20:03:20 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:03:21 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Apr 21 20:03:20 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:03:22 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:03:24 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:03:28 <ttx> Our agenda for today:
20:03:33 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:03:43 <jgriffith> o/
20:03:46 <ttx> #topic Adding MagnetoDB to OpenStack
20:03:52 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/171995
20:04:02 <ttx> As far as the project scope goes, I think it is consistent with the OpenStack Mission
20:04:13 <ttx> My only gripe would be about the very low [MagnetoDB] activity on the -dev ML, and what that actually meant
20:04:14 * isviridov is here iif any questions o smth
20:04:25 <ttx> Is it that there is nothing to discuss ? that the project is dead ? or that the discussions happen elsewhere ?
20:05:01 <ttx> I hope it is the former :)
20:06:05 <devananda> as much as I dont understand the purpose of this yet, and would like to dig into the use cases this is trying to solve, that's not really what inclusion is about
20:06:07 <mordred> o/
20:06:11 <jgriffith> ttx: not a TON of activity in github, or number of contributors
20:06:13 <dhellmann> the diversity of affiliations for contributors looks pretty low
20:06:13 <isviridov> ttx, we are using IRC chat mostly, and right now and development is slowed down at thing moment
20:06:15 <ttx> because I'd rather not have a dead or secret project in the tent
20:06:18 <dhellmann> http://stackalytics.com/?project_type=all&module=magnetodb&release=all
20:06:30 <dougwig> ttx: http://stackalytics.com/?project_type=all&module=magnetodb-group
20:06:34 <dougwig> eh, jinx.
20:06:41 <ttx> doug wins
20:06:57 <dhellmann> ttx: what did we decide about trademark usage?
20:07:21 <dhellmann> I mean, "magneto" might be an issue, but do we care about that before bringing it into the tent?
20:07:32 <sdague> +1, I guess my only question is where this sits relative to swift, and glance as artifact repo. Which is probably a question others would have, so would be nice for the team to answer that in a README
20:07:34 <ttx> we can fix it after the fact, I think
20:07:38 <sdague> but I'm +1 regardless
20:08:25 <mordred> I'm +1 - I can see no reason to say no
20:08:27 <mikal> sdague: artifacts in those other two are immuatable, but not in magneto (I believe)
20:08:47 <mordred> I don't need a key-value-as-a-service myself, but someone else might
20:08:50 <ttx> isviridov: "development slowed down -- because you solved the hard problems ? Or beacsue there is lack of interest ?
20:08:56 <ttx> mordred: I know of some people who do
20:08:57 <dhellmann> I wonder if they're also optimizing for smaller artifacts?
20:09:09 <mordred> ttx: neat - I'd like to help facilitate them caring
20:09:15 <jgriffith> http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/magnetodb/30
20:09:20 <russellb> o/  sorry
20:09:24 <jgriffith> So 3 reviews in 30 days?
20:09:41 <jeblair> should the info about scope vis-a-vis glance/swift make it into projects.yaml so that it can help with project navigation when that's all done?
20:09:41 <mikal> mordred: depending on their approach to atomic writes, such a thing could be a useful distributed locking mechanism
20:09:55 <mordred> mikal: sure - but I don't want one of those either
20:09:57 <jgriffith> suppose 60 looks *better*
20:09:57 <ttx> Right, my only fear is that it's a bit inactive, and we'll see soon enough what we need to do with dead projects
20:10:27 <mordred> ttx: I would like to avoid moving them to openstack/ and then moving them to openstack-attic the next week
20:10:33 <isviridov> ttx pne of major player - Symantec - decreased the priority, but planned to continue work actively starting May
20:10:33 <sdague> mikal: lets not try to make things into other things though, distributed locking is a hard problem, and deserves it's own solution if someone is going down that space
20:10:41 <dhellmann> jgriffith: most of the activity seems to have slowed down near the end of february
20:10:42 <mordred> isviridov: ah - good. that's good to hear
20:10:53 <jgriffith> so I'm +1, because it's not our charter to really judge... but the lack of diversity and activity is kinda troubling for me
20:11:02 <jgriffith> dhellmann: yeah, noticing the curve
20:11:16 <anteaya> https://github.com/stackforge/magnetodb/graphs/commit-activity 5 commiters in 2015
20:11:18 <jgriffith> Looks like Dimitry had other things to work on
20:11:19 <ttx> sdague, mikal, it's mostly Cassandra under the hood
20:11:50 <dhellmann> so my only hesitation is the relative lack of activity, but it sounds like that's likely to improve
20:12:03 <ttx> but yeah, they have been around at past design summits alright, which is pretty much a definition of "one of us"
20:12:12 <dhellmann> ok, that's a good data point
20:12:20 <sdague> I suspect that we're going to have a long tail of projects with low activity
20:12:52 <jgriffith> welcome to big tent
20:13:07 <ttx> I guess we can address the question of dead or too-inactive-to-be-good projects *after* having given them a chance to shine.
20:13:09 <ttx> so I'm +1
20:13:16 <mordred> ++ well said
20:13:23 <dhellmann> sdague: sure, but I'd be happier with a steady or periodic rate than random spurts
20:13:27 <sdague> yeh, we're going to have to handle "we think it's ddea"
20:13:30 <sdague> dead"
20:13:36 <sdague> some where down the road
20:14:10 <ttx> sdague: I think we should at least give them one or two cycles in tent before saying they won't ever evolve into something good
20:14:11 <jeblair> i require a video of sdague as max headroom
20:14:16 <sdague> jeblair: :)
20:14:22 <sdague> ttx: yeh, I'm fine with that
20:14:42 <ttx> ok, it has enough votes to pass now
20:14:53 <sdague> realistically a lot of the various git repos under bigger efforts like infra, oslo, qa are very fit / spurt
20:14:53 <ttx> Giving 30 more seconds to record votes for posterity
20:15:07 <annegentle> just joined, sorry I'm late
20:15:15 <ttx> quick quick
20:15:37 <jgriffith> Just for clarity during recording: +1
20:16:08 * mestery lurks
20:16:32 <ttx> apporved
20:16:36 <ttx> and approved even
20:16:41 <ttx> isviridov: welcome to openstack
20:16:49 <isviridov> Thank you
20:17:16 <ttx> #topic Adding the Puppet modules to OpenStack
20:17:24 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/172112
20:17:26 <EmilienM> ttx: o/
20:17:32 <ttx> The main issue here seems to be about project naming
20:17:38 <ttx> Otherwise it sounds like creating that project will lead to further collaboration around the same set of repos
20:17:46 <EmilienM> So the naming story is: Puppetlabs lawyers think that using "Puppet Modules" is okay but they'll want to set up some kind of license agreement. So we are waiting until next week to see how this issue will be solved otherwise, if we can't use "Puppet", we will use "Marioneta" (we voted, see link).
20:17:46 <EmilienM> #link http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_783794d78bcd45ad
20:17:53 <ttx> which is basically as good as it gets in my book
20:17:58 <jeblair> i'm so strongly +1 on this.  this is the example i use when i talk about why the big tent is a good thing.  :)
20:18:03 <mordred> yup
20:18:06 <mordred> very much +1
20:18:12 <dhellmann> ++
20:18:39 <ttx> I'd porefer the "community" not to sign a license agreement for name usage
20:18:58 <mordred> clarifying question ...
20:19:01 <jbryce> ttx: i sign things
20:19:05 <mordred> is the issue with the names of the repos?
20:19:11 <mordred> or with the human name of the project?
20:19:19 <crinkle> the issue is with the human name
20:19:22 <mordred> awesome
20:19:24 <ttx> but then "marioneta" is a bit less likely to attract all puppeters ever
20:19:40 <devananda> also very much +1 on including puppet in the big tent!
20:19:52 <mordred> yeah. I think this is a very dangerous area, tbh
20:20:05 <mordred> but this is probably not the right place to discuss taht
20:20:06 <clayton> Chef is going to have the same issue
20:20:10 <jeblair> i feel like we may have opened a can of worms with the trademark thing.  there are so many 'puppet-foo' things in the community and i don't think anyone thinks they infringe.  but we asked... so we got an answer.  :/
20:20:12 <ttx> jbryce: you feel good signing a name usage agreement with Puppet Labs ?
20:20:14 <anteaya> are we discussing all deployment tools, as chef has a patch up
20:20:18 <mordred> jeblair: ++
20:20:19 <anteaya> as clayton says
20:20:42 <jbryce> ttx: if that’s what it takes to have a clear name for the project, yes
20:20:46 <sdague> anteaya: that's scheduled for a later meeting
20:20:47 <ttx> I think we can approve / reject the application without making the final call on name
20:20:51 <jgriffith> s/puppet/strings/
20:20:57 <anteaya> sdague: so deployment tools one at a time?
20:20:59 <jbryce> ttx: i don’t know if i’d say “feel good” but i’d say “willing to” = )
20:21:01 <mordred> I would argue that not being able to call modules written for puppet "puppet modules" because of trademark issues is a pretty big issue that the fine folks are puppetlabs should figure out
20:21:14 <sdague> anteaya: this is a very specific application
20:21:16 <jbryce> and i wouldn’t argue with you
20:21:20 <ttx> the question is more, should we shoot for "Puppet OpenStack" and fall back on Marioneta, or just pick Marioneta
20:21:24 <jeblair> anteaya: tc meeting topics one at a time according to the rules for the agenda
20:21:33 <agentle_> I'm a fan of calling it what it is
20:21:36 <mordred> ttx: how about "OpenStack  Modules for Puppet"
20:21:45 <jgriffith> mordred: +1
20:21:46 <EmilienM> ttx: can we wait a bit to choose a name? Puppetlabs asked me to wait some days
20:21:50 <mordred> ttx: which is a completely descriptive statement
20:21:56 <mordred> and does not imply that it is branded
20:21:59 <sdague> EmilienM: yeh, I think it's fine if we patch in the name later
20:22:00 <agentle_> even though I asked the tm question, it's the writer in me for both needs
20:22:02 <dhellmann> let's just take the name as it is, and change it later
20:22:03 <crinkle> the name puppet labs is considering is "Puppet Modules" with the implied Openstack before it
20:22:06 <devananda> I'd prefer having "puppet" somewhere in our name, because that's what it is
20:22:09 <devananda> mordred: ++
20:22:15 <mordred> crinkle: that also works for me
20:22:21 <jbryce> mordred: is that accurate or is it the other way around?
20:22:35 <mordred> jbryce: yes - Puppet Modules for OpenStack is more accurate
20:22:38 <sdague> so... how about we taking the naming conversation offline :)
20:22:40 <jeblair> jbryce, mordred: you're both right? :)
20:22:40 <agentle_> jbryce: I think mordred is playing with the words :)
20:22:42 <sdague> and focus on the content
20:22:42 <mordred> jbryce: but both could be accurate
20:22:48 <jeblair> right you both are
20:22:49 <ttx> OK, naming can be solved in parallel
20:22:52 <EmilienM> sdague: +1, thx
20:22:55 <mordred> sdague: I am +10000000 on the application
20:23:01 <agentle_> I think we want these contributors to make OpenStack better
20:23:02 <jbryce> before we go, is there someone over there that we at the foundation should talk to?
20:23:03 <mordred> the naming is the only thing worth discussing :)
20:23:13 <ttx> questions on the application itself ?
20:23:26 <sdague> mordred: good, so I'd say we approve the content, and patch the name in after EmilienM and possibly jbryce figure out what's viable
20:23:26 <crinkle> jbryce: I can put you in contact with out lawyer
20:23:29 <crinkle> our*
20:23:31 <mordred> sdague: ++
20:23:39 <ttx> we are at 8 yes, so enough to pass
20:23:47 <sdague> I trust them to come up with something reasonable
20:23:51 <ttx> jbryce likes talking to lawyers
20:23:53 <devananda> ttx: actually, one question
20:23:57 <jbryce> crinkle: thanks - jonathan@openstack.org
20:24:00 <mordred> jeblair, fungi: we're going to want to use that playbook for that rename I think :)
20:24:09 <jeblair> mordred: yep
20:24:13 <fungi> hrm
20:24:16 <jbryce> ttx: i just got off the phone with one!
20:24:18 <ttx> devananda: ask and you shall get answers
20:24:20 <devananda> ttx: a while back I had the idea that we put allthe deployment things (puppet, chef, etc) into a separate hyphenated namespace
20:24:25 <devananda> like openstack-dev, openstack-infra
20:24:27 <agentle_> jbryce: me too!
20:24:32 <jeblair> fyi, infra is planning on deferring git repo renames until after the release
20:24:32 <fungi> yeah, that's going to be a lot of repos
20:24:55 <russellb> patch is in merge conflict now
20:24:55 <ttx> devananda: I think that's a bit orthogonal to the issue
20:25:03 <ttx> jeblair: ^ opinion on that ?
20:25:05 <mordred> devananda: what woudl be the problem to solve with doing that?
20:25:09 <SpamapS> Has "Marioneta" cleared Trademarks as well? Didn't mcollective come from a company PuppetLabs acquired called Marrionette labs?
20:25:09 <jeblair> devananda: i'd really like to move everything into openstack/
20:25:15 <russellb> but i guess that's something that can be fixed and approved based on previous votes
20:25:24 <devananda> mordred: not sure. this idea was before the big tent. there may be no problem now
20:25:28 <devananda> just bringing it up to be sure
20:25:31 <mordred> devananda: nod
20:25:32 <russellb> jeblair: i'm getting to that point
20:25:37 <anteaya> fuel has 32 repos
20:25:39 <devananda> if we want openstack/puppet-* and openstack/chef-* and ...
20:25:39 <sdague> ttx: I just rebased
20:25:40 <devananda> then that's great
20:25:54 <ttx> sdague: yay
20:25:59 <sdague> so, there was a merge conflict on - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172112/
20:26:01 <jeblair> devananda: i believe that correctly signals what we're doing
20:26:01 <ttx> please all revote
20:26:03 <sdague> with the last one landing
20:26:06 <sdague> please revote
20:26:12 <mordred> devananda: I think it's not a problem ... we COULD have openstack/puppet/nova if we wanted - but our reliance on non-free software like github means we're stuck with their limitations
20:26:20 <ttx> damn, owned by russell
20:26:28 * russellb flexes
20:27:00 <mordred> there is literally nothing in git, gerrit or any of the rest of our tools which makes a single-directory-deep namespacing structure special - other than our outbound read-only replication stream
20:27:04 <mordred> just while we're on the topic :)
20:27:26 <sdague> mordred: go revote :)
20:27:31 <mordred> sdague: going
20:27:41 <sdague> though we're at 7 already
20:27:42 <ttx> ok, 30 more seconds
20:27:52 <jeblair> yeah, a lot of the awkwardness around this comes from that limitation
20:27:58 <devananda> ok. if there's no benefit to infra for creating a separate pool for config management tools (eg, openstack-config/puppet-* or something) then I'm fine with the current namespace proposal
20:28:14 <mordred> devananda: nope. no help to us!
20:28:29 <devananda> mordred: my +1 stands then :)
20:28:33 <mordred> devananda: but thanks for thinking of us - /me feels loved
20:28:39 <ttx> alright, win
20:28:46 <agentle_> devananda: mordred: jeblair: when will it be easier to search for reviews in gerrit though?
20:28:46 <jeblair> <3
20:28:48 <ttx> crinkle, EmilienM: wec
20:28:53 <ttx> welcome*
20:28:53 <EmilienM> thanks, we will come-up with a name very soon :-)
20:29:05 <crinkle> :)
20:29:08 <agentle_> thanks EmilienM! Great due diligence shown.
20:29:18 <ttx> #topic Let projects add repos without prior-approval
20:29:24 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/173465
20:29:31 <jeblair> agentle_: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:%255Estackforge/puppet-.*,n,z
20:29:33 <ttx> I think this one is a welcome clarification
20:29:38 <russellb> +1
20:29:46 <ttx> Posted a nit on "PTL" expansion since we are phasing out usage of "Technical" there
20:29:53 <agentle_> jeblair: yay regex :)
20:29:53 <jeblair> agentle_: you can regex search project names, so there's an easy search for all puppet-* projects.... anyway, can followup later
20:29:57 <agentle_> got it
20:29:58 <ttx> But could fix in a subsequent change if needed
20:30:09 <jeblair> ttx: oh drat :)
20:30:24 <ttx> If you change it now I promise to revote immediately
20:30:28 <agentle_> change it!
20:30:29 <agentle_> :)
20:30:30 <jeblair> ttx: my fingers have not kept up with the changing times
20:30:42 * agentle_ didn't realize it either
20:30:49 * ttx likes immutable acronyms that keep on describving different things.
20:31:15 <ttx> Project Technical Lead -> Program Technical Lead -> Project Team Lead
20:31:29 <agentle_> heh
20:31:31 <jeblair> ttx: it has 7, can i followup patch?
20:31:41 <ttx> jeblair: granted
20:31:51 <ttx> and I reserve the right to approve it as typo
20:32:00 * david-lyle glad to know what PTL means this week
20:32:06 <mestery> lol
20:32:10 <devananda> heh
20:32:19 <med_> Powerful Toad Lord
20:32:19 <ttx> you never know what you sign up for! that's the beauty of the game
20:32:36 <sdague> Pretty Tough Lemming
20:32:45 <ttx> approved
20:32:56 <mordred> ttx: so - we're spending a lot of time in meetings discussing our votes in a gerrit review - perhaps we should only discuss things that haven't had enough votes for 2 weeks - or that have a -1 on them? motivate people to vote on the reviews not in the meeting?
20:33:07 <jeblair> ttx: https://review.openstack.org/176062
20:33:09 <sdague> mordred: ++
20:33:13 <mordred> I mean, as much as I love narrating while people operate gerrit
20:33:24 <ttx> mordred: sounds like a topic for the next generation TC
20:33:28 <mordred> ttx: neat
20:33:35 <mordred> ttx: I'll raise it when we have one of those
20:33:35 <mikal> mordred: I agree, this seems like not a great use of time
20:33:48 <jeblair> mordred: generally +1 but it's also worth discussing things where non-trival comments have been left in gerrit
20:33:53 <mordred> jeblair: yah
20:34:01 <ttx> fast approving https://review.openstack.org/#/c/176062/ as typo change
20:34:06 <mordred> jeblair: so - "the chair should look through the reviews and see if any actually need discussion"
20:34:19 <ttx> #topic Projects list housekeeping
20:34:31 <ttx> * Add glean to infra (https://review.openstack.org/172748)
20:34:32 <mordred> that way we have time to discuss things that need discussion without feeling like we'd be falling behind
20:34:34 <ttx> * Rename keystoneclient-federation to saml2 (https://review.openstack.org/173619)
20:34:37 <ttx> * Add django-openstack-auth-kerberos project (https://review.openstack.org/172802)
20:34:41 <ttx> * Changes Rally to Benchmark service to better match other names (https://review.openstack.org/173308)
20:34:50 <ttx> I think those can all be approved
20:34:57 <jeblair> ++
20:35:09 <ttx> and I'll therefore proceed
20:35:13 <mordred> ++
20:35:46 <ttx> Hmm https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172802/
20:35:55 <ttx> question on suse of - vs. _
20:36:16 <ttx> All the others were approved
20:36:27 <jeblair> let's bring it to jamie's attention
20:36:44 <ttx> I tend to agree that it looks a bit weird to not be consistent there
20:36:52 <jeblair> it's not worth arguing over, but is worth getting right the first time if it's a mistake
20:36:53 <fungi> AJaeger pointed it out in his comment too
20:36:59 <fungi> a week ago
20:37:11 <fungi> surprised there's no reply from the author
20:37:34 <ttx> I'll leave that one for the moment.
20:37:39 <ttx> #topic Governance repo housekeeping
20:37:48 <ttx> jogo posted a series of code fixes for the tooling in the repo:
20:37:52 <ttx> * Update sphinx docs to support team based tags (https://review.openstack.org/172591)
20:37:55 <ttx> * Remove unused code from teams.py (https://review.openstack.org/172592)
20:37:58 <ttx> * Update formatting of teams page (https://review.openstack.org/172593)
20:38:01 <ttx> * Update diversity.py to use projects.yaml (https://review.openstack.org/174023)
20:38:05 <ttx> * Add tool/framework to automatically validate the tag applications. (https://review.openstack.org/174024)
20:38:09 <ttx> * Add check for 'release:has-stable-branches' (https://review.openstack.org/174169)
20:38:23 <ttx> It's more like code reviews... I propose to approve them if they pile up 2 +1s and no -1s after the meeting
20:38:33 <ttx> which shouldn't be hard
20:38:37 <jeblair> if this is getting serious, we may want to move the tooling out of this repo
20:38:51 <ttx> jeblair: half the tooling is to produce docs
20:38:53 <david-lyle> re: - vs _ , I believe Jamie was shooting for consistency with the rest of openstack over consistency with django_openstack_auth
20:39:18 <dhellmann> I think ttx's proposal on code reviews is reasonable
20:39:31 <agentle_> dhellmann: agree
20:39:50 <dhellmann> ttx: we should probably start writing these exceptions down somewhere :-)
20:39:53 <ttx> basically, it's not governance, it's doc or python code
20:40:07 <ttx> dhellmann: kilo motto, you need a new one
20:40:11 <jeblair> ttx: yeah, i'm just saying that if we develop a substantial amount of code reviews, we can move it to another repo with no change in functionality, but we can give it its own core group
20:40:24 <dhellmann> ttx: yep
20:40:25 <ttx> jeblair: hmm, yeah
20:40:38 <ttx> anyway, I'll pick them up and approve them tomorrow if they are clear
20:40:39 <jeblair> that's probably only worth doing once it gets to a certain point though
20:40:41 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:40:47 <jeblair> and yeah ++ on that for now
20:40:55 <ttx> Remember the TC [re]election season is open:
20:41:00 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-April/061823.html
20:41:08 <mikal> Yeah, it seems like we have very few candidates so far
20:41:16 <ttx> So this asks the usual question of whether we should hold the meeting next week
20:41:17 <mikal> Are people procrastinating, or is no one running?
20:41:30 <dhellmann> ttx: in the past we have continued to meet
20:41:31 <ttx> I think people are procrastinating
20:41:37 <edleafe> I'm procrastinating :)
20:41:47 <ttx> mikal: you are on te reelection list, btw ;)
20:41:55 <ttx> dhellmann: agreed
20:42:01 <mikal> ttx: I know
20:42:06 <ttx> We are likely to have a few things to discuss next week
20:42:18 <ttx> so I propose we hold one
20:42:25 <mordred> ttx: can I run for a second seat? do our rules specify I can't?
20:42:29 <russellb> ++ to keep meeting
20:42:32 <mordred> ++
20:42:37 <anteaya> mordred: you can't run it is in the wiki
20:42:38 <ttx> mordred: the rules actually say you can't
20:42:41 <mordred> GAH
20:42:47 <devananda> I'm procrastinating sending something, but also because i'm debating not running
20:42:49 <jeblair> mordred: haha!
20:42:52 <ttx> mordred: Also we'll have to start organizing the TC dinner, if you're bored
20:43:01 <mordred> yeah. I should start doing that
20:43:03 <russellb> Thursday night?
20:43:10 <mikal> devananda: yeah, I am in a similar boat. I haven't 100% decided yet.
20:43:12 <ttx> since you are already on the next TC you can organize
20:43:23 <mordred> thursday works for me - anybody have any objections to that?
20:43:24 <russellb> historically we've invited outgoing TC members too anyway
20:43:37 <sdague> yeh, I think that's a good tradition to keep up
20:43:38 <jeblair> russellb: yes, i recall that too
20:43:38 <devananda> mikal: want to gri^D^D^Dshare thoughts after the project meeting?
20:43:45 <ttx> that may make for a large dinner this time, if people keep procrastinating :)
20:44:04 <devananda> russellb: ++
20:44:06 <mordred> ttx: I was thinking Tim Horton's
20:44:08 <mikal> devananda: sure
20:44:11 <mestery> mordred: lol :)
20:44:14 <russellb> mordred: WFM
20:44:23 <mestery> mordred: But seriously, Tim Horton's is #ftw ;)
20:44:23 <agentle_> devananda: mikal: would love to keep you
20:44:24 <sdague> cookies and coffee :)
20:44:31 <ttx> In other news we now have 17 suggestions up for the cross-project track:
20:44:38 <ttx> #link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vCTZBJKCMZ2xBhglnuK3ciKo3E8UMFo5S5lmIAYMCSE/edit?usp=sharing
20:44:43 <ttx> I feel like we are still missing stuff. If you think of something, please file at:
20:44:44 <devananda> whether or not i'm on the TC next cycle, I appreciated having the outgoing folks at the previous dinners
20:44:48 <ttx> #link http://goo.gl/forms/S69HM6XEeb
20:45:36 <agentle_> sdague: I can work on the Service Catalog Standardization leading the discussion
20:45:43 <ttx> mordred: HP pays Hp decides
20:45:45 <sdague> agentle_: great
20:45:50 <agentle_> sdague: thanks for putting it on there
20:45:59 <sdague> I just wanted to make sure we didn't miss it
20:46:02 <sdague> agentle_: no prob
20:46:24 <agentle_> ttx: do you have a way to edit the sheet to add me as leading the session for Service Catalog Standardization?
20:46:43 <ttx> I can add you as editor, even
20:46:51 <ttx> agentle_: PM me your Google address
20:46:54 <agentle_> ttx: Fancy
20:46:58 <sdague> ttx: how many tracks / slots are we shooting for here?
20:47:03 <devananda> ttx: I have not proposed anything to the cross project yet
20:47:17 <ttx> sdague: let me check
20:47:51 <ttx> We have 14 sessions
20:48:02 <ttx> two in parallel all Tuesday
20:48:04 <sdague> is that 2 tracks x 7 slots?
20:48:06 <sdague> ok
20:48:32 <ttx> same as in Paris, I think
20:48:37 <vishy> fyi I will not be running for the next tc cycle
20:48:42 <sdague> we did 3 somewhere
20:48:52 <vishy> which will be the first time since the ppb started i will not be there
20:48:58 <dhellmann> sdague: the first time, I think. Atlanta?
20:48:59 <vishy> ttx you’re going to have to hold down the fort for me
20:49:17 <mordred> vishy: that's very strange to me
20:49:22 <sdague> vishy: thank you so much for your leadership all these years
20:49:23 <ttx> PPB oldies
20:49:43 <jgriffith> Agreed... feels weird
20:49:49 <vishy> :(
20:50:01 <ttx> vishy: you can stay if you really want to
20:50:13 <agentle_> vishy: thanks for all your input and leadership
20:50:28 * jeblair salutes vishy
20:50:35 <agentle_> vishy: you'll come to dinner still I hope!
20:50:36 <ttx> Now I know the theme of the TC dinner
20:50:43 <vishy> yes still in for dinner
20:50:46 * jgriffith propos a special dinner just for Vish
20:50:49 <agentle_> not PPB oldies ttx :)
20:50:55 <agentle_> that's not a foodie theme :)
20:51:04 <dhellmann> vishy: thanks for leading by example, and for training me when I started contributing to openstack
20:51:19 <vishy> thx for the sentiments all
20:51:25 <vishy> it has been a blast
20:51:35 <russellb> vishy: thanks indeed, huge thanks for being so welcoming to me in nova
20:51:38 <fungi> you will live on in vishfacts
20:51:45 <vishy> omg is that still up?
20:52:12 <fungi> nah, i think it went dead long ago
20:52:15 <ttx> no but that should be fixed
20:52:28 <vishy> thank god
20:52:38 <agentle_> hahaha
20:52:41 <ttx> Still on the GitHub : https://github.com/bcwaldon/vishfacts.com
20:52:42 * jeblair would +2 an infra patch to run it.  just sayin.
20:52:46 * med_ waybacks vishfacts
20:54:05 <ttx> OK... Anything else, anyone ?
20:54:16 <zehicle> #link git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/defcore/
20:54:28 <zehicle> just a reminder that we're still looking for reviews and feedback
20:54:48 <zehicle> russellb, thanks for yours
20:55:04 <ttx> ack, still plan to review that last changeset from Russell, but release is a bit crazy this time
20:55:09 <ttx> We almost had a boring one
20:55:17 <zehicle> I think we are not planning much on it for the joint meeting Board/TC meeting.
20:55:36 <ttx> Thansk a LOT to dhellmann for helping keeping kilo in one piece btw
20:55:49 <jeblair> dhellmann: ++
20:55:53 <ttx> definitelt a two-person job this time
20:55:58 <mestery> ++, thanks dhellmann!
20:55:58 <anteaya> yay dhellmann and his email script :)
20:56:06 <david-lyle> ++
20:56:09 * zehicle completed PSA on DefCore
20:56:10 <ttx> yeah, that was .. a bit too much :)
20:56:16 <jeblair> openstack: definitely a two-person job
20:56:36 <ttx> I could use a tshirt with that
20:56:37 <dhellmann> ttx: as much fun as the last week has been, I hope next time around we'll have the lib dependency thing worked out so we can avoid repeating this.
20:56:42 <dhellmann> jeblair: ++
20:57:05 <fungi> it does seem like a lesson best learned once
20:57:06 <sdague> dhellmann: also... it's not done yet, we're effectively wedged
20:57:21 <sdague> fungi: agreed, this was a bigger dragon than expected
20:57:23 <dhellmann> sdague: yeah, I'm seeing stuff about cliff/stevedore/neutronclient
20:57:34 * ttx looks in another direction
20:58:04 <ttx> Alright, if nothing else, let's close with 3 minutes break
20:58:11 <ttx> #endmeeting