb: I think you can #info yourself
20:22:55 <dhellmann> do we need to do the marketing team review of the name (line 253)?
20:22:55 <russellb> ttx: orly ... thought chair had to
20:23:00 <russellb> #info Gap: need upgrade testing using grenade
20:23:10 <ttx> russellb: we'll see that :
20:23:19 <devananda> dhellmann: i think we need to check for potential TM conflicts now
20:23:20 <ttx> #info Gap: need upgrade testing using grenade (regression check)
20:23:24 <russellb> ha
20:23:40 <devananda> eg, to avoid havign to change the project's codename
20:23:50 <dhellmann> devananda: right
20:23:53 <zaneb> annegentle_: we have a shim to for the Keystone v2 API to the extent that it contains the features we need. we plan to keep it around until the v2 api is removed
20:24:02 <russellb> was assuming that was done long ago?  the TM check that is
20:24:11 <ttx> russellb: yes it was done
20:24:12 <dhellmann> russellb: the etherpad implies maybe not
20:24:41 <ttx> dhellmann: that requirement is mostly n/a for existing projects
20:24:41 <zaneb> ttx: ah, OK. I wasn't aware that it was done
20:24:50 <ttx> unless a challenge comes
20:24:52 <dhellmann> ttx: ok
20:25:01 <ttx> and the challenger can claim previous usage
20:26:55 <ttx> Is there anything to do around docs ? (the three kinds of docs note)
20:27:27 <zaneb> there have been some discussions with annegentle about where the template authoring guide should live
20:27:36 <zaneb> I don't know that there's been a conclusion yet
20:27:58 <ttx> Not sure I would count that as a gap though
20:28:05 <dhellmann> does it live somewhere now and you want to move it, or does it not exist yet?
20:28:17 <zaneb> dhellmann: yes, it lives in the developer documentation
20:28:27 <zaneb> which is a somewhat odd place for it
20:28:32 <dhellmann> ok, at least it's there *somewhere* then :-)
20:28:57 <ttx> fwiw I'd say that Heat development is going quite well, especially considering that it's the 2nd or 3rd largest Openstack project in terms of activity
20:29:16 <ttx> depending on the way you twist stackalytics data
20:29:36 <ttx> Any other gap worth mentioning ?
20:29:52 <annegentleontheb> sorry catching up after getting dropped off wifi
20:30:18 <annegentleontheb> We have a blueprint that we're doing details on to try to integrate a hot template guide into the user guide
20:30:30 <zaneb> I never did find any Dashboard docs
20:30:33 <annegentleontheb> good discussion earlier about integration
20:30:42 <annegentleontheb> zaneb: the dashboard is documented in the user guide
20:30:45 <zaneb> possibly because I am just clueless
20:31:07 <ttx> zaneb: that's because you instinctively keep away from user guides
20:31:25 <zaneb> annegentleontheb: including the Heat part of the dashboard?
20:31:29 <annegentleontheb> #link http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide/content/
20:31:48 <annegentleontheb> zaneb: you can certainly add it, that's where it goes
20:31:59 <zaneb> http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide/content/dashboard_stacks.html
20:32:05 <zaneb> it appears it is :) ^
20:32:13 <annegentleontheb> zaneb: pretty much that's organized by use case, ah there you go
20:32:35 <annegentleontheb> zaneb: how are your API docs doing? I see updates so that's good
20:33:23 <zaneb> annegentleontheb: they're pretty good, but could use more examples
20:33:35 <ttx> wow, the internetz are not in good shape today
20:33:36 <annegentle> zaneb: sure
20:33:46 <annegentle> my internetz are not, sorry. :(
20:34:05 <devananda> zaneb: where do you sit w.r.t. the recent discussions around Tempest testing vs. in-project testing? I ask because there's a call out for lack of functional testing right now
20:34:05 <anteaya> annegentle: not you, been net splitting all day
20:34:09 <zaneb> and maybe longer descriptions
20:34:13 <annegentle> anteaya: whew.
20:34:18 <ttx> looks like markmcclain and dhellmann are sharing your wifi hotspot
20:34:49 * dhellmann bypassed his bouncer when everyone else started having problems
20:35:22 <ttx> OK, anything else ? That makes 3 gaps so far
20:35:28 <annegentle> that's all I had
20:35:58 <markmcclain> nah… I'm on a tether but the nearest cell tower is barely in range out here
20:36:01 <devananda> ttx: I dont see any other gaps. just curious about their testing plans
20:36:05 <ttx> zaneb: for a future meeting (not necessarily next week) you should build a wiki page with a plan to address the gap in the near future
20:36:19 <zaneb> ok, can do
20:36:21 <ttx> models are linked from https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee
20:36:36 <ttx> Like https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Neutron_Gap_Coverage
20:36:45 <ttx> only a lot shorter :)
20:37:02 <zaneb> whew ;)
20:37:17 * markmcclain will be happy when that list is complete
20:37:35 <anteaya> last week helped
20:37:40 <ttx> zaneb: when the gap coverage plan is ready we'll quickly bless it at the meeting, then after each milestone we'll review progress towards completing it
20:38:10 <ttx> Any other comment on that ? Or can we move to next topic ?
20:38:45 <ttx> I'll take that as a NO
20:38:50 <ttx> and a YES
20:38:51 <ttx> zaneb: thanks!
20:39:20 <zaneb> pleasure! :)
20:39:26 <ttx> #topic Election behavior guidelines redux
20:39:39 <ttx> dhellman_ posted a new proposal after the last meeting:
20:39:46 <ttx> * 2014-07-11 Election Activities (https://review.openstack.org/106557)
20:39:54 <ttx> I'm fine with this one
20:40:04 <ttx> but then I'm also fine with the latest versions of the others, since I think they all reach the goal of communicating expected behavior
20:40:16 <ttx> so imho whichever reaches majority vote first shall be picked
20:40:37 <anteaya> let's go with doug's, markmc likes it
20:40:44 <ttx> I don't think we need to discuss this forever, so if by the next TC meeting we can't get majority to approve on one, I propose we use regular rules (>=5 "+1" and <=4 "-1") to approve one
20:40:59 <ttx> So please +1 the versions you support asap :)
20:41:33 <ttx> or if you want to get a quick --amend in, now is the time to ask for it
20:42:40 <dhellmann> eglynn does have one good comment on patch 1 on my version about clarifying how the subset of the TC overseeing the election gets involved if something happens before an election actually starts
20:42:53 <dhellmann> I just saw it, so I don't have a good fix, yet
20:43:39 <ttx> dhellmann: could that be clarified in some other doc, like https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Election_Officiating_Guidelines ?
20:43:40 <devananda> 6 +1's already :)
20:43:54 <dhellmann> ttx: sure, that's a good way to handle it
20:44:16 <dhellmann> ttx: should I reword to refer to that doc, or is a comment enough?
20:44:39 * ttx reads the comment
20:44:55 <annegentle> dhellmann: ttx: do you expect the election officials to report it to the ED or not?
20:45:08 * annegentle looking at line 54
20:45:16 <annegentle> I can comment inline too
20:45:32 <russellb> annegentle: keep reading :)
20:45:35 <russellb> 2 paragraphs later
20:45:36 <dhellmann> annegentle: only in extreme cases (line 67)
20:45:55 <dhellmann> and then only if the active TC members decide that is necessary
20:46:03 <annegentle> dhellmann: ok... not sure I am +1 on that, seems like we are trying to protect "our own" (one possible perception)
20:46:20 <annegentle> dhellmann: but yours does seem the most close to what we want
20:46:22 <markmcclain> annegentle: do don't forget that someone feels that we are
20:46:25 <dhellmann> the point is to have a way to say "hey, knock it off" without having it go on someone's permanent record
20:46:25 <russellb> i just read it as likely unnecessary
20:46:26 <anteaya> actually I see it as a spectrum
20:46:30 <ttx> dhellmann: I think it's pretty obvious that the TC is involved, except the TC members that happen to run for said election
20:46:30 <markmcclain> they always have the community right to report directly
20:46:31 <anteaya> first stop is tc
20:46:51 <annegentle> markmcclain: true, fair enough
20:46:54 <ttx> dhellmann: you could imagine a PTL election where a TC member is running
20:47:32 <ttx> dhellmann: for such case, I'd expect all the TC members that are not running on that election to be involved in resolving issues
20:47:36 <annegentle> pretty sure "extreme" will vary widely in definition
20:47:39 <dhellmann> ttx: good point
20:47:45 <zaneb> dhellmann, annegentle: how about "in the case of an alleged violation of the Community Code of Conduct" rather than "In an especially extreme case"?
20:48:07 <dhellmann> annegentle: I'm also trying to indicate that I trust the future elected group to decide what that is, but that it should not be the way we handle things by default
20:48:15 <annegentle> zaneb: if that's the intent... extreme could mean "wide reaching" or "got to the press"
20:48:25 <dhellmann> annegentle: and of course, as anteaya has pointed out, there's nothing preventing any foundation member from reporting to the ED directly
20:48:38 <dhellmann> if they feel the election officials or TC aren't doing their jobs properly
20:48:42 <ttx> dhellmann: so I guess that could use a clarification that doesn't talk about "active members of the TC" but rather "members of the TC that are not candidates in the election involved"
20:48:53 <annegentle> dhellmann: yeah I still sense the ED should take the brunt of investigation I guess, rather than TC, since we're so close to it
20:48:54 <eglynn> zaneb: my $0.02 ... s/violation/infringement/ (the former is a little loaded)
20:49:05 <dhellmann> zaneb: I don't want to imply that every report is going to the ED
20:49:22 <dhellmann> ttx: ok, I can add that
20:49:37 <ttx> annegentle: we should be mostly self-sufficient though, as long as the CCoC is not invoked
20:49:48 <dhellmann> annegentle: in previous meetings we've talked about the community dealing with its own issues, without bringing the foundation into every little discussion
20:49:58 <zaneb> dhellmann: fair enough. after years of reading RFCs the difference between MAY and MUST is quite clear in my mind, maybe more so than in the general population ;)
20:50:05 <annegentle> ttx: ok, that's true, and the electorate should be comfortable reaching out to at least one TC member
20:50:22 <ttx> and I agree with dhellmann that the CCoC/ED can always be involved in case that doesn't work
20:50:23 <annegentle> dhellmann: ok
20:50:31 <dhellmann> zaneb: fair point
20:50:58 <dhellmann> so let me make sure I know what wording needs to change...
20:51:09 <annegentle> ok I can vote +1 after extreme is reworded
20:51:17 <dhellmann> is it just clarifying that anyone involved in the election is not going to be involved?
20:51:43 <dhellmann> or should I change the "extreme" part to just say "in some cases"?
20:52:06 <dhellmann> or should that explicitly mention the CoC?
20:52:08 <anteaya> at the discretion of the consulted tc
20:52:31 <ttx> I think "extreme" is the correct adjective for it
20:52:42 <markmc> the TC doesn't necessarily have to be the ones to refer it to the ED
20:52:50 <dhellmann> hmm, that sentence already uses CoC
20:53:01 <markmc> the reporter could go ahead and do that even if the TC didn't feel it necessary
20:53:17 <dhellmann> markmc: true, does it need to say that?
20:53:21 <markmc> could just say it's up to the reporter to refer it?
20:53:38 <ttx> oh yes, missed that
20:53:39 <markmc> dunno, don't love that option either
20:53:43 <eglynn> markmc: +1
20:54:00 <zaneb> markmc: I think having something in there makes it clear that the TC can decide to refer it without asking further permission from the reporter
20:54:02 <ttx> "In extreme cases, community members always have the option to refer..."
20:54:24 <anteaya> ttx the option exists extreme or not
20:54:26 <markmc> the TC will be holding all the information though
20:54:29 <dhellmann> zaneb: right, that was my intent -- saying what we might do, not constraining what the community can do
20:54:35 <markmc> e.g. where multiple people reported the issue
20:54:37 <eglynn> zaneb: that would raise the stakes of reporting unnecessarily I think
20:54:54 <dhellmann> markmc: in that case, I would expect the ED to ask the TC for details
20:54:58 <markmc> yeah
20:55:02 <zaneb> eglynn: yeah, it's a double edged sword. but at least it makes the position clear
20:55:06 * markmc shrugs
20:55:08 <ttx> "Community members always retain the option to refer..." ?
20:55:18 <markmc> I don't think we need to decide up front how it would work
20:55:21 <markmc> escalation, I mean
20:55:26 <dhellmann> yeah
20:55:27 <markmc> just that it can happen
20:55:28 <anteaya> ttx that wording it more consistent with reality, for me
20:55:38 <markmc> either via the reporter or the TC
20:55:41 <ttx> "Note that community members always retain the option to refer..." ?
20:55:56 <markmcclain> dhellmann: agreed
20:56:07 <dhellmann> the CoC has instructions for reporting violations, right? do we need to reiterate the community's rights to follow those instructions here?
20:56:21 <ttx> dhellmann: I think it helps to do it yes
20:56:25 <dhellmann> ok, I'll add that
20:56:30 <ttx> people just don't know what options they have
20:56:57 <ttx> if we write such a resolution, we really need to mention that option... we just need to make it a bit off-track
20:56:57 <dhellmann> sure, that's a good point
20:57:26 <ttx> "retain the option" is a good way to mention it without overly encouraging it
20:57:41 <annegentle> dhellmann: I agree, "retain the option" is fine
20:58:02 <ttx> ok, so we should have a new patchset for this one, but let's try to get it adopted -- I'm getting tired of nitpicking it to death
20:58:15 <ttx> #topic Pending governance changes
20:58:21 <ttx> * Adding Horizon mission statement (https://review.openstack.org/102050)
20:58:33 <ttx> This one is still short of one "+1" before reaching majority voting
20:58:42 <ttx> * Add translation support requirement (https://review.openstack.org/97872)
20:58:45 <ttx> I propose we WIP this one until tests are implemented.
20:58:46 <markmcclain> +1
20:58:47 <markmc> ttx, yeah, agree on tired of this - feels like rough consensus, and the details now don't matter so much
20:59:03 <ttx> (it's a requirements change and those can only reflect consensual rules)
20:59:18 <ttx> let me know if that works for you
20:59:23 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:59:32 <ttx> "K" release naming poll still going at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/openstack-k-naming
20:59:38 <ttx> Results shall be announced early Thursday
20:59:47 <ttx> Who is at OSCON next week?
20:59:53 <dhellmann> new draft of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/106557 is up
20:59:54 <devananda> I'll be there fri-sun
20:59:56 <ttx> Should we skip next week meeting ?
21:00:03 <markmc> I'm at OSCON tuesday and wednesday
21:00:07 <devananda> then at the tripleo meetup mon-thu
21:00:20 <markmc> morded and I are giving a talk starting 40 minutes into the TC meeting
21:00:27 <markmc> unclear whether we'll make the meeting
21:00:39 <markmc> also, 2 weeks after that I'm on vacation so missing the meetings
21:00:40 <ttx> I'm fine with skipping it
21:00:41 <markmc> apols for that
21:00:46 <dhellmann> wfm
21:00:48 <ttx> since I have no idea where I'll be
21:00:52 <ttx> also it's j2 week
21:00:54 <mikal> Sounds like we should skip it
21:00:54 <annegentle> not at oscon
21:01:13 <annegentle> probably skip, yeah
21:01:16 <devananda> + skip
21:01:16 <ttx> so the meeting after that we'll have the post-j2 gap coverage progress
21:01:19 <russellb> skip fine with me since so many folks are out
21:01:22 <markmcclain> +skip
21:01:36 <ttx> and then the meetign after that we'll have the Swift gap analysis
21:01:54 <ttx> Looks like we might complete that this cycle after all
21:02:13 <ttx> OK, i'll propose we skip next week
21:02:13 <notmyname> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/swift_gap_analysis
21:02:18 <ttx> Thanks everyone
21:02:25 <ttx> #endmeeting