20:02:10 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:02:11 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Dec  2 20:02:10 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:02:12 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:02:15 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:02:20 <ttx> Our agenda for today:
20:02:27 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee
20:02:38 <ttx> #topic Leadership process
20:02:42 <dhellmann> o/
20:02:45 <markmcclain> o/
20:02:49 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/137848
20:02:59 <ttx> This is the process to cover the case where noone self-nominates for a given PTL position
20:03:04 <anteaya> o/
20:03:21 <ttx> I think it's a sane fallback process
20:03:33 <jgriffith> o/
20:03:46 <ttx> Comments on that one ?
20:03:52 <jeblair> this looks good, though i think we all know that the actual process will be that mordred nominates himself since he always manages to have changes in every project.  ;)
20:03:57 <sdague> wfm, thanks anteaya and ttx for coming up with something sane
20:04:07 <sdague> jeblair: landed changes?
20:04:31 <jeblair> sdague: usually :)
20:04:33 <anteaya> any fool can self-nominate
20:04:34 <mordred> jeblair: :)
20:04:40 <mordred> anteaya: like jeblair said ...
20:04:42 <jeblair> anteaya: many of us do! :)
20:04:44 <anteaya> I'm just tired of losing sleep in case noone does
20:04:44 <annegentle> lol
20:04:47 <anteaya> :D
20:05:05 <ttx> wow, plenty of votes there
20:05:05 <mordred> one of these ties I'm going to nominate myself in all of the projects just for fun
20:05:17 <annegentle> can a PTL hold two projects?
20:05:21 <ttx> I guess we can close this one
20:05:26 <annegentle> we don't specifically say no anywhere, should we?
20:05:28 <jeblair> jgriffith: wrote: Should there be considerations or plans if a project encounters this more than once? For example program deprecation?
20:05:31 <ttx> annegentle: nothing in the proposed process prevents that
20:05:34 <sdague> annegentle: we don't say they can't
20:05:36 <dhellmann> mordred: do we have rules about how many projects someone can be PTL for?
20:05:44 * dhellmann doesn't want to give anteaya something else to worry about
20:05:51 <jeblair> i think if this issue comes to the tc, it will probably prompt such a discussion
20:05:57 <mordred> jeblair: ++
20:05:59 <jgriffith> jeblair: fair enough
20:06:03 <sdague> yeh, agreed
20:06:05 <anteaya> dhellmann: thanks
20:06:09 <mordred> dhellmann: not to my knowledge - however, who the heck wants to be PTL of more than one thing?
20:06:10 <jgriffith> just wanted to raise it as an observation
20:06:10 <annegentle> I sorta said no to Dean Troyer being PTL of Devstack and DevEx at one point
20:06:21 <jeblair> i don't think we need explicit rules around that at this point.  but yeah, i sort of think that would be on the table.
20:06:27 <ttx> I'll let you cast votes, but this should get through tomorrow morning
20:06:29 <mikal> dhellmann: surely that would depend on the size of the projects?
20:06:35 <dhellmann> mordred: no one who wants that should be ptl of anything
20:06:40 <annegentle> dhellmann: heh
20:06:46 <dhellmann> mikal: sure
20:07:14 <ttx> ok, next topic ?
20:07:18 <sdague> honestly, I think that's something that should get left to voting. If people think someone can handle whatever, and they are the only volunteer, so be it
20:07:38 <jeblair> sdague: ++, ttx: ++
20:07:41 <ttx> #topic Status on governance.openstack.org
20:07:41 <dhellmann> yeah, I don't think we need a rule for that
20:07:51 <ttx> We now have our governance documents up on http://governance.openstack.org/
20:07:57 <ttx> (yay!)
20:08:00 <jeblair> hey neato
20:08:03 <sdague> \o/
20:08:06 <ttx> Now I'd like to start deprecating the wiki copies of reference information
20:08:07 <devananda> woo!
20:08:16 <ttx> I proposed an updated index page at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/138037
20:08:18 <jaypipes> ttx: ++
20:08:32 <ttx> You can see how the result looks at: http://docs-draft.openstack.org/37/138037/2/check/gate-governance-docs/8566618/doc/build/html/
20:08:42 <ttx> (I'm a big fan of this -draft thing)
20:08:47 <mordred> ++
20:08:59 <annegentle> love docs-draft
20:09:04 <ttx> Once/If that merges I'll start making sure we don't duplicate information on the wiki itself. I'll add pointers to governance.o.o there, and transform the main pages into meeting organization pages
20:09:39 <ttx> Comments on the plan ?
20:09:53 <jeblair> sounds solid
20:09:55 <annegentle> sounds right to me
20:09:57 <jaypipes> ++
20:09:58 <markmcclain> seems reasonable
20:10:02 <mikal> Sounds good to me
20:10:04 <ttx> ok, I'll make it happen
20:10:21 <ttx> argh, doug -1ed it
20:10:42 <ttx> exposing my sphinx newbiness
20:11:00 <ttx> let me fix that real quick
20:11:43 <anteaya> so much to learn with sphinx
20:12:11 <ttx> dhellmann: I should replace the URL itself with the :doc: thing ?
20:12:36 <dhellmann> ttx: yeah -- want me to patch it?
20:12:58 <ttx> .. _`Technical Committee Charter`: :doc:`reference/charter` ??
20:13:36 <dhellmann> ttx: see the new patch
20:13:53 <ttx> oh.
20:14:04 <annegentle> ah I should've caught that
20:14:04 <ttx> shiny (if that does the same thing)
20:14:16 <dhellmann> ttx: even better, it inserts the title automatically for you
20:14:17 <jeblair> yeah, it should get the title from the doc itself
20:14:30 <ttx> so please revote on dhellmann improved version :)
20:14:56 <ttx> I'll merge it tomorrow morning if it passes votes
20:15:08 <ttx> dhellmann: thx!
20:15:13 <dhellmann> ttx: np
20:15:15 <ttx> #topic Next step in project structure reform: the spec
20:15:26 <ttx> So... following a number of in-person discussions, I prepared a spec for the project structure reform, and just posted it
20:15:43 <ttx> The idea of this document is to explain which problem we are trying to solve, and which changes we'd like to get implemented
20:15:48 <mikal> ttx: wanna add a link to that to the agenda on the wiki?
20:15:50 <sdague> draft url?
20:15:51 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/138504
20:16:02 <ttx> mikal: I'm on it
20:16:29 <jeblair> it has many words!  i look forward to reading them
20:16:38 <devananda> too many words to read now ...
20:16:38 <mikal> Does it use whereas?
20:16:45 <ttx> yeah, sorry I couldn't post it early enough
20:16:51 <ttx> no whereas. Sorry.
20:16:57 <jeblair> mikal: we can fix that later
20:16:58 <annegentle> hitherto
20:17:08 <ttx> You will find that it is much more evolutionary than revolutionary, because we need a seamless transition
20:17:19 <ttx> Hopefully it will explain what this is all about, and address most of the fear
20:17:36 <ttx> I mostly followed a spec template, but I proposed it as a TC resolution, since that's where we handle governance changes and how we express the decisions of the TC
20:17:52 <ttx> That's just the overall plan, if approved it will obviously result in subsequent changes in existing reference documents, and addition of new ones
20:17:53 <devananda> ttx: ++ evolutionary
20:18:04 <sdague> fixed the title bit so we should get a nice html draft
20:18:12 <ttx> Please take the time to read it in the coming week -- we'll discuss it more deeply on the review and at the meeting next week
20:18:29 <jeblair> ttx: thank you; i think this is a good process
20:18:46 <jgriffith> ttx: You write well :)
20:19:08 <ttx> The only person I didn't have a discussion about goals and process these past weeks with is Monty
20:19:23 * mordred is in hyper-travel hell currently - sorry about that
20:19:24 <devananda> i'm very pleased reading the Problem Description. seems to capture the points well
20:19:26 <ttx> for the others the content should be less of a surprise
20:19:33 <annegentle> does it answer all of the jogo survey questions ahead of time?
20:19:53 <ttx> since it's mostly a synthesis from the various discussions
20:19:57 <ttx> annegentle: I hope so, yes
20:20:10 * jogo points out the survey questions were a rough idea and not a fully fleshed out list
20:20:28 * jogo is excited for more things to read
20:20:33 <ttx> yay!
20:20:53 <ttx> So I don't expect us to discuss it today, and that's all I had for this meeting
20:20:58 <annegentle> jogo: oh I liked them and want answers :)
20:21:12 <jogo> annegentle: :)
20:21:15 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:21:42 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
20:21:55 <dhellmann> mtreinish, jogo, and I would like to move the hacking project into the qa program: https://review.openstack.org/138499
20:22:22 <ttx> hmm, I guess we can fasttrack it
20:22:31 <dhellmann> ML discussion: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-December/052025.html
20:22:39 <mordred> ttx: fasttrack?
20:22:45 <jogo> ttx: I don't see any reason to fast track it
20:23:00 <dhellmann> yeah, there's no rush, I just mentioned it because it came up right before the meeting
20:23:05 <ttx> oh, ok
20:23:10 <mordred> ah, k
20:23:38 <ttx> mordred: I meant, consider it for voting without waiting for the customary 3-business-day wait
20:23:58 <ttx> but if there is no hurry, we can wait for next week
20:24:08 <ttx> mordred: are you in Europe after all ?
20:24:15 <mordred> ttx: yah
20:24:30 <ttx> mordred: missed you on my Monday morning
20:24:30 <jeblair> we should rename hacking into openstack/ as well
20:24:31 <mordred> for the second time in 4 weeks
20:24:48 <mordred> ttx: oh - well, Monday morning I enjoyed some massive jetlag
20:24:54 <jeblair> jogo, dhellmann: can we take that up in #openstack-infra ?
20:25:05 <sdague> jeblair: so if we are going to do that, we should probably pull devstack and grenade up at the same time?
20:25:05 <dhellmann> jeblair: the rename? sure
20:25:15 <sdague> and just kill off openstack-dev?
20:25:21 <jeblair> sdague: ++
20:25:23 <dhellmann> yeah, I don't have an issue with all of those moving or just staying in -dev
20:25:53 <jogo> jeblair: sure
20:25:56 <sdague> jeblair: given that a *ton* of people regularly clone devstack, we should probably also talk about that on the main -dev list
20:25:57 * markmcclain wonder how badly the 3rd party cI world would break moving devstack
20:26:02 <sdague> because that might surprise folks
20:26:03 <sdague> yeh
20:26:06 <dhellmann> markmcclain: yeah
20:26:11 <sdague> but it's a move that we should make
20:26:32 <jeblair> (i don't want to derail the meeting; happy to continue this here now, or in -infra, or later)
20:26:51 <jeblair> though i guess this is open discussion :)
20:26:57 <dhellmann> I'm not strongly opposed to moving them, but I'm curious about the motivation.
20:27:09 <dhellmann> because it seems like it's bound to cause plenty of trouble
20:27:51 <jeblair> yeah, devstack + grenade are probably worth some planning
20:28:13 <sdague> yeh, honestly, maybe it makes sense to wait until we conclude on the goverance discussion, because if we end up with more stuff in openstack, and basically just that namespace, it seems like we'll need a better compat story for a while
20:28:28 <ttx> We can close early. I expect next week meeting to be a lot more busy. Also some of us are attending a board meeting at the same time.
20:28:31 <sdague> like if we can double clone to the deprecated space, or 403
20:28:32 <dhellmann> sdague: good point
20:28:39 <jeblair> a lot of third-party folks use our scripts more or less verbatim, eg, devstack-gate.  so a lot of them will get the change automatically
20:28:46 <dhellmann> ttx: yeah, we can take this discussion to -infra
20:29:02 <sdague> yeh, let the board members go concentrate there
20:29:25 <sdague> and the rest of use can figure out why ceilometer is breaking grenade - http://logs.openstack.org/07/138407/1/check/check-grenade-dsvm/5132bee/logs/new/screen-s-proxy.txt.gz
20:29:46 <jeblair> i'm not quite as worried about moving stackforge projects to openstack/; we do it all the time and people cope
20:29:55 <jogo> jeblair: moving hacking is not time sensitive IMHO. so there is plenty of wiggle room on how we move it to QA
20:30:09 <ttx> alright then.
20:30:18 <ttx> let's close this one early.
20:30:33 <ttx> read well, see you next week.
20:30:35 <ttx> #endmeeting