20:03:06 #startmeeting tc 20:03:07 Meeting started Tue Oct 28 20:03:06 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:03:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:03:11 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 20:03:20 Our agenda for today: 20:03:27 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee 20:03:34 #topic Board/TC joint meeting agenda 20:03:46 Our first item is the agenda for the Board/TC joint meeting at 2:30pm on Sunday 20:03:49 o/ 20:03:55 The agenda proposed by the board is: 20:04:01 - Introductions 20:04:06 - Followup from last joint meeting (travel support program & code review backlog) 20:04:15 - The need for project structure reform (Ring 0 and the big tent approach) 20:04:22 - Tempest and it's use to drive interoperability and DefCore 20:04:28 - mid cycle meetups - is there a way to reduce travel strain? 20:04:37 I called for topics at http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2014-October/000847.html 20:04:47 dhellmann wondered if we should put the CLA question on the meeting agenda 20:04:57 jaypipes suggested we discuss how the process by which we check for name/copyright issues for new projects can be streamlined 20:04:59 I think its more important than some of the other things listed there 20:05:08 The CLA that is 20:05:20 After a few checks I'm not sure the legal namechecks one is relevant to the board, since this is currently handled by Foundation staff, so it may be better to talk to them about it first 20:05:28 I'd like an update on the CLA, but that doesn't have to happen in person. 20:05:37 we can discuss it in a TC meeting directly with them 20:05:40 yeh, the CLA seems like a thing that we need the board to take an action on, and it's been 7 or 8 months since this conversation started 20:05:42 dhellmann: ++ 20:05:57 since we passed a resolution about the cla, we should probably put it on the agenda to continue to indicate we are interested in it, even if we do so in a way structured to avoid having it take the whole meeting :) 20:06:04 yeh 20:06:08 jeblair: ++ 20:06:11 jeblair: we can place it as the last item 20:06:20 so that it's mentioned but doesn't take the whole time 20:06:23 mostly, I think bringing it up will demonstrate seriousness that the TC thinks it's important 20:06:25 ttx: or timebox it 20:06:35 yes 20:06:42 I am a bit confused by some of the other board items there to be honest 20:06:45 I proposed a discussion of how much OpenStack (in general) should embrace Containers/Docker, as well as an update on the proposed bylaws change 20:06:57 Thoughts on what we should push forward ? 20:06:58 sdague: yeah, and i think that's a point worth making since the board explicitly wondered whether that was the case (thus prompting the resolution) 20:07:03 (The meeting is only 3 hours so we might need to prioritize) 20:07:16 Like, do we really think mid cycle meetups is one of the biggest problems we face at the moment? 20:07:17 only 3 20:07:18 ttx: the containers thing seems odd to me for this forum. 20:07:27 sdague: that's how i felt, too 20:07:34 it's good beer chat, but does it really need to be a TC / Board thing? 20:07:42 sdague: maybe not 20:07:47 mikal: who is complaining, the person doing the travel or the person paying? 20:07:55 I mean, I won't push it unless someone else at the TC wants it 20:08:01 I think it does, because it goes to the general direction that we wish OpenStack to drive towards. 20:08:03 dhellmann: I dunno, its just on the boards list up above 20:08:16 and I'm not just talking about technical direction. 20:08:22 mikal: yeah, this isn't the first time I've seen it come up 20:08:27 jaypipes: yes, that was my idea 20:08:39 jaypipes: checking for general alignment on where we should go 20:08:41 i don't mind the business side input on direction 20:08:46 containers bring with them a paradigm shift that matters more than technology. it shapes the way app developers visualize and work with the cloud. 20:08:47 yeah, that seems sensible 20:09:24 everybody run.. markmcclain is here. 20:09:36 run ... up to markmcclain and say hi! 20:09:41 jaypipes: are you fine with tabling the legal namechecks discussion to a future TC meeting with Foundation staff ? The board is not really involved with those 20:10:19 ttx: isn't Mark Radcliffe involved in those discussions? I remember Mark being at the last Board meeitng... 20:10:36 jaypipes: no, the lawyer doing those checks is not Radcliffe. I fear we won't get clarification, but more confusion 20:10:37 board/TC meeting that is. 20:10:50 jaypipes: haha 20:10:51 ttx: ok, no problem. i don't want more confusion. 20:11:26 so, I'll ask for CLA timeboxed 20:11:42 Maybe a temperature check on the Docker world 20:12:00 anything else ? 20:12:06 may need to timebox docker too 20:12:15 ++ 20:12:15 ack 20:12:35 ttx: I think we should drop the mid-cycle thing, or at least move it later in the list 20:12:39 It just doens't seem that important to me 20:12:54 mikal: I'll suggest that. It's not on my part of the agenda :) 20:13:04 ttx: ok 20:13:20 Note that we can probably adjust the agenda in person when the meeting starts if we havbe a brand-new idea 20:13:20 ttx: was that board added? 20:13:20 Do we need daa for the code review backlog thing? 20:13:26 data even 20:13:27 sdague: yes 20:13:33 ttx: ok 20:13:37 mikal: it wouldn't hurt 20:13:39 Its just a silly item 20:13:41 i do see this summit as an experiment in how we can reduce the need for midcycles; i'm not sure we're ready to discuss it again until after this summit 20:13:43 sdague: rob h. brought it up at a recent board meeting 20:13:46 i'm not sure who raised it to him 20:13:55 at least from Nova / Neutron who had the largest backlog 20:13:58 jeblair: ++ 20:14:16 Its also just penny pinching 20:14:22 Travel is a tiny fraction of salary spend 20:14:23 jeblair: yeh, agreed, so maybe just make sure the time box is small on it 20:14:28 Sure, we should be frugal 20:14:29 mikal: it's more than the $ 20:14:33 But if its efficient, we should do it 20:14:44 but let's not get into it here 20:14:56 mikal: being all relocated in the same office would be efficient, but we don't do it either 20:15:01 right 20:15:09 i second us not getting into it here :) 20:15:10 ttx: one thing that might be interesting to get the BoD feedback on is the recent Neutron core team's proposal to do peer reviews for core committers. 20:15:26 * markmcclain resorts to using crappy irc client on his phone 20:15:35 ttx: just to get their feedback, nothing more. I'm just curious what they think. 20:15:38 jaypipes: it would be interesting to get feedback on how that is working out before going too far with it 20:15:54 mikal: +1 20:15:55 yeah, I agree with mikal, let's let the experiment play out 20:16:03 jaypipes: as in, does Kyle feel is working? Was the feedback useful? 20:16:10 We can give feedback on various experiments like specs now 20:16:14 mikal: they haven't started it yet :) 20:16:16 definitely not something i see we should push more broadly until we see how it works for them 20:16:23 as part of the "review backlog" discussion I guess 20:16:25 with a time constraint on the agenda, i don't think that's the kind of feedback we need from the board 20:16:33 mikal: I'm more interested in just the board members thoughts on it (same with the user committee's thoughts) 20:16:36 ttx: sure 20:16:36 yeh, I'm also a little concerned with just bringing up technical policy stuff to the board to get their view on if we don't have enough time to set context 20:16:41 mikal: but, fine, it's a beer topic :) 20:16:43 * devananda pops in while waiting for boarding to start 20:17:11 ok, let's move on 20:17:33 If you sudenly have new ideas, push them to the thread. I'll compose an answer to Alan tomorrow morning 20:17:48 #topic Cross-project workshop final agenda 20:17:59 russellb, markmcclain: care to present the short list ? 20:18:03 sure, i'll cover this 20:18:08 so we have a couple of things to cover on this 20:18:14 first, review the list of sessions and the proposed schedule for them 20:18:30 and if that looks good, we need to collect session leads and have the leads write up a session description that can be used on sched.org 20:18:35 proposed schedule: 20:18:37 #link http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/overview/type/cross-project+workshops#.VE_2XHVGjUY 20:18:48 russellb: I went through and did the math for the votes so far 20:18:51 and then for collecting leads and descriptions: 20:18:53 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-crossproject-summit-topics 20:19:01 dhellmann: yeah we did all that this morning 20:19:22 and by we, i mean myself, markmcclain, and ttx 20:19:24 oh, I didn't see it in the etherpad 20:19:25 based on action from last week 20:19:31 nah, it was done in another spreadsheet 20:19:38 k 20:19:39 sorry 20:19:51 So, that cells one confuses me 20:19:52 meh, I was bored and curious 20:19:58 so first, does anyone see any obvious issues with the list of sessions or conflicts in schedule? 20:20:03 mikal: yeah, it made the cut *shrug* 20:20:17 russellb: so, that makes three cells sessions a tthe summit 20:20:19 i think the cells one was to talk about how it impacts other projects 20:20:21 Which seems like too many to me 20:20:26 not just the nova part 20:20:28 Especially for a feature nova might drop 20:20:38 mikal: the idea was to give some outlet for epople to discuss various ways to scale out in 40min. hopefully they will meet each other and stop inventing parallel ways ? 20:20:41 mikal: well not if it means people actually work on it :) 20:20:42 another part of that was merging in the huawei thing 20:21:01 Ok, so rename it then 20:21:01 there's a double session in the nova track too, i know 20:21:15 all the similar topics were merged, so I don't expect it to be a cells thing. More of a Cells vs. Cascade vs. Z 20:21:18 I'd be ok with it if it was called "scaling openstack" or something 20:21:30 But its named "...with cells" 20:21:34 Which is the bit that confuses me 20:21:37 yes, name should change 20:21:43 k 20:22:05 I'd say "Scaling out: Cells, Cascading, Alliance, etc" 20:22:15 Or name none 20:22:26 "Proposals for scaling out OpenStack" 20:22:27 Approaches for Scaling Out ? 20:22:36 russell++ 20:22:37 Yeah, that would do 20:22:41 Rather name none 20:23:10 k, sched updated 20:23:21 well, sched caches, so ymmv 20:23:23 Ta 20:23:28 i had john g. listed as leading that, since he proposed the cells one in the etherpad 20:23:36 he's also listed on at least one other, though 20:23:41 who can lead the API WG one ? jaypipes ? 20:23:59 russellb: John would do a good job of it, depends if we think two is too many for one person 20:24:14 though you already have the technbical debt one I suspect 20:24:15 mikal: ok, I can ask him what he thinks, will CC you 20:24:23 yes, though I'd love it if the part 1 and part 2 were separated... I really wanted to attend the functional tesst in projects session. 20:24:24 russellb: works for me 20:25:00 heck i'd love to go to the common approach to ha one too :) 20:25:18 jaypipes: yeah, scheduling this stuff is fun. 20:25:26 russellb: yeah, i know :) 20:25:44 if anyone has proposed leads for any of the stuff on the etherpad, fill it in 20:25:55 some may have it later in the etherpad and i just haven't gone back to find it yet 20:26:06 russellb: suggestion... perhaps we could swap the api wg part 2 with the growth challenges part 1? 20:26:23 i don't think the intent there is to actually have two parts, but rather combine them into one long session 20:26:36 russellb: and have a morning and afternoon session on those topics? 20:26:44 yeah, was thinking it was one long session 20:26:50 jeblair: yes, I know... but ... just offering an alternative. 20:26:50 yes, it's one long session 20:26:53 i think breaking them up would disrupt the idea of being able to have longer-form sessions on some topics 20:26:58 jeblair: ++ 20:27:00 90min instead of 2x40min 20:27:20 I think it needs 90min in one block 20:27:32 we could maybe move "moving testing ot projects" elsewhere 20:28:02 it's a bad conflict no matter where it moved to 20:28:19 I'm wondering who else feels that the necesity of attending the cross project sessions pretty nearly trumps all the sessions and panels on Tuesday 20:28:36 devananda: that's my general feeling, yes 20:28:37 russellb: maybe swap it with the reaquirements session ? 20:28:41 devananda: yep 20:28:44 devananda: i feel that way for the whole summit, but yes :) 20:28:45 thankfully i don't have any speaking commits on tuesday 20:28:55 but a bunch of panels that I really want to attend are on tuesday ... 20:29:10 jaypipes: if we do the swap ttx suggests, it conflicts with the "scaling out" thing 20:29:23 and docs 20:29:27 jaypipes: that better? 20:29:29 devananda: unfortunately, I have to give a presentation at the conf side on tues... 20:29:35 and monday, and wednesday... 20:29:39 jaypipes: sucker 20:29:41 :-p 20:29:57 jaypipes: one would think you would know to avoid the CFP by now 20:30:01 russellb: lookign... 20:30:03 16:40 gerrit third-party CI && growth challenges p1. 20:30:08 honestly, it's a shame more people from dev community don't present because of the pressure we have to attend design summit stuff 20:30:14 are there people who need to be in both of those? 20:30:28 russellb: well that was one of the reasons for the offset 20:30:38 sdague: true, speak on monday 20:30:57 gerrit third-party ci does in fact seem related to growth challenges 20:31:07 russellb: yeah, unfortunately I'd love to be at the scaling out session :) it's ok, i'll just deal with it. I do every time anyway.. we all do. :) 20:31:15 try and catch a bit of each. 20:31:17 jaypipes: ++ 20:31:51 depends on what the 3rd party meetup is about 20:31:58 ttx: I'm happy to lead the first part of the API WG, and maybe etoews will take up the latter part so I can catch some of the func testing session 20:31:58 but yeah, definite overlap 20:32:23 none of the other design things on tuesday stand out as single-person conflicts within the design track 20:32:24 fungi: unfortunately there is little ways to avoid that one. 20:32:40 *to me 20:32:59 fungi: We want that one at a moment where only one other workshop runs. That's either at the start or the end of the day 20:33:01 fair enough, just agreeing with devananda's point 20:33:05 who would lead "moving tests to projects" ? 20:33:10 I run that session and I also need to be at the Design Summit 101 20:33:20 fungi: ttx: could we move gerrit 3rd party one slot earlier? 20:33:46 russellb: mtreinish or sdague? 20:33:55 * annegentle lurks after appointment and catches up 20:33:57 that seems related to tempest-lib IIUC 20:34:10 devananda: then we have 3 parallel workshops at the same time as the beginning of the growth discussion 20:34:10 devananda: what would you swap it with ? 20:34:16 russellb, ttx: crap... no, that won't work. I'm giving my talk on tuesday at 11:15 :( so I would not be able to attend the API WG session. 20:34:24 jaypipes: :( 20:34:34 yeah, definitely hoped you could be at that one 20:34:36 russellb: sorry: https://openstacksummitnovember2014paris.sched.org/event/0a602a57f19a73c9995dfb88f22a1538#.VE_90R8aekA 20:34:37 jaypipes: you can still ask to move to another time on the conf side 20:34:38 devananda: i think the only critical timing concern on third-party testing cross-project discussion was that it come before project-specific third-party testing sessions, but that will be the case regardless 20:34:47 ttx: ++ :) 20:34:52 jaypipes: I can help with API WG and ask Everett Toews if he's available. 20:34:53 devananda: the functional testing one, I think dkranz put it in the list 20:34:55 ttx: k, lemme see what I can do. 20:34:55 like on Monday or Wednesday 20:34:59 time for me to board a plane ... 20:35:09 devananda: o/ 20:35:17 annegentle: that would be swell. i can make the second half of the API WG session (or most of it at least) 20:35:32 yeh, do we have existing session leaders for most of these? (defaulting to proposer I'd assume) 20:35:33 fungi: I think anteaya wants the 3rd-party CI discussion as a feedback session 20:35:50 sdague: trying to sort that out 20:35:53 etherpad is kind of a mess 20:36:00 ok 20:36:04 jaypipes: okay, sounds good, what's the time again? for API WG? 20:36:05 most of them don't have a proposer listed 20:36:13 russellb: oh, bummer 20:36:15 Anyway, I propose we push that schedule publicly and we see what conflicts people start to report 20:36:18 basically i added a new section at the top of the pad to try to clarify it 20:36:22 still missing a bunch 20:36:31 because I expect some PTLs to complain too 20:36:39 annegentle: 11:15am on Tues 20:36:53 I'm pleading ignorance as this is second day back, so still getting up to speed on the schedule :) 20:37:14 sdague: wb! 20:37:27 indeed, wb sdague 20:37:30 so, should we sort out session leads async? i can post to -dev list asking for volunteers ... 20:37:35 or we can try to burn through it now 20:37:37 shoot I'm in the Design Summit 101 also with ttx 20:37:45 russellb: I think that's the best bet. 20:37:46 guess it's on Everett 20:37:48 annegentle: yay! 20:37:49 yeh, ML might be good to flush out the original proposers 20:37:54 sdague: ++ 20:38:14 ttx: can you raise this at the next meeting, too? 20:38:16 russellb: so did the scheduler/gantt proposed session get nixed? not enough interest? :( 20:38:20 and if there are still gaps tomorrow this time, play a game of who's it 20:38:23 russellb: sure 20:38:24 jaypipes: score of 0 20:38:50 jaypipes: lack of interest, and a few -1s ... mainly that for now, it's a nova concern 20:39:08 I think Nova scheduled two sessions on that topic 20:39:09 get the split done ... too many people only want to talk about steps 12-18, and not the work that needs to get done first 20:39:13 IMO 20:39:20 russellb: +1000 20:40:02 only steps 1-7 may be discussed :) 20:40:08 OK, let's move on -- russellb: post the selection to the ML and ask for leads ? 20:40:11 russellb: k, understood (and I agree with you on that) 20:40:19 cool 20:40:29 ttx: wfm 20:40:31 after that, any session without a lead gets mordred as the lead 20:40:37 russellb: course, that doesn't mean I won't be inundated with NFV people asking me about it... but whatevs :) 20:40:46 jaypipes: ha, i feel your pain. 20:40:50 #topic Governance for the openstack-specs repo 20:41:04 A few weeks ago we allowed the creation of an openstack-specs repo for truly cross-project specs, and it was created as a TC-owned repository 20:41:16 The question left is... how should we manage this repo ? who should get +1/+2... ? 20:41:28 well, everyone should get +1 i think :) 20:41:34 jeblair: +1 20:41:38 great starting point jeblair 20:41:42 :) 20:41:45 I think starting with TC as the group with +2 seems sane 20:41:47 and see how it goes 20:41:49 maybe even -1? :) 20:42:13 yeh tc as -core group seems sane 20:42:17 not that we have *ALL* the expertise, but can work toward consensus, take all the inputs, etc, just like other cross project issues 20:42:23 and normal review criteria for everyone else 20:42:53 should we put specs on the agenda before final approval? 20:42:59 there is also the question of what it means for a spec to be approved there. Do all projects have to implement it now? etc. 20:43:00 yeah, we may also want a different approval policy for that repo 20:43:26 jogo: I guess it depends on the content of the spec 20:43:27 I like the idea of an in-meeting check point before approving 20:43:29 like "this spec is ready for approval, put it on the tc meeting agenda for a final call for tc review, and approve in more or less the normal tc way?" 20:43:33 a doc on expectations around this sounds like a ncie idea 20:43:37 perhaps even a spec on specs! 20:43:41 is that something we can have in the specs cross project session ? 20:43:54 sdague: ++ 20:44:08 we try to do the meeting check in for qa specs, it's only moderately successful there... 20:44:17 why can't we handle it similarly to how we handle openstack/governance? 20:44:39 jaypipes: yeah, that's more or less how we do oslo specs 20:44:41 one final vote? 20:44:46 jaypipes: and have ttx approve it all? 20:44:51 and have ttx (or someone else?) be the only +2/+W'er, and have a policy of quorum or consensus that is enforced by ttx. 20:44:52 sdague: right 20:44:52 jaypipes: depends on how "similar" it is 20:44:57 sdague: yeah. 20:44:59 someone else++ 20:45:07 doesn't have to be ttx of course. 20:45:16 * jaypipes nominates annegentle 20:45:18 I kind of like the idea that cross project specs have the ability for any community member to +1/-1 feedback 20:45:33 sdague: of course, that wouldn't change... 20:45:36 heh 20:45:42 well it's not the way governance works 20:45:50 sdague: ? sure it is. 20:45:52 nah 20:45:55 nope 20:45:55 nope 20:45:57 jaypipes: only TC members can +1 20:45:58 only TC can +1/-1 20:46:00 it has to get as least as many votes as the TC election :) 20:46:03 and I just tally the votes 20:46:04 I was disappointed I couln't +1 things in governance 20:46:05 oh... 20:46:09 well I be darned. 20:46:09 sdague: it's more like oslo-specs, where anyone can vote, cores can vote 2, and by agreement only I approve things 20:46:16 anyone can leave a message of course 20:46:18 we could revisit that idea i guess 20:46:27 but anyway, i like everyone having +1/-1 on the specs 20:46:29 I think for cross project you're gonna need to gather more consensus 20:46:35 well, sorry about that. I was misinformed. 20:46:35 jeblair: could we have TC members do +2 and I would tally +2 with Workflow+1 instead ? 20:46:43 in theory governance has the same cross project impact 20:46:47 so everyone +1/-1 is a good thing 20:46:47 that would allow "normal people" to +1 20:46:50 ttx: yeh, that might be fine 20:46:57 ttx: -2 is a problem 20:47:01 jeblair: is it? 20:47:02 sdague: I think we suggested that back then 20:47:07 anyone remember why we did that for governance? 20:47:07 I think we could all just agree that only ttx +A's 20:47:16 may i have the floor? :) 20:47:30 * ttx passes the mike to jeblair 20:47:34 jeblair takes the meeting lock 20:47:48 * markmcclain1 wonders why that is not a feature of meetbot 20:47:55 part of why governance is structured the way it is is due to limitations in a previous version of gerrit, and partially to make sure that the voting (since we _actually_ vote) is clear 20:48:07 since we have upgraded gerrit, we do have more options than before 20:48:28 hot spec on spec action: http://cdn.vectorstock.com/i/composite/66,23/spectacles-vector-6623.jpg 20:48:36 so if we would like to enable +/-1 for everyone while maintaining the ability to discern tc votes, i believe we can come up with a proposal for that 20:48:36 vishy: SNORT 20:48:55 it will still be something different than the process used for other repos, but i think we can work it out 20:49:05 is that something the tc would like us to do? 20:49:08 new column for TC votes or something? 20:49:13 jeblair: so I think it's also OK to use normal core rev rules. TC members -1 things for 'needs more work' and -2 for 'hell no' 20:49:17 being able to record random +1/-1 sounds like a good thing, yes 20:49:18 russellb: that may be an option 20:49:22 sdague: -2s block 20:49:25 jeblair: yes 20:49:31 sdague: no tc member gets a veto 20:49:34 i think so yes, i'd love to see a proposal for it 20:49:37 for specs? 20:49:49 sdague: i believe governance is the repo under discussion? 20:49:50 yeah, I think in this case blocking is a feature 20:49:50 sdague: we are discussing governance now 20:49:54 oh... sorry 20:50:03 I missed a context switch 20:50:07 jeblair: I'm certainly interested in a proposal to do that. 20:50:21 * dhellmann missed the context switch to 20:50:33 -1..+1 for peanut gallery, -1..+2 for tc members, 0..+1 workflow for tc chair? 20:50:34 yeah, tangent 20:50:39 we can workl something out for governance, but that's pretty off-topic 20:50:50 fungi: something like that yes 20:50:56 fungi: that still doesn't work 20:50:58 yeh, governance repo discussion to tc list? 20:51:07 sdague: please no 20:51:08 meh, right, tc -1 is different from peanut gallery -1 20:51:09 because tc -1 is different than general -1 20:51:15 it's pretty relevant though to cross project and api wg repos 20:51:31 what i would like to do is come back to the tc with a proposal that meets the requirements 20:51:38 rather than designing something in this meeting 20:51:40 so.. back to openstack-specs 20:51:52 jeblair: can you propose something for that as well ? 20:51:59 what are the requirements for specs though 20:52:02 jeblair: +1 20:52:06 I'm happy with the way the governance repo works now, and I think we can manage the openstack-specs repo by consensus that only the appointed person approves 20:52:09 liek any other repo? 20:52:17 and tc as -core ? 20:52:18 yeah, i think i know the requirements for governance, but i don't know them for specs 20:52:31 i think ^^^ works for me for specs 20:52:37 works for me too 20:52:38 russellb: +1 20:52:41 russellb: yeh, +1 20:52:57 that gives tc members veto 20:53:01 maybe with some rule that we want more than 2 approvers, but taht can be figured out as we go 20:53:05 jeblair: yes, that's what we want for specs 20:53:14 jeblair: sounds reasonable for specs 20:53:38 sounds like a starting point i guess :) 20:53:43 so we don't really need a secretary to tally votes like for govrenance 20:53:44 yeah 20:53:53 yep 20:53:53 (re: starting point) 20:54:02 i do still think that final approval should happen after it hits the meeting agenda 20:54:04 just do the usual core dance 20:54:06 jeblair: ++ 20:54:08 jeblair: ++ 20:54:11 jeblair: ++ 20:54:15 but only 2 +2s before +W? 20:54:16 or more? 20:54:34 seems like you need +2 from affected PTLs? 20:54:36 or just let people use good sense? 20:54:37 russellb: I look for broad consensus on oslo-specs before I approve them 20:54:43 annegentle: affected ptls may not have +2 20:54:52 but that's gaterhing consensus 20:54:52 annegentle: yeah, I'd look for a +1 20:54:56 maybe +1s forom affected ptls 20:54:59 yeah 20:55:14 okay that works too as long as they're aware, voting, we know there is consensus gathered 20:55:28 jeblair: you up for proposing a technical solution for both ? 20:55:46 or you just talk to people and be reasonable 20:55:53 sdague: that. 20:55:56 which is typically what happens in the specs today 20:55:58 sdague: we could do with more of that 20:56:03 sdague: be reasonable? what's wrong with you! :P 20:56:04 ttx: it sounds like we have what we need for specs; or do you want me to write the process doc? 20:56:14 ttx: and yes, i will make a proposal for governance 20:56:16 yeah, sounds like specs is just like everything else 20:56:28 #action jeblair to propose some novel Gerrit rules solution for governance repo 20:56:39 jeblair: maybe write it up ? 20:56:43 ttx: can do 20:56:45 but we could probably still use a general guidelines doc on cross project specs to clarify for people what kind of consensus we'll be looking for 20:56:46 (the openstack-specs rules) 20:57:01 yep. should i propose that to openstack-specs or governance? 20:57:11 #action jeblair to write up proposed Gerrit rules for openstack-specs repo 20:57:15 jeblair: openstack-specs I'd say 20:57:17 cool. 20:57:21 jeblair: ttx: okay to also consider the api wg repo as well in your proposal? Seems more efficient 20:57:23 self-documentation 20:57:44 annegentle: I thought we said the wg would have +2 in that repo 20:57:51 api wg repo deserves its own consideration 20:57:56 maybe we can just cover that next week? 20:57:58 annegentle: api wg is a bit of another beast, I'd like them to self-organize first 20:58:07 ttx: ++ 20:58:13 no need to impose process externally 20:58:23 let's see what they come up with 20:58:39 ok, let's run through the other items in agenda 20:58:46 #topic Other governance changes 20:59:10 I have two changes from mordred that are blocked, couldn't really get hold of him, but I'll soon corner him physically 20:59:15 * Remove support for vendor extensions from our code (https://review.openstack.org/122968) 20:59:18 * Add a docs environment to the testing interface (https://review.openstack.org/119875) 20:59:23 #topic Open discussion 20:59:29 Anything urgent to discuss, anyone ? 20:59:38 looking forward to seeing you all in person soon! 20:59:42 Question about upcoming BoD/TC meeting, Design Summit etv ? 20:59:43 same! 20:59:44 etc 20:59:46 yep, definitely 21:00:00 yeah.. will be good to get in same room 21:00:10 esp for the big governance changes discussion ... 21:00:13 around the same dinner table too 21:00:15 really need some real-time chat time on that 21:00:32 food for thought… but don't want to discuss now: should we be considering an in person TC meetup 2015 Q1? 21:00:33 ok then, safe travels 21:00:35 see you in paris! 21:00:36 where are the pods ttx? 21:00:36 russellb: maybe we should plan to have lunch together once or twice so we can cover that? 21:00:45 (everyone, not just the 2 of us :-) 21:00:47 annegentle: in the Design Summit space (Le Meridien) 21:00:50 markmcclain1: I like the idea 21:00:51 okay thanks 21:00:52 * jaypipes will come to TC dinner dressed in a giant tent. 21:01:00 #endmeeting