20:02:55 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:02:56 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Apr 28 20:02:55 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:02:57 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:03:00 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:03:02 <ttx> Our agenda for today:
20:03:06 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:03:13 <ttx> #topic Adding the Chef cookbooks to OpenStack
20:03:18 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/175000
20:03:24 <ttx> So this was set by the proposer to WIP after we set the agenda
20:03:33 <ttx> I think is a good idea to defer the application a bit, since that gives them time to experience behaving like an OpenStack project a bit more
20:03:34 <jaypipes> o/
20:03:42 <mordred> kk
20:03:42 <ttx> (adopting -dev ML for discussion, dropping hangouts for IRC meetings etc...)
20:03:47 <edleafe> \o
20:03:51 <ttx> So I guess there is little point in discussing it now, unless you have remarks you'd like to raise
20:03:54 <j^2> ttx: yeah we understand that
20:04:02 <mordred> I support the theory
20:04:09 <ttx> no hurry anyway
20:04:14 <annegentle> me too mordred
20:04:26 <mordred> and will happily be positive about it when it's decided that it's time for me to be happy and positive
20:04:38 <ttx> positive ftw
20:04:39 <devananda> I support a project actually following the common experience/approach for a while before jumping all-in and being under the TC
20:04:41 <annegentle> mordred: wouldja please? :)
20:04:46 <annegentle> mordred: kidding
20:05:02 * mordred is happy and positive at annegentle
20:05:05 <ttx> OK, let's move on
20:05:10 <ttx> #topic Clarify that meetings use official IRC channels
20:05:15 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/175427
20:05:22 <ttx> I think this is a good idea.
20:05:29 <ttx> Comments / Thoughts ?
20:05:49 <mordred> I agree with this
20:05:56 <ttx> I just added as a comment the rationale for having meetings in meeting channels, since it comes back as a FAQ
20:06:00 <russellb> I do not disagree
20:06:05 <egon> Does this mean instead of phone conferences?
20:06:11 <annegentle> fungi: when do we run out of times/rooms?
20:06:25 <annegentle> fungi: seems like a resource limit eventually
20:06:30 <mordred> annegentle: we can have an almost-infinite number of rooms
20:06:34 <fungi> we can always add more channels?
20:06:36 <edleafe> egon: or at least in addition to
20:06:37 <ttx> egon: instead of meeting in specific channels and/or on random technologies
20:06:50 <annegentle> mordred: fungi: okay, it's difficult already with 24 slots
20:06:59 <russellb> 24 x 4
20:07:03 <fungi> yeah, we have 4 channels now. we could add a 5th
20:07:05 <annegentle> (I made up 24 by multiplying 3 by 8)
20:07:08 <annegentle> ok
20:07:16 <ttx> annegentle: the trick is to grow the number as needed, not just as a way to have everyone meet at 19:00 UTC on Tuesdays
20:07:25 <annegentle> ttx: sure, yup
20:07:29 <ttx> so "encourage" spreading the meetings out
20:07:38 <ttx> but obviosuly that's a trade-off
20:07:45 <fungi> keeping the number of channels small helps limit the overlap between related meetings, but only up to a point
20:07:49 <annegentle> for docs specialty teams we allow/enable hangout, is that going to be stopped with this policy?
20:07:54 <annegentle> (I should ask in the review as well)
20:08:01 <ttx> OK, we have 9 yes, happy to approve in 30 seconds
20:08:04 <annegentle> or is this for "main team"?
20:08:08 <annegentle> wait please :)
20:08:08 <ttx> rush to record your approval
20:08:15 * ttx freezes
20:08:23 <mordred> annegentle: honestly, I think the main checkpoint for me is "can someone participate fully in your project without joining those"
20:08:36 <annegentle> mordred: okay, that's a good litmus test
20:08:39 <mordred> annegentle: so if you also have some hangouts to accomplish some things and that's useful
20:08:41 <mordred> neat
20:08:54 <annegentle> whats the latest on webrtc?
20:09:03 <mordred> but if you have to be a part of those to be part of the club - it's exclusionary
20:09:04 <ttx> right, at least the "main" meeting should be logged on a meeting channel
20:09:08 <mordred> yah
20:09:22 <mordred> also - keeping in mind that anything in a hangout does not end up being logged
20:09:31 <mordred> I mean, other than in google's data center :)
20:09:32 <annegentle> okay then I'm good (but still would like to know if we have a plan for RTC?)
20:09:38 <fungi> because, honestly, the same thing can be said about, for example, mid-cycle in-person meetings
20:09:40 <annegentle> mordred: heh, my feelings also
20:09:42 <dansmith> mordred: important distinction :)
20:09:58 <fungi> as long as they're not critical to participation in the project, they seem fine
20:09:59 <russellb> annegentle: nothing being worked on that i know of
20:10:05 <ttx> annegentle: it's not just open source vs. proprietary. It's also that it's easier to attend an IRC meeting than a video call. I attend a lot of IRC meetings while doing something else
20:10:07 <annegentle> russellb: it might just not be ready
20:10:16 <devananda> ttx: ++
20:10:34 <russellb> there's stuff out there, just nobody trying to figure it out / make something that runs on our infra
20:10:34 <annegentle> ttx: to me it's also about higher fidelity and attention (IRC obviously lets you multitask more easily)
20:10:44 <devananda> but the point is that the means to participate are discoverable and open, not exclusionary and hidden
20:10:59 <russellb> but even if that was done, it's still less accessible / more exclusionary than IRC meetings that are logged and searchable
20:11:10 <egon> It's definitely valuable to have historic logs to go back to, especially for people trying to come up to speed.
20:11:12 <annegentle> devananda: right but even the current phrasing doesn't really speak to the anti-pattern
20:11:19 <fungi> very hard to keyword search a video conference recording
20:11:21 <annegentle> egon: totally agree
20:11:23 <ttx> Also some people are not comfortable with their appearance or their spoken skills, or have deep French accent
20:11:25 <mordred> egon: ++
20:11:29 <devananda> egon: ++
20:11:37 <mordred> ttx: the french accents are the worst
20:11:45 <ttx> text abstracts that out quite nicely
20:11:48 <devananda> ttx: also, some people type english very slowly too. scheduled meetings == prep time for them
20:11:48 <sdague> fungi: well, keyword searching our irc logs isn't super easy yet either, but we should fix that given that we have an elastic search cluster :)
20:12:00 <fungi> yep, much more tractable
20:12:05 <annegentle> ayup. Okay, I can like the current wording, just want to be sure I understand the policy then.
20:12:13 <ttx> annegentle: may I approve now ?
20:12:26 <clarkb> sdague: google search works pretty well fwiw
20:12:31 <annegentle> ttx: one moment
20:12:40 <sdague> clarkb: that hasn't been my experience, but such it is :)
20:13:24 <annegentle> ok! thanks
20:13:32 <annegentle> ttx: appreciate the pause button
20:14:00 <ttx> approved
20:14:12 <ttx> #topic Update Congress service name and description
20:14:15 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/169480
20:14:21 <ttx> I think this description is incrementally better, so I +1ed it
20:14:38 <ttx> and it has 7 yes, so I guess most are OK with it
20:14:50 <dhellmann> inching towards understanding
20:14:55 <ttx> I'll therefore approve in a minute, unless someone stops me
20:15:04 <sdague> do we know if any congress folks are at least not upset with it?
20:15:13 <ttx> Tim Hinrichs	Patch Set 2: LGTM
20:15:14 <sdague> they did tweet about "policy as a service" a bit
20:15:25 <jaypipes> kinda sounds like a patent troll's application for a patent of something to me.
20:16:00 <jaypipes> but, whatevs.
20:16:02 <devananda> incrementally better,, but I'm still unclear on what it means
20:16:08 <ttx> jaypipes: I didn't say it's perfect, I said it's slightly better, and can't propose better
20:16:16 <jaypipes> ttx: I know :)
20:17:13 <ttx> I wouldn't even be discussing this if it didn't trigger the "policy terminology overload" alert
20:17:13 <annegentle> I declare it at least typeable
20:17:42 <ttx> 9 yes, approving in 30 sec
20:17:49 <jaypipes> :/
20:17:58 <zaneb> devananda: I always assumed it's called "Congress" because there's ~535 different ideas of what it should do ;)
20:18:16 <mordred> zaneb: hahahaha
20:18:24 <devananda> zaneb: LOL! yes
20:18:32 <edleafe> zaneb: hahaha
20:19:02 <ttx> ok approved
20:19:19 <ttx> #topic Projects list housekeeping
20:19:25 <ttx> All those additions are approved by their respective PTLs, so I'll approve them tomorrow morning unless we get a -1:
20:19:30 <ttx> * Add manila's ui plugin to horizon (https://review.openstack.org/175620)
20:19:34 <ttx> * Add django-openstack-auth-kerberos project (https://review.openstack.org/172802)
20:19:37 <ttx> * Add keystoneauth to keystone project in governance repo (https://review.openstack.org/175610)
20:19:40 <ttx> * Moves security-doc repo from Docs to Security (https://review.openstack.org/177070)
20:19:45 <ttx> * Add openstack-infra/openstackid-resources to Infra (https://review.openstack.org/176338)
20:20:08 <ttx> If you disagree with any, post a -1 and we'll discuss it next meeting
20:20:11 <ttx> otherwise will aprove
20:20:17 <mordred> all look great
20:20:18 <ttx> #topic Governance repo housekeeping
20:20:26 <ttx> * Membership updated based on PTL elections (https://review.openstack.org/175007)
20:20:30 <ttx> I think it's safe to approve this now
20:20:54 <ttx> election offcials said it was corresponding to their results alright
20:21:04 <ttx> SO unless someone screams I'll +2/APPRV it too
20:21:49 <ttx> ok, let's do this
20:21:56 <devananda> I promise to continue lurking :)
20:22:05 <ttx> #topic Cross-project track at the Design Summit
20:22:08 <ttx> OK, more interesting
20:22:12 <ttx> #link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vCTZBJKCMZ2xBhglnuK3ciKo3E8UMFo5S5lmIAYMCSE/edit?usp=sharing
20:22:25 <ttx> So we have 22 proposals up at this point, for 14 slots.
20:22:32 <ttx> Please feel free to add comments on those
20:22:51 <ttx> We should have a subgroup of TC members volunteers to work on the final selection & agenda.
20:22:53 <sdague> are there any things that TC members feel are burning issues that haven't gotten submitted yet?
20:23:13 <ttx> Maybe we can have volunteers from the "elected for another 6 months" members already
20:23:18 <devananda> mikal: do you know if john is planning to have a nova slot to discuss clustered hypervisor support in nova?
20:23:22 <ttx> I think Doug and Anne volunteered a couple weeks ago ?
20:23:23 * sdague volunteers
20:23:28 <ttx> and newly-elected members can propose themselves next week
20:23:32 <mikal> devananda: not sure, I'd have to check the etherpad
20:23:33 <dhellmann> ttx: yes, count me in
20:23:33 <mikal> Please hold
20:23:35 <devananda> ttx: I'm happy to help with that. in principle I hav emore time now :)
20:23:39 <ttx> Since this is actually something for the newly elected members too
20:23:45 <dansmith> devananda: I don't think so
20:23:48 <annegentle> yep I can help
20:23:51 <devananda> mikal: k. I checked last night, looked like "no" - so then I would suggest that to the cross project track
20:23:58 <jaypipes> devananda: can I have some of that?
20:24:01 <mikal> devananda: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/liberty-nova-summit-ideas
20:24:06 <sdague> devananda: probably worth talking to john directly
20:24:09 <edleafe> I don't see anything from the scheduler for cross-project
20:24:16 <devananda> jaypipes: there's plenty to go around :)
20:24:28 <edleafe> We taked about that at our meeting this morning
20:24:30 <mikal> devananda: yeah, I don't see anything there
20:24:49 <ttx> You can have sort of a discussion by adding comments or replying to them
20:25:08 <sdague> edleafe: it's not clear to me that we're really ready for that right?
20:25:13 <ttx> Ideally we would have lots of coments and then a subteam can gather to make up the agenda
20:25:15 <devananda> sdague: k, so i'll write that up and propose it after the next meeting. jaypipes, interested in coleading it?
20:25:20 <sdague> ideally cross project sessions should involved > 2 projects
20:25:26 <ttx> I'm fine not being part of the selection subgroup this time around
20:25:36 <edleafe> sdague: We need to understand what other projects would need from scheduling
20:25:38 <ttx> if enough people volunteer
20:25:43 <edleafe> we're so nova-centric now
20:25:49 <devananda> sdague: nova+neutron is up there...
20:25:58 <dhellmann> devananda: it's not approved yet, just proposed
20:25:59 <jaypipes> devananda: I was referring to getting some of that time you had more of ;)
20:26:06 <devananda> edleafe: ironic would really like support from a shared scheduler, too
20:26:09 <devananda> jaypipes: oh, lol
20:26:09 <sdague> devananda: as we discussed previously, that's kind of a special case
20:26:21 <sdague> given that it's #1 ops burning issue
20:26:31 <sdague> out of philly
20:26:35 <ttx> So I heard: annegentle, dhellmann, sdague. devananda won't be a TC member at the end of the week, but can still comment and make noise with his mouth
20:26:35 <devananda> *nod*
20:26:42 * dhellmann still thinks the nova and neutron teams could share a slot in their schedule
20:27:18 <russellb> i thought it was already on their schedule
20:27:18 <ttx> dhellmann: I agree with that
20:27:20 <russellb> mestery: around?
20:27:26 <mestery> russellb: o/
20:27:29 <annegentle> ttx: I'm in til Oct 2015?
20:27:34 <ttx> russell_h: yes, john placed that already
20:27:42 <ttx> err, russellb ^
20:27:52 <russellb> mestery: was checking on joint nova+neutron session
20:28:05 <mestery> zz_johnthetubagu and I alreayd agreed on the nova+neutron slot being the last nova slot thursday afternoon
20:28:09 <mestery> It's the only one without overlap
20:28:11 <ttx> annegentle: no I meant, as volunteer for the selection subgroup
20:28:15 <dhellmann> mestery: great!
20:28:17 <mestery> And we'll use it for nova-net migration, overlap, etc.
20:28:26 <ttx> https://libertydesignsummit.sched.org/event/495f67e8acd369d1ac459b6ca9882340
20:28:26 <annegentle> ttx: ah got it
20:28:39 <russell_h> heh, I should bail on this channel seeing as I never participate and absorb a lot of russellb's highlights
20:28:40 <ttx> "Nova: Future of nova-network" session
20:28:46 <sdague> so I still think that we need to consider the fact that is currently listed as the #1 burning issue by the user committee from the ops meetup. So if it needs more breathing space...
20:28:47 <ttx> at a time when Neutron can participate
20:28:55 <ttx> appears in Nova nd Neutron tracks
20:28:57 <russellb> "Lets discuss feedback from resent Ops supports"
20:29:04 <russellb> s/supports/summit/ i suspect :)
20:29:11 <russellb> also s/resent/recent/
20:29:15 <ttx> russell_h: blame tab ordering
20:29:24 <markmcclain> is the last thursday really a good time to discuss?
20:29:37 <annegentle> markmcclain: there's a first thursday?
20:29:42 <mestery> lol
20:29:43 <dhellmann> sdague: it's not a matter of it being unimportant, it's a matter of possibly having other things that affect more than 2 projects
20:29:51 <mordred> yeah - that seems like an early-in-the-week kinda topic
20:29:52 <ttx> markmcclain: it's when neutron has an empty slot
20:29:57 <mordred> because other things might want to fall out from it
20:29:59 <mestery> I'm fine with utilizing additional time if needed
20:30:22 <markmcclain> mordred: exactly
20:30:33 <devananda> sdague: given the feedback from ops, why not put it in the ops track?
20:30:40 <devananda> that also puts it in a slot on tuesday
20:30:44 <mestery> mordred markmcclain: Those things can be discussed (and will be) post summit
20:30:50 <mestery> *discussed
20:31:32 <dhellmann> I see that neutron and nova both have a time slot on Wednesday 9:00 AM. Can that be used?
20:31:35 <sdague> devananda: the ops track is a different kind of vibe
20:31:45 <markmcclain> mestery: concerned that we might lose people who leave early due to holiday
20:31:55 <markmcclain> dhellmann: Wednesday is better
20:32:02 <mestery> markmcclain: It's a valid concern.
20:32:30 <mestery> If we have hte nova+neutron track in a fishbowl, we can mostly forget about it being useful. Would rather use a working group room.
20:32:36 <dhellmann> mestery: fair
20:32:47 <sdague> honestly, I'm still personally happy to give it a cross project track to get the conversation rolling, filtering, then hopefully more concrete things can happen in the nova/neutron dedicated slot
20:32:59 <mestery> sdague: I'd be good with that too!
20:33:27 <sdague> because if we as a community did nothing other but figure this one out in Vancouver, it would be considered a success by a ton of people.
20:33:28 <dhellmann> mestery: maybe we can get you a work room earlier than thursday by swapping with someone else
20:33:31 <dansmith> dhellmann: we specifically put our scheduler stuff early on wednesday, tightly grouped
20:33:36 <ttx> So, on this topic: please comment on the spreadsheet if you care one way or another about those topics. Once election is over we'll ask for more volunteers for the selection committee so that they prepare an agenda, ideally for TC to vet next Tuesday
20:34:16 <ttx> which means the selection group should meet on Monday or something
20:34:17 <mestery> I think we need a cross-project track for this with the followup on Thursday
20:34:30 <mestery> It seems like the most sensible setup
20:34:36 <dhellmann> mestery: a cross-project session is going to be fishbowl
20:34:55 <mestery> dhellmann: I'm willing to live with those limiitations in this case
20:35:08 <markmcclain> fishbowl's can be constructive
20:35:12 <dougwig> mestery: can you find a slot on tuesday that doesn't compete with other nova or neutron sessions?
20:35:23 <dhellmann> ok. I still think these 2 teams should just go work on the problem without taking up a cross-project slot, but we'll see what other priorities we end up with
20:35:26 <markmcclain> we just need one of those really detailed… ttx like discussion etherpads
20:36:02 <mestery> dougwig: We have no sessions Tuesday :)
20:36:30 <ttx> dhellmann: how about curating that list down to proposals on Monday / Tuesday, in time for presenting the net result to the TC next Tuesday ?
20:36:44 <ttx> dhellmann: gives time for newly-elected to volunteer too :)
20:36:53 <dhellmann> ok, I think I can manage that
20:37:10 <dansmith> dhellmann: what's the problem with the slot we already allocated?
20:37:29 <dhellmann> dansmith: someone pointed out that the existing slot was sort of late in the week
20:37:41 <ttx> that said, there is all Friday for folow-up
20:37:44 <dhellmann> dansmith: and to get an earlier slot, we would have to give up a cross-project slot
20:37:48 <dansmith> it's only a little more than halfway through project dev days
20:38:12 <dansmith> thursday can be moved around a lot I think, so is first thing thursday morning good enough?
20:38:19 <dhellmann> dansmith: yeah, that's fine, if it works I'm OK with it, I was just trying to find an alternative for an earlier slot that didn't involve giving up a cross-project session for this topic again
20:38:48 <dansmith> yeah, the "again" is part of the hesitation to disrupt everything else, I think
20:38:50 <dhellmann> dansmith: the nova and neutron teams can work that out, my goal was to keep it in a regular session so if thursday works for you all then I'm happy
20:38:57 <markmcclain> dhellmann: when was the last cross project for this? The one in Paris was in the nova track
20:38:59 <dansmith> okay
20:39:07 <dhellmann> markmcclain: ok, I thought it was xp
20:39:24 <russellb> i don't think it was ever cross-project
20:39:30 <dhellmann> ok, my bad memory
20:40:16 <dansmith> anyway, I'd say first thing thursday, or a cross-project session would be more ideal, IMHO
20:40:17 <markmcclain> the other issue is that we haven't been able to to seem to get the right ppl in the room because every plan we push forward gets shot down 4-6wks post summit
20:40:28 <dansmith> I think also the goal with thursday was to get some operator feedback on use cases and such
20:40:37 <dansmith> and thursday gets us the most operators I think
20:40:51 <egon> dansmith: +1
20:41:02 <dansmith> markmcclain: yeah, and being in cross-project time means some right people might have other things to do :/
20:42:19 <ttx> OK, I think this is now chaotic enough for us to move to...
20:42:22 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:42:36 <ttx> I wanted to raise the "Officialize Liberty release schedule" thread (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-April/061331.html)
20:42:42 <ttx> No comment on that thread for a few weeks now, so I'll make it official tomorrow unless someone complains now
20:42:51 <sdague> ttx: +1 seems reasonable
20:42:59 <ttx> In other news, we have elections under way, if you haven't voted, do it now
20:43:15 <ttx> no idea how much % voters we have so far
20:43:35 <ttx> tristanC: is that something you would communicate on ?
20:43:43 <annegentle> ttx: schedule looks fine
20:43:50 <ttx> Remember that the "Liberty" TC members are invited to a joint TC/Board meeting the Sunday afternoon before Summit starts in Vancouver
20:44:08 <ttx> And that we plan a TC-and-previous-TC dinner on the Thursday evening
20:44:25 <zaneb> ttx: I assume the board meeting will be public again?
20:44:44 <devananda> ttx: ^ was about to ask that, too, as I plan to attend anyway
20:44:45 <russellb> yep, should be, except any portion where we go into executive session
20:45:12 <ttx> zaneb: it will afaik
20:45:24 <ttx> russellb: "we" being the board, not the tc
20:45:30 <russellb> correct.
20:45:32 <fungi> pleia2: do you happen to know what percent of the tc electorate have voted so far?
20:46:32 <pleia2> fungi: no, would have to ask tristanC
20:46:46 <jogo> my understanding is it may not be possible to find out
20:46:48 <fungi> thanks, just figured i'd check
20:46:56 <ttx> jogo: it is possible
20:47:04 <ttx> jogo: CIVS gives you that data
20:47:14 <jogo> ttx: oh even better\
20:47:25 <dansmith> can we see who is winning?
20:47:28 <ttx> but only the election admin can access that :)
20:47:32 <annegentle> dansmith: lol
20:47:41 <mestery> lol
20:47:44 <dansmith> annegentle: I expect a wallop from ttx any second :)
20:48:03 <maishsk> dansmith: We are all winning :)
20:48:11 <ttx> So in summary... this was the last meeting for the Kilo TC membership. Next week will be the first meeting of the Liberty membership
20:48:12 <dansmith> aww
20:49:11 <ttx> Thanks to all the TC members. Some like to think we could get a lot more done, but we actually completely overhauled our governance over the last 6 months
20:49:25 <devananda> ttx: \o/
20:49:33 <dhellmann> ttx: ++
20:49:37 <dims> ++
20:49:37 <ttx> which has not been a small undertaking
20:49:39 <sdague> ttx: \o/
20:49:54 <ttx> But yeah, I agree we can do better! (if elected)
20:50:13 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
20:50:14 <annegentle> way to go really!
20:50:21 * maishsk takes off his hat and applauds you all
20:50:46 <ttx> Oh, Kilo release news while we have 5 extra minutes
20:50:47 <egon> ++
20:51:05 <ttx> Neutron RC3 is out, Expecting a Nova RC3 soon
20:51:12 <ttx> Chances are we'll get a Swift RC3 too
20:51:19 <ttx> the rest is clear
20:51:47 <ttx> Last words before we close ?
20:52:39 <dhellmann> to the committee members who decided not to run and so won't be coming back, thank you for your service!
20:52:46 <david-lyle> ++
20:52:48 <russellb> ++
20:52:49 <sdague> ++
20:52:50 <Rockyg> ++
20:52:52 <zaneb> ++
20:52:53 <jogo> with just over a day left, get out the vote!
20:53:04 <mestery> ++
20:53:27 <edleafe> +++
20:53:33 <dims> ++
20:53:46 <ttx> alright! Let's close this. Thanks everyone
20:53:49 <ttx> #endmeeting