20:02:49 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:02:50 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Mar 24 20:02:49 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:02:52 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:02:54 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:03:09 <ttx> If I disappear due to network issues, just pretent I'm here and continue
20:03:14 <ttx> Our agenda for today:
20:03:18 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:03:30 <ttx> #topic Final rubberstamping for library stable release procedures/policy
20:03:34 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/155072/
20:03:44 <ttx> I put a question mark on that one because it doesn't have the usual pile up of +1s
20:03:55 <ttx> So it's more questionable than usual that it reached enough "consensus" for us to rubberstamp
20:04:03 <ttx> That said, it's a niche topic, so a lot of people just don't care
20:04:14 <ttx> Also, it's describing the process we are already following for Kilo cycle final stage
20:04:24 <ttx> so I'd argue it's better to approve it (and refine it if necessary in the future) than pretend it's not there
20:04:33 <dhellmann> although we do need the ptls for projects with client libraries to follow it, too
20:04:38 <ttx> All people that had -1s in the past have reverted them to +1 later, except jeblair
20:04:46 <ttx> so I'm at least waiting on that
20:05:21 <ttx> dhellmann: do you think we should technically wait a bit more ?
20:05:30 <ttx> Like raise a ML thread to push it over the edge ?
20:05:39 <ttx> We discussed it twice at the cross-project meeting already
20:05:41 <mikal> Is the goal to follow this for Kilo?
20:05:47 <dhellmann> mikal: yes
20:06:09 <dhellmann> ttx: at this point it seems a bit pointless to wait, but we can if you think that's going to mean more people understand it
20:06:50 <ttx> dhellmann: we could send an email about the process we'll follow in kilo to the ML -- inadvertantly mentioning that it's the one being under review as a spec anyway
20:06:54 <mikal> I assume there will be reminders towards the end of a release cycle to do these things?
20:07:00 * mikal worries about forgetful future me
20:07:04 <ttx> we need a ML post at some point anyway
20:07:17 <dhellmann> ttx: ok, I thought I posted once about it already but I can do it again
20:07:39 <ttx> dhellmann: if you posted something already, I may have mlissed it, maybe no point in doing it again
20:08:08 <ttx> I'm fine passing it if we can get 7 TC members to approve it
20:08:10 <dhellmann> ttx: the thread I'm finding was tagged [oslo] so I'll start another
20:08:19 <ttx> worst case scenario we'll revise it
20:08:23 <dhellmann> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-December/051874.html
20:08:35 <ttx> I'm fine with both options (thread or pass now)
20:08:36 <mikal> So you need three more +2's then
20:08:46 <ttx> what's the other TC members take ?
20:09:12 <jgriffith> ttx: my vote was go with it
20:09:14 <mikal> I think you should merge it
20:09:27 <jgriffith> mikal: +1
20:09:28 <ttx> jeblair: you fine reverting your past -1 ?
20:10:16 <jeblair> ttx: it was for an (important) clarification, so probably okay.  but i have not read the latest revision yet, sorry.
20:10:43 <jeblair> ttx: (as in, i don't think i saw any major obstacles once i understood it)
20:11:28 <ttx> OK, let's do both approaches then. I'll approve once it gets 7 TC yes (hopefully later this week) *and* let's have a thread to communicate the kilo strategy anyway
20:11:35 <ttx> (one not blocking the other)
20:11:48 * dhellmann is composing that email right now
20:11:57 <ttx> sounds good ?
20:12:08 <jgriffith> ttx: works for me
20:12:17 <jeblair> +
20:12:19 <ttx> ok, let's move on
20:12:24 <ttx> #topic Magnum - OpenStack Containers Service
20:12:29 * adrian_otto is here for any Magnum related questions
20:12:30 <ttx> This is a proposed project addition:
20:12:34 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/161080
20:12:39 <ttx> We discussed it a couple weeks ago
20:12:48 <ttx> My personal feeling is that this project team behaves like "one of us"
20:12:58 <markmcclain> ++
20:13:00 <ttx> The only part we could question is whether they really help further the OpenStack Mission, and I think they help with the "platform" part...
20:13:10 <ttx> ...without diluting the value of existing key components.
20:13:22 <ttx> so I'm +1
20:13:31 <jgriffith> +2
20:13:50 <vishy> +1
20:13:51 <ttx> questions, comments ?
20:13:57 <mikal> So, I missed the meeting last time we discussed this
20:14:02 <mikal> Remind me why we didn't +1 then?
20:14:14 * sdake__ here for magnum Q's as well
20:14:19 <ttx> mikal: I think there were concerns whether we should freeze approvals
20:14:26 <dhellmann> ttx: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/059811.html for reference on the previous topic
20:14:28 <ttx> and we clarified that last week
20:14:34 <mikal> Oh, so process not magnum itself?
20:14:44 <agentle> mikal: right
20:14:52 <mordred> I'm +1 on this one - I think the are one of us and follow the 4 opens and they're don't do anything that makes me unhappy and adrian_otto is a nice guy
20:14:52 <ttx> mikal: that was my understanding, maybe others opinion vary
20:14:57 <mikal> Ok, cool
20:15:08 <jeblair> and we wanted to look at other applications, but it seems like we only had one other and we did that. :)
20:15:10 <adrian_otto> ;-)
20:15:10 <mikal> mordred: he has nice hair too
20:15:22 <mordred> mikal: this is very true.
20:15:25 <ttx> Magnum was level 1. Let's move to level 2
20:15:29 <anteaya> adrian_otto reached out to me about how to address their elections without placing a burden on current tools
20:15:29 <mikal> ttx: you have 9 +1's there
20:15:30 * dhellmann can't wait to meet adrian_otto now
20:15:43 <mordred> adrian_otto: hope your hair doesn't let dhellmann down
20:15:47 <ttx> alrighty, 30 secondsq left to record your approval
20:15:51 <adrian_otto> dhellmann: we met in ATL
20:15:55 <ttx> before I press the button
20:15:57 <mikal> LOL
20:16:03 <sdake__> adrian_otto has fine hair
20:16:04 * dhellmann is ashamed
20:16:14 * mordred hands dhellmann a web bunny rabbit of shame
20:16:17 <mordred> gah
20:16:19 <mordred> WET
20:16:21 * mordred is ashamed
20:16:27 <ttx> now that you mention it -- nice hair is certainly hurting some of our key members pride
20:16:30 <mikal> You got the bunny wet?
20:16:38 <ttx> which definitely counts as "not one of us"
20:16:47 <mordred> ttx: should we only accept projects with bad hair?
20:16:47 <mikal> We could get TC toupes?
20:16:52 <ttx> ok, approved
20:16:56 <ttx> mordred: or bald guys
20:17:11 <anteaya> bald women too?
20:17:14 <ttx> adrian_otto: you're in!
20:17:16 <agentle> +1 anteaya
20:17:17 <mordred> anteaya: absolutely
20:17:19 <dhellmann> adrian_otto: I'm not sure whether to offer congratulations or condolences ;-)
20:17:20 * sarob is in trouble
20:17:22 <ttx> Welcome to the tent
20:17:24 <anteaya> okay then
20:17:29 <jgriffith> dhellmann: LOL
20:17:33 <agentle> come in out of the rain (or something?)
20:17:40 <mordred> so far this meeting is winning best TC meeting
20:17:47 * dhellmann wonders what was in everyone's coffee today
20:17:56 <sdake__> dhellman both ;)
20:18:05 <ttx> dhellmann: I may have poured powerful drugs in the water supply this morning
20:18:09 <dhellmann> sdake__: too true! :-)
20:18:09 <jeblair> who else is doing a google image search for adrian otto and marveling at the fact that _all_ adrian ottos have amazing hair?
20:18:10 <ttx> #topic Add a tag for affiliation diversity
20:18:19 <AJaeger_> adrian_otto: please propose a patch to project-config to move the repos in the openstack namespace quickly. We have a rename sscheduled
20:18:27 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/163851
20:18:27 <adrian_otto> AJaeger_: yes sir.
20:18:32 <dhellmann> jeblair: it comes with access to that namespace
20:18:35 <ttx> More happiness all around! Great work going on here
20:18:48 <jeblair> adrian_otto, AJaeger_: next rename is scheduled for friday
20:19:02 <adrian_otto> ok, we will act on that swiftly.
20:19:05 <ttx> The diversity tag is almost good to go, minor comments from anne and me
20:19:12 <jeblair> (if we miss it, we'll do it in a couple weeks)
20:19:20 <agentle> really like the data-driven diversityt ag
20:19:23 <agentle> tag even
20:19:51 <ttx> liek I think a project were 2 orgs represent more than 80% or 90% of contributors could be considered "not diverse" the same way a project where one org has >50% is
20:19:58 <mordred> so - I don't want to be a wet blanket on the otherwise awesome meeting
20:20:05 <mordred> because I like this tag in many ways
20:20:07 <mordred> HOWEVER
20:20:11 <ttx> fear the wet mordred
20:20:18 <mordred> there is an implication in it that corporate affiliation matters
20:20:29 <mordred> in that it implies that because I work for HP I am working for HP's motives
20:20:37 <mordred> and, while I understand and agree with the intent
20:20:46 * devananda hands mordred a towel to dry off
20:20:48 <mordred> I do want to register taht I do not, inf act, make technical decisions based on HP's goals
20:20:50 <agentle> mordred: I asked for "org" instead of "company" because I feel the same way
20:20:51 <ttx> Not sure there is such implication
20:20:55 <dhellmann> from the sense of the long term viability of a project, it might - if a company walks away from a project and takes their developers, that may hurt the remaining team's ability to continue producing the software
20:21:06 <mordred> dhellmann: TOTALLY
20:21:08 <ttx> mordred: the risk we are talking about here is a company pulling off all resources from a project in one go
20:21:09 <devananda> mordred: I think the implication is slightly different. it implies that HP could prevent you from working on it any longer, if they chose to stop funding it
20:21:09 <mordred> like I said, I support the tag
20:21:11 <jgriffith> mordred: I kinda get what you're saying.. HOWEVER
20:21:13 <jgriffith> :)
20:21:16 <mikal> mordred: its about the risk that HP will assign you to a new task though right?
20:21:23 <mikal> mordred: not about the decisions you make while assigned somewhere
20:21:30 <jgriffith> I also think that the whole point is just "data"
20:21:35 <mordred> mikal: well, they can try that - I'm pretty sure you'd offer me a new job if they did
20:21:44 <ttx> it's not really about a company controlling a project as much as the brittleness of a project that lacks diversity
20:21:50 <jgriffith> as per the comment I made, it's not a "judgement"
20:21:52 <mikal> mordred: sure, but there this is a thing which has happened to other people in the past
20:21:54 <mordred> yup
20:22:01 <mordred> totally understand
20:22:03 <mordred> totally agree
20:22:04 <agentle> I think it's data driven and people can make their own assessments on whether affiliation means a particular behavior would occur
20:22:07 <mordred> data is great
20:22:13 <jeblair> yeah, i think it's useful because it is a signal about how broad the support for a project is in our community
20:22:13 <ttx> mordred: I bet they wouldn't oiffer a jhob to your whole team though
20:22:20 <agentle> we'll do gender diversity data next right? :)
20:22:27 <ttx> agentle: oh, good one :)
20:22:44 <mikal> agentle: I can script that one easily... Its just a script which always returns "no".
20:22:48 <AJaeger_> agentle: and then geography or age?
20:22:49 <ttx> mordred: but I see your point
20:22:50 <agentle> because if I'm a woman I'll behave a certain way (which is what mordred is basically saying is a poor lumping?)
20:22:50 <jgriffith> I think most folks know mordred *thinks* on is on behalf
20:22:55 <agentle> heh
20:23:04 <mordred> I just want to make sure we don't start judging people based on our impressions, good or bad, of their employer
20:23:15 <mordred> and this seems like one tiny step down that road
20:23:16 <jgriffith> mordred: very fair point
20:23:17 <agentle> mordred: I think it's data and judgement occurs.
20:23:19 <mordred> I know we're already down it
20:23:24 <mordred> and I agree with agentle
20:23:24 <devananda> I think it actually expresses something else very well - we all ignore the agency of individual developers to sustain a project because we (assume, probably correctly) that all openstack developers are paid t owork on openstack
20:23:25 * mikal also doesn't want to be the one to have to assign strict genders to people
20:23:34 <ttx> mordred: maybe the tag definition could use wording to discourage this usage of the tag
20:23:39 <ttx> if it doesn't enough already
20:23:47 <mordred> ttx: maybe so - I may also be fine just having said it here in channel
20:23:50 <ttx> i.e. assume good faith and all
20:23:54 <dhellmann> mordred: no, but at the same time I could see a deployer not wanting to use something with only one company backing it, and I could see us deciding not to propose trademark use for a project that lacks some level of diversity
20:24:03 <anteaya> mikal: self-identification is the way to go
20:24:09 <ttx> What do you all think of a cap on two-org share ?
20:24:11 <agentle> I wondered if the sample size of the team matters, like if there are four team members, do we need to surface that?
20:24:27 <ttx> like top two-org should represent less than 85% or so of the metrics considered ?
20:24:32 <devananda> agentle: we used to require a min # of devs, yes
20:24:54 <dhellmann> agentle: size of the core team would be another good metric for evaluating the long term health prospects for a project, so that could be another tag in this category
20:24:59 <agentle> devananda: okay, then yeah I think I'm going the same line of thought as ttx
20:25:01 <jgriffith> I'm wondering if people are reading this tag as something much more "important" than I am
20:25:16 <ttx> we'll probably use the same for the future team:size tag
20:25:19 <agentle> dhellmann: ok, that would work
20:25:34 <dhellmann> jgriffith: I anticipate applying these rules when deciding whether I want to vote yes for trademark use for a project.
20:25:47 <agentle> jgriffith: it's interesting data, and uncovers makeup of teams, and will be useful comparision/trending over time
20:25:50 <devananda> mordred: one more thing this exposes is a lack of pluggability in an app. most of the IaaS tools have pluggable drivers, which increases the diversity of contributions.
20:26:04 <jgriffith> dhellmann: ahh.. ok, then that's going to change a bit of my opinions on these things I think
20:26:09 * devananda cant type well tonight
20:26:15 * russellb here now
20:26:17 <jgriffith> dhellmann: as well as make the process MUCH more difficult I think
20:26:31 <dhellmann> jgriffith: difficult?
20:26:37 <ttx> So... details to iron out, but since this tag definition has broad support, I plan to approve it if any patchset reaches 7 YES in the coming week, so that we don't block on another meeting. Does that sound fair ?
20:26:38 <jgriffith> dhellmann: by process I mean process of setting up tags
20:26:48 <devananda> dhellmann: you vote whether or not to use apply the trademark t oa project?
20:27:17 <dhellmann> devananda: the bylaws say the TC is supposed to propose a sets of projects to the board for trademark consideration, so yes
20:27:35 <ttx> at some point we'll have to
20:27:40 <ttx> currently it's "the integarted release"
20:27:45 * dhellmann is sitting on a tag proposal for that
20:27:48 <russellb> "TC approved release"
20:27:54 <ttx> and tomorrow it will be "the TC approved release"
20:27:54 <mordred> me proposes integarted tag
20:27:56 <russellb> is the base that the rest of the trademark policy starts from
20:28:02 <dhellmann> right, I'll submit that next week when I get back from vacation
20:28:05 <devananda> ah. right.
20:28:07 <russellb> mordred: yep, coming full circle :-p
20:28:14 <mordred> russellb: :)
20:28:25 <ttx> trademark usage was one of the late additions to the meaning of "the integrated release"
20:28:28 <ttx> the last facet
20:28:33 <ttx> some would say the last straw
20:28:36 * mordred would personally like to see the "proposed set of projects" stay static until someone else requests that we add something
20:28:39 <jgriffith> geesh... I was taking all of that literally
20:28:40 <mordred> but that's another conversation
20:28:52 <ttx> yes, one step at a time :)
20:28:59 * mordred starts running
20:29:14 <ttx> I need to figure out if Defcore wants one "tc-approved releas" or one per trademark program first :)
20:29:22 <russellb> mordred: right, will be easier to define and agree if we keep the scope contained
20:29:23 <ttx> fun with bylaws wording.
20:29:23 * sdague finally here, train late
20:29:34 <mordred> sdague: you missed the fun bits
20:29:40 <mordred> sdague: now we're just doing work
20:29:46 <ttx> sdague: you missed the part where we just agreed
20:29:57 <sdague> \o/ for agreeing
20:29:58 <ttx> OK, so to reiterate, back on topic...
20:30:06 <jgriffith> sdague: don't believe them... it's a conspiracy
20:30:08 <ttx> since this tag definition has broad support, I plan to approve it if any patchset reaches 7 YES in the coming week, so that we don't block on another meeting. Does that sound fair ?
20:30:19 <dhellmann> ttx: ++
20:30:22 <devananda> ttx: ++
20:30:26 <mikal> works for me
20:30:30 <jgriffith> ttx: as my vote in gerrit reflects +1
20:30:49 <mordred> ++
20:30:58 <mordred> ttx: I voted +1 after having whined in channel
20:31:01 <ttx> If you think having a tow-org cap rule doesn't make sense, please chime in on review so that Russel knows how to do the next patchset
20:31:15 <agentle> got it.
20:31:33 <ttx> #topic Add proposal to rename core teams as maintainer teams
20:31:33 <russellb> related data is on the review
20:31:37 <russellb> to see what the new rule would impact
20:31:45 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/163660
20:31:59 <ttx> This one is failing to pick up support afaict
20:32:14 <ttx> most opinionated people (like me) so far with a -1
20:32:51 <agentle> in docs, we have been establishing "specialty teams" for reviews of particular guides.
20:32:57 <ttx> I understand we may have a problem to solve there, but I fear the remedy is worse than the disease
20:33:05 <russellb> yep, agree there's a problem
20:33:06 <agentle> so it sounds similar to what jogo is proposing, but I think core is an okay word for both
20:33:12 <russellb> just don't think the name is it :)
20:33:24 <jgriffith> ttx: russellb you'll have to enlighten me as to the problem
20:33:26 <jgriffith> I'm not getting it
20:33:27 <russellb> or at least changing it at this point isn't helpful enough
20:33:29 <sdague> I be ok with it. I do think that often times the core teams assume their only responsibility is gerrit and not owning the code and fixing bugs in it. But I don't feel super strongly on it.
20:33:30 <agentle> and I've avoided "subteam" in preference to specialty team
20:33:47 <dhellmann> agentle: that sounds a bit like what we do in oslo, with separate teams for some of the libs
20:33:50 <agentle> words do matter... but core is easy to type and already understood in the ecosystem...
20:33:57 <agentle> dhellmann: yeah
20:34:23 <ttx> jgriffith: I'd say the problem is that "core reviewers" teams call themselves "core teams"
20:34:29 <agentle> ttx: do you have more context on the root problem "maintainer" would help solve (or encourage better behavior?)
20:34:32 <dhellmann> I think I'd be more in favor of a proposal that tried to define the actual responsibilities of core teams, before renaming them.
20:34:35 <ttx> and that implies caste/class where it should not
20:34:39 <russellb> and "core teams" are treated as the almighty
20:34:45 <agentle> ttx: that helps
20:34:54 <jgriffith> meh....
20:34:58 <mikal> Well, its not as bad as it used to be
20:35:02 <ttx> and then siolly companies gives you bonuses when you become a member
20:35:07 <mikal> There were no core parties in Paris IIRC
20:35:09 <jgriffith> I think mountains can be made out of mole hills
20:35:11 <russellb> right, make it a primary employment goal
20:35:13 <mordred> mikal: yah there was
20:35:18 <mordred> mikal: the architecture thing
20:35:24 <ttx> which gives the wrong incentive to be one
20:35:28 <mikal> mordred: huh, I must have skipped it then
20:35:28 <russellb> fun party, don't get me wrong
20:35:37 <ttx> jgriffith: I agree we have way larger fishes to fry
20:35:38 <jgriffith> ttx: hmmm... companies do that;
20:35:43 * jgriffith works up is resume
20:35:45 <mordred> so ...
20:35:54 <mordred> I think this will be naturally changed by big tent
20:36:00 <sdague> changing the name won't fix the wrong incentive problem
20:36:05 <mordred> sdague: ++
20:36:09 <russellb> yep, agree
20:36:19 <mikal> So, I don't think changing the name fixes misunderstandings from manager
20:36:22 <mikal> s
20:36:28 <mikal> Managers want to measure things so they can incent behaviour
20:36:30 <russellb> don't think anyone thinks so :)
20:36:34 <mikal> Any group membership is easy to measure
20:36:37 <mikal> So will be picked
20:36:38 <sdake__> agree although companies do use it as a metric of success of their staff at multiple places :)
20:36:40 <dhellmann> managers want people to become core because they think it means their code will land faster, right?
20:36:51 <ttx> sdague: especially if we change it to "maintainers"
20:36:56 <russellb> dhellmann: and it gets bragged about
20:36:57 <mikal> dhellmann: I think its also because its an easy concept for them to understand
20:37:03 <sdake__> dhellmann its a measure of influence not speed
20:37:10 <dhellmann> mikal, russellb : fair
20:37:14 <russellb> in reality, their code probably does land faster ...
20:37:18 <russellb> but i don't have data to show that
20:37:30 <dhellmann> sdake__: I think that's a distinction without a difference in this case, but sure
20:37:33 <fungi> fwiw, companies who want to throw parties for core reviewers on projects are looking at an ever growing list of attendees. they're either going to have to scale back to some other criteria or stop altogether at some point anyway
20:37:37 <russellb> anyway, not sure we need to debate the problem
20:37:44 <sdake__> companies want core because customers want to now people to be involved in openstack
20:37:52 <sdague> russellb: agree, this seems more beer talk
20:37:53 <sdake__> now/know
20:37:58 <russellb> mmm beer
20:38:01 <ttx> anyway, this proposal in particular looks DOA -- but we may still want to pursue ways to address that issue
20:38:04 <mikal> So, I think the point here is this is more complicated than a name
20:38:08 <russellb> ttx: ++
20:38:10 <mikal> And needs further discussion, probably not on this review
20:38:12 <jgriffith> Or maybe they just want their employees doing work they enjoy?
20:38:35 <sdague> though I spent a lot of time training previous employer lawyers on what core reviewer meant for open source rules
20:38:38 <jgriffith> or maybe the employers believe in OpenStack and making it better as much as a lot of the people workign on it?
20:38:42 <ttx> solution might be to create more subteams
20:38:43 <sdague> because they understood maintainer as a concept
20:38:44 <jgriffith> You all are sooo jaded!
20:38:45 <jgriffith> :)
20:38:46 <sdague> and had a pattern around that
20:38:55 <ttx> where core reviewers would just be one team amongst others
20:38:57 <sdague> but this was all new and required lots of hand holding
20:39:10 <dhellmann> sdague: interesting point
20:39:30 <agentle> I think it's about more specialty teams and more cores in the big tent.
20:39:33 <sdake__> ttx imo that would create more hurdles for staff to jump to participate in openstack ;)
20:39:45 <ttx> I feel "maintainers" (like "committers) would just entrench the elite dev thinking
20:39:46 <agentle> but I like to say big tent a lot
20:40:05 <russellb> i like the size of our tent, but we need to start decorating
20:40:11 <jeblair> agentle: the big tent changes everything!
20:40:22 <russellb> next topic?  :)
20:40:34 <ttx> yep, next topic
20:40:44 <ttx> #topic Adding the Murano Application Catalog to OpenStack
20:40:45 * serg_mel_ is here for any Murano related questions
20:40:50 <ttx> OOoh. Level 2
20:40:58 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/162745/
20:41:12 <ttx> Havne't voted yet, but feels like a pretty sane complement to "the platform"
20:41:18 <ttx> I'm less involved with them than I was with Magnum community-wise so i'll let others talk
20:42:35 <ttx> don't talk all at the same time
20:42:39 <mordred> I'm +1 on this one too
20:42:45 <mordred> similar reasons - although I don't know serg_mel_'s hair
20:43:09 <mordred> they operate as one of us, I know of people who like the thing they're doing, they've been working with other projects
20:43:20 <ttx> It's been a long time Murano has been around and they always played by the openstack dev book
20:43:25 <mordred> yup
20:43:32 <sdague> yeh, this seems fine. I think my only concern is actually unrelated to murano directly, but about glance mission expanding for a new use case (when existing mission isn't being kept up with)
20:43:47 <agentle> got a 404 for http://murano-docs.github.io/ - just me?
20:44:03 <serg_mel_> agentle: murano.readthedocs.org
20:44:27 <serg_mel_> http://murano-docs.github.io/  - outdated - we can't clean-up google from this url :(
20:44:40 * agentle fixes your wiki page
20:44:42 <ttx> sdague: on that slightly off-topic tangent... I think on one hand Glance is indeed having trouble keeping up
20:44:43 <mikal> ttx: you have seven there
20:44:50 <ttx> on the other it may attract new contributors to it
20:45:07 <ttx> mikal: thanks for keeping track :)
20:45:10 <sdague> ttx: but if the new contributors aren't addressing the existing backlog, that doesn't seem useful to me
20:45:17 <serg_mel_> agentle: thank you!
20:45:24 <agentle> was also going to ask about the glance ties
20:45:32 <ttx> sdague: it's a tangent though, since Murano currently uses its own repo
20:45:39 <sdague> ttx: agreed
20:45:51 <ttx> 30 more seconds to register your happiness on that review
20:46:16 <sdague> I'm +1 on murano. I do think we should revisit the glance mission scope at some point.
20:46:43 <sdague> I also think that should we ever do a TC retreat, I have found the right place for it - http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/nb/fundy/activ/camping/yourtes-yurts.aspx
20:46:50 <agentle> so does voting +1 on murano mean a descoping for glance's mission?
20:46:57 <ttx> no
20:47:14 <mikal> Even if there was 100% overlap, we allow competition now right?
20:47:25 <ttx> sdague: artifact repo is a FFE for glance in klilo though. If we thinnk it's a bad idea we need to move now
20:47:26 <sdague> mikal: it's not an overlap concern
20:47:27 <jeblair> sdague: yurts _and_ bunkbeds!
20:47:32 <ttx> approved
20:47:36 <mikal> Top bunk!
20:47:55 <sdague> jeblair: I stayed there 2 years ago, it was great
20:47:55 * serg_mel_ is dancing
20:48:00 <ttx> serg_mel_: welcome to the OpenStack community
20:48:03 <dhellmann> mikal: within reason ("not gratuitous")
20:48:07 * anteaya stretches out on the women's side of the yurt
20:48:09 <serg_mel_> ttx: Thank you!
20:48:18 <mikal> ttx: well, they were already part of the community...
20:48:19 <agentle> ttx: which "it" is meant for it's a bad idea?
20:48:27 <jeblair> again, with the condolences
20:48:30 <mordred> jeblair: :)
20:48:40 <ttx> mikal: arguably not, for some definition of it
20:48:48 <ttx> #topic Housekeeping
20:48:52 <markmcclain> sdague: we'll need yurt 4 since that is only one that allows pets otherwise we'll have to leave the kittens, wet rabbits and fluffy milk cows at home
20:48:57 <ttx> Our weekly repo additions, all approved by their PTLs, will approve after meeting unless someone -1s:
20:48:58 <fungi> agentle: it == feature freeze exception for potential glance scope creep
20:49:00 <mordred> serg_mel_: as with magnum - you should make us a renaming patch soon
20:49:01 <ttx> * Adds puppet-bandersnatch to Infrastructure (https://review.openstack.org/163734)
20:49:04 <ttx> * Add oslo.cache to reference/projects.yaml (https://review.openstack.org/164342)
20:49:08 <ttx> * Add coreos-image-builder to Ironic (https://review.openstack.org/164370)
20:49:12 <serg_mel_> jeblair: We will propose change ASAP
20:49:23 * ttx checks last one
20:49:30 <ttx> * Add puppet-puppet project (https://review.openstack.org/165438)
20:49:35 <ttx> yes it has Jim's +1 now
20:49:43 <sdague> tripple puppet?
20:49:45 <mordred> I approve all of these
20:49:46 <agentle> just trying to make sure I understand
20:49:53 <ttx> I'll have to figure in which order to approve them to minimize risk of conflict
20:50:18 <sdague> ttx: or just rebase for folks, I'm perma +1 on housekeeping changes
20:50:22 * mordred thinks puppet-puppet should win the prize for name
20:50:24 <ttx> agentle: Murano uses its own repo for artifacts, but said it would move to using Glance's if that feature appears there
20:50:35 <agentle> ttx: ah ok that helps, thanks
20:50:41 <sdague> mordred: no, bork-bork would be a better name
20:50:45 <dhellmann> ttx: yeah, we agreed you could just rebase things we'd already approved. Let me know if you want me to do that again like last time.
20:50:50 <mordred> sdague: HAHAHAHAHAHA
20:50:58 <mordred> sdague: I literally lold
20:51:00 <ttx> agentle: Sean was voicing concerns that Glance adds Artifact repo to its scope, since they have a hard time keeping up with just being an image thing
20:51:32 <ttx> agentle: so the concerns are separate, but it's fair to raise the Glance scope/act ivity issue
20:51:41 <agentle> ttx: yeah
20:51:41 <agentle> ttx: ok
20:51:42 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:51:54 <ttx> So.. Bod/TC meetign in Vancouver
20:51:57 <ttx> Note that the members who will still be on the TC in May will have a Board/TC joint meeting on the Sunday before the event
20:52:07 <ttx> So plan travel accordingly if you want to join
20:52:17 <mordred> well, and you're ALL invited, even if you're not on the TC again
20:52:18 <ttx> Meeting would start at 2:30pm like last time (except if delayed again :)
20:52:27 <mikal> So, 5pm start?
20:52:31 <agentle> he
20:52:32 <ttx> I've been asked to ask:
20:52:34 <agentle> hee even
20:52:37 <ttx> Would you be interested in common dinner after that, or just drinks ?
20:52:37 <mordred> mikal: just bring a big bottle of vodka
20:52:43 <sdague> I think we are owed martinis if it's delayed
20:52:53 <mordred> ttx: at the most recent board meeting
20:52:56 <ttx> I'm fine with both options
20:53:02 <russellb> i guess i'm fine with both
20:53:05 <mordred> we did a tapas style place that worked wellish for mingling
20:53:05 <russellb> probably rather drinks
20:53:10 <russellb> mordred: ++
20:53:15 <agentle> drinks in a yurt
20:53:17 <mordred> I think the important thing is that we get to have converstaions with more than 2 people
20:53:23 <ttx> mordred: right
20:53:23 <mordred> agentle: ++
20:53:26 <agentle> yeah mingling would be good
20:53:26 <sdague> yeh, I feel like the beer garden in atlanta was better than the paris dinner for talking
20:53:27 <jeblair> ++food but casual
20:53:28 <mikal> Is all of Canadia yurts?
20:53:35 <mordred> but I do think _some_ food is important
20:53:36 <sdague> so something more beer gardeny
20:53:39 <dhellmann> sdague: ++
20:53:43 <mordred> because I will have been sitting in a board meeting all day
20:53:47 <mikal> Oh, Paris was too hot. I need somewhere with more airflow than that venue had.
20:53:56 <ttx> mordred: so.. real food (so that we don't have to look for more after) but in a walk-around setting
20:53:59 <mordred> and if there's no food, my rage drinking will get me WAY to angry
20:54:00 <mikal> Or board members to flap their arms.
20:54:05 <sdague> ttx: ++
20:54:11 <jgriffith> LOL
20:54:14 <sdague> also mordred++
20:54:15 <jgriffith> rage drinking :)
20:54:16 <mordred> ttx: doesn't have to be real - I'd be find with hummus and olives - just need _something_
20:54:29 <anteaya> mikal: yes we all live in yurts
20:54:31 <russellb> what if it's just hummus
20:54:31 <ttx> HUMMUS IS REAL
20:54:32 <sdague> because then he'll start yelling at me about nova bugs :) get the man some food
20:54:34 <anteaya> mikal: and igloos
20:54:35 <ttx> I'll convey that to Alan
20:54:37 <dhellmann> are we planning a TC meeting of any sort at the summit?
20:54:43 <mordred> russellb: hummus cocktails
20:54:50 <mikal> anteaya: igloo == snow yurt
20:54:59 <anteaya> mikal: you got it
20:55:03 <ttx> dhellmann: we could technically to a cross-project "work session" with TC
20:55:03 <mikal> dhellmann: I think a talky TC meeting is a good idea
20:55:03 <david-lyle> authentic canadian hummus
20:55:08 <mikal> dhellmann: i.e. more than just the dinner
20:55:16 <dhellmann> mikal: right, more than just dinner
20:55:16 <ttx> since we have those now
20:55:17 <markmcclain> ++
20:55:24 <anteaya> patios, vancouver will have patios
20:55:31 <ttx> Next question: do you think we should do another "lunch with board & TC" event ?
20:55:33 <anteaya> beer gardens not so much
20:55:38 <ttx> I felt like last time it was pretty useless, but meh
20:55:39 <anteaya> you should rent a boat
20:55:41 <mordred> ttx: I have foudn the last two of those useless
20:55:47 <anteaya> many boats for rent in vancouver
20:55:47 <russellb> ttx: i found it useless
20:55:48 <dhellmann> ttx: I agree, it didn't do anything for me
20:55:50 <jeblair> ttx: agreed -- useless
20:55:55 <russellb> i don't like being paraded around either
20:56:03 <ttx> Stop all agreeing!
20:56:03 <dhellmann> the breakfasts with the board were less so, because people who show up early for that are interested in talking
20:56:03 <mordred> I think most of the people there do not care who we are, and that's fine
20:56:06 <mordred> same with the board, fwiw
20:56:09 <jgriffith> I skipped it, so that should speak volumes to my view on it
20:56:22 <mikal> I don't think I've ever shown up to one
20:56:27 <mikal> They make me uncomfortable
20:56:43 <russellb> they had these signs on tables for which tc or board member was supposed to sit there
20:56:45 <russellb> it was awkward
20:56:47 <russellb> and useless
20:56:47 <jeblair> well, i mean, my sign was under a table in the corner next to the garbage
20:56:52 <ttx> I did crash my table, where Jane Silber was more well-known than I was
20:56:53 <russellb> lol
20:57:06 <fungi> from what i saw, about half of the board/tc people's tables got squatted by randoms and the signs tossed
20:57:10 <sdague> guarded by a cougar?
20:57:14 <dhellmann> In paris I ended up at a table with a bunch of people who, while very nice, had no idea  who I was or why I was talking to them until I picked up the sign with my name that they had removed from their lunch table.
20:57:18 <russellb> fungi: yep, mine did
20:57:19 <jeblair> sdague: "beware of the leopard"
20:57:20 <anteaya> sdague: them we have
20:57:29 <agentle> did anyone have good questions that wouldn't have otherwise been asked?
20:57:29 <anteaya> no leopards
20:57:30 <sdague> jeblair: that's it  :)
20:57:32 <ttx> Ok, I'll reply "no thanks"
20:57:38 <agentle> (I didn't but got to ask questions)
20:57:41 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
20:57:51 <fungi> agentle: you mean besides "who are you anyway?"
20:57:52 <ttx> in the remaining 3 minutes ?
20:57:54 <markmcclain> I was close to the entrance and had a line of folks in paris… all proposing new extensions
20:58:09 <dhellmann> agentle: not really
20:58:11 <russellb> markmcclain: neworking people.
20:58:11 <mordred> markmcclain: hahahaha
20:58:12 <russellb> gah!
20:58:19 <anteaya> markmcclain: just you then
20:58:27 <mordred> markmcclain: tell them all to just get DHCP right
20:58:28 <anteaya> lunch with just markmcclain
20:58:30 <ttx> markmcclain: no, that's because you look so good
20:58:43 <mordred> ttx: his hair isn't quite as good at adrian_otto's
20:58:44 <markmcclain> haha
20:58:46 <jeblair> yeah, we should just do "lunch with markmcclain"
20:58:49 <mordred> jeblair: ++
20:59:13 <agentle> I think there's usefulness in being accessible at certain times
20:59:13 <agentle> I think lunching is an awkward time.
20:59:24 <ttx> some office hours ?
20:59:25 <agentle> coffee, tea, and the tc
20:59:30 <russellb> meh.  :)
20:59:35 <dhellmann> agentle: ooo, sign me up for tea :-)
20:59:42 <Rockyg> drinking games and the tc
20:59:45 <agentle> I dunno, something about making us accessible without making us awkward.
20:59:46 <russellb> people i really want to talk to are probably smart enough to figure out how to reach out
20:59:48 <ttx> tea break with the tea C
21:00:03 <agentle> oh gawd. :)
21:00:17 <mordred> it's vancouver - we could do "get high with the TC"
21:00:17 <ttx> yes, on that last pun...
21:00:29 <agentle> lol
21:00:30 <ttx> #endmeeting