20:01:02 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:01:03 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun  9 20:01:02 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:01:04 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:01:06 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:01:17 <dtroyer> o/
20:01:17 <ttx> Live from Berlin, our agenda for today:
20:01:21 <dhellmann> o/
20:01:21 <sigmavirus24> o/
20:01:23 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:01:25 <krotscheck> \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/
20:01:26 <TravT> o/
20:01:30 <rosmaita> o/
20:01:38 <nikhil_k> o/
20:01:40 <ttx> #topic Cross-project spec final approval: Supported messaging drivers policy
20:01:45 <edleafe> o/
20:01:46 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/174105/
20:01:50 <lakshmiS> o/
20:02:02 <ttx> I feel like this one reached consensus state and is as rady as it will ever be
20:02:06 * flaper87 thinks that review is good to go
20:02:07 <ttx> ready, even
20:02:18 * flaper87 likes rady better
20:02:20 <lifeless> ttx: o/
20:02:33 <ttx> If no objection I'll push final approval in-meeting
20:02:33 <lifeless> ttx: just finishing brekkie w/family so a little distracted :/
20:02:43 <russellb> is the end result "only the rabbit/kombu driver currently meets expectations" ?
20:02:47 <russellb> fine with me, just curious
20:03:07 <sdague> o/
20:03:10 <ttx> SpamapS: around?
20:03:16 * sigmavirus24 agrees with flaper87, rady is better
20:03:52 <zaneb> russellb: that was my impression
20:03:58 <ttx> Personally I hope that this will make the people who care about certain other drivers to step up
20:04:09 <flaper87> ttx: it has already
20:04:14 <ttx> not that it will make us drop anything
20:04:17 <flaper87> I've seen movement in other drivers
20:04:24 <flaper87> and that's why I'm happy with this spec
20:04:25 <russellb> i think we can drop the old qpid one
20:04:26 <russellb> :)
20:04:26 <krotscheck> SpamapS is at a conference, he _might_ bea round
20:04:30 <ttx> flaper87: including the zmq one ?
20:04:34 <krotscheck> But I didn't see him carrying around a laptop
20:04:34 <flaper87> russellb: that's in the works
20:04:38 <flaper87> ttx: yes
20:04:38 <russellb> cool
20:04:48 <ttx> flaper87: ok, missed that, nice
20:04:49 <dhellmann> iiuc, the current qpid driver would be deprecated and other drivers would need to be brought up to standard
20:04:59 <russellb> wfm
20:05:05 <flaper87> dhellmann: yes, that's the conclusion
20:05:19 <ttx> Any objection to me pushing the final +1 now ?
20:05:42 <sdague> it is worth noting that it's not just solid driver code that's needed, having the user community has been pretty critical to addressing real issues in the rabbit support. So it will be interesting to see if other backends build a real user community.
20:05:54 <ttx> I guess we could use a 7th TC vote on it
20:06:10 <annegentle> ttx: I just voted +2
20:06:14 <ttx> mordred: care to convert your +1 in a +2?
20:06:16 <sdague> mordred has a +1 on there
20:06:17 <flaper87> sdague:plus, provide the required support when issue will come up
20:06:18 <markmcclain> makes sense to approve
20:06:19 <flaper87> (because they will)
20:06:23 <dtroyer> ttx: done
20:06:31 <mordred> one sec
20:06:43 <annegentle> Is the timeline "Liberty release" for docs updates?
20:06:44 <ttx> alright, I guess that's more than enough
20:06:54 <flaper87> I had some nit comments but I thought they weren't blockers, hence my vote
20:07:23 <dhellmann> annegentle: yes, I think the intent is to mark that qpid driver as deprecated this cycle
20:07:36 <ttx> ok, approved
20:07:38 <jaypipes> I guess I am a little confused why the TC is handling this...
20:07:47 * flaper87 will deprecate that driver himself
20:07:50 <annegentle> dhellmann: got it, thanks. I'll pass along to loquacities
20:07:54 <ttx> jaypipes: we are just judging if consensus is reached
20:08:06 <russellb> jaypipes: i guessed because of the broad impact it has (why it's cross-project and not just an oslo thing)
20:08:19 <russellb> fundamental piece of the infrastructure
20:08:35 <ttx> #topic Cross-project spec final approval: CORS Support for OpenStack
20:08:45 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/179866/
20:08:47 <flaper87> to be fair, the original proposal was: Lets drop everything but kombu
20:08:56 <flaper87> which is why it ended up as a cross-project thing
20:08:56 <russellb> herrh
20:08:57 <jaypipes> well, yeah, I know that, but are we planning on doing this for databases and other stuff that is "funsdamental"?
20:09:01 <krotscheck> hi hi!
20:09:12 <ttx> This one also has pretty wide approval now, so I'd like to move and final-approve it
20:09:13 <dhellmann> jaypipes: we're erring on the side of more communication
20:09:18 <ttx> fun-damental
20:09:45 <ttx> unless somone thinks we need to hold it more
20:09:52 <ttx> or someone
20:09:58 <markmcclain> lifeless was +1 on it
20:10:06 <krotscheck> For the sake of the CORS specification, I'd be happy to do followup patches if particular points need to be tweaked.
20:10:09 <markmcclain> so we'd have 7 +2s if he upgrades
20:10:29 <ttx> we already have more than we need
20:10:40 <ttx> the question is more... do we think this needs any more baking time
20:10:46 <ttx> I personally do not think that it does
20:10:57 <sdague> no, I think the CORS stuff looks fine to move forward
20:11:12 <markmcclain> sdague: +1
20:11:14 <lifeless> I'd really been hoping krotscheck would push some tweaks
20:11:14 <sdague> there will be devils in details, but honestly, that won't be sorted until there is more core
20:11:16 <sdague> code
20:11:45 <dhellmann> lifeless: is that -1?
20:11:48 <krotscheck> lifeless: Convention travel + linting arguments prevented that.
20:11:48 <jgriffith> I wasn't exactly sure why the proxy option wasn't viable, but don't have any real problem with the patch
20:12:19 <lifeless> dhellmann: I don't think its worth blocking it on. I think it would be better with my suggestions, and AIUI krotscheck isn't oppposed to them.
20:12:30 <dhellmann> lifeless: ok, that sounds like an update patch
20:12:34 <krotscheck> lifeless: I can push a followup tweak easily enough, as I don't really have a problem with your suggestions. They just clarify things.
20:12:46 <sdague> yeh, I'd just handle that as an update patch
20:13:13 <sdague> and, honestly, I'd expect that once real code is out there, a few other details will fall out
20:13:15 <ttx> lifeless: if you +2 (pointing to an upcoming follow-up patch, I will final-approve it now
20:13:38 <lifeless> ttx: I don't know what that subordinate clause means
20:13:39 * krotscheck wanders off to write a followup.
20:13:49 <lifeless> ttx: do you mean wait for the subequent patcha nd +2
20:13:57 <lifeless> ttx: or do you mean +2 on the basis of this conversation alone?
20:14:02 <ttx> lifeless: the latter
20:14:05 <lifeless> ok
20:14:35 <lifeless> done
20:14:41 <ttx> Alright, let's do this
20:14:58 * krotscheck does a little specification dance.
20:15:03 <ttx> done
20:15:12 <krotscheck> One semi related question.
20:15:30 <ttx> krotscheck: yes?
20:16:00 <krotscheck> I'm doing a LOT of things right now to do javascript supporting things in Openstack, and I do _not_ want to be the only person who has that knowledge. Where can I document the things that I'm doing?
20:16:03 <krotscheck> Like, dev guide for linting. Or how to configure cors. How caching works. That kind of stuff.
20:16:19 * krotscheck should probably just pull annegentle aside offline
20:16:52 <annegentle> sure
20:16:52 <annegentle> or loquacities the docs ptl :)
20:17:02 <jeblair> krotscheck: cross-project specs?
20:17:31 <krotscheck> Alrighety, that's enough of an answer :)
20:17:40 <ttx> ok moving on
20:17:42 <krotscheck> I'm good, going to go do lifeless 's changes.
20:17:42 <ttx> #topic Discuss differences between Ops and TC "tags"
20:17:44 <jgriffith> krotscheck: the infra and qa folks have been doing some really good stuff with documenting things... might be worth looking at http://docs.openstack.org/developer/subunit2sql/README.html
20:17:57 <jgriffith> krotscheck: in conjunctions with docs folks of course
20:18:00 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2015-June/000991.html
20:18:05 <ttx> OK, so this was prompted by the recent proposals from the Ops "Tags" WG
20:18:19 <ttx> When I attended the second part of the workgroup in Vancouver I was under the impression they were onto something that would work well within the framework we created
20:18:29 <ttx> So I felt like it was great that they would run with the concept and own the "ops feedback" part of it
20:18:42 <ttx> But looking at the recent proposals it's pretty obvious they are onto something slightly different that would not fit that well into the tag framework we have
20:18:54 <ttx> Basically they want to provide structured documentation about projects around areas like packaging, production usage etc.
20:18:54 <jaypipes> ttx: yes, entirely different :(
20:19:08 <ttx> So they are more defining a grammar to express that information in YAML, rather than simple binary tags that can be attached to projects.
20:19:23 <ttx> I still think it's important and valuable information for them to communicate, but I don't think we should call both "tags" or have them live under the same roof.
20:19:37 <ttx> In the email referenced above I mention 3 possible solutions
20:19:40 <mordred> I agree. although I do not actually want to have the discussion about the right name
20:19:46 <anteaya> is there anyone from the ops tags group here right now?
20:19:47 <jaypipes> ttx: they are also setting themselves up for failure, IMHO, and a situation where the data will be almost immediately stale and worse than in the openstack.org wiki.
20:19:48 <flaper87> I was quite surprised, by reading ttx's email, that they're planning to score in some of those areas
20:19:55 <ttx> 1/ We can try to convince them to make their areas more like tags
20:20:02 <flaper87> Surprised in the sense that I'm curious how they are going to do it
20:20:05 <ttx> but they don't see really interested in doing that
20:20:11 <ttx> 2/ We can overhaul *our* tags so that they look more like their areas
20:20:18 <ttx> but I still think having simple tags is an easier-to-consume piece of information to attach to all the projects we have
20:20:29 <ttx> (makes creating a website to navigate those so much simpler)
20:20:35 <annegentle> wow on "worse than in the openstack.org wiki" jaypipes :)
20:20:37 <jaypipes> ttx: yes. exactly. a tag means something clear and concise.
20:20:43 <ttx> 3/ We can let them coexist (TC provides tags, Ops provide ops-data) but stop calling them the same, because that's confusing.
20:20:52 <flaper87> I prefer option 3, lets let them experiment and we can sync on the different approaches
20:20:55 <jeblair> ttx: is your followup to 1/ based on subsequent conversation, or just the initial "oh, look they have a thing and it's not our tags"?
20:20:56 <ttx> I think I have a slight preference for #3 since we could totally rely on ops-data to "objectively" apply some tags
20:20:58 <jaypipes> annegentle: meaning the wiki can very easily get stale info, like any wiki...
20:21:02 <flaper87> we might end up changing (or they will end up changing)
20:21:05 <annegentle> jaypipes: yep
20:21:18 <annegentle> I think we need to let both approaches run for a bit.
20:21:23 <annegentle> So option 3 lets that happen.
20:21:31 <ttx> jeblair: from my intersaction with the group (on the ML, and direct discussions with Tom) it appears they are pretty attached to the way they want to do it
20:21:31 <jeblair> ttx: (you said they are not interested; are they still not interested after having been made aware of the mismatch?)
20:21:37 <anteaya> I think that in absence of any reps from the ops tags committee that the tc can't really decide what they should do, only what the tc should do
20:21:37 <zaneb> what ops want is not so much tags as more targeted analytics data (extension to bitergia/stackalytics) by the sounds of it
20:21:38 <flaper87> But +1 for using different terms
20:21:38 <jeblair> ttx: ok, thanks
20:21:46 <lifeless> I have a strong preference to 3
20:21:47 <flaper87> it'd be *really* confusing to have both called tags
20:21:51 <lifeless> 2 doesn't really work for us
20:21:54 <sdague> yeh, that's my lean is towards #3 at this point, and see where it heads
20:22:00 <flaper87> zaneb: that was my impression as well
20:22:08 <jeblair> #3
20:22:09 <russellb> +1 to #3 and revisit over time as things evolve
20:22:11 <lifeless> and 1/ - smart folk in that group feel like it works for them; we're out of context at the moment and I think there are more important tings to focus on
20:22:15 <russellb> see how it goes
20:22:18 <russellb> get out of their way ;)
20:22:30 <jgriffith> #3
20:22:33 <jeblair> yep.  and 2 means we get further behind.
20:22:41 <sdague> because at the end of the day this whole exercise was about getting information to users, and they've defined the information they want, lets see if a model for producing it and keeping it up to date emerges
20:22:44 <ttx> The WG will gather on IRC next Thursday and I'd like to know what to tell them -- looks like  ishouldtell them to do what they want but call it something else to avoid global confusion
20:22:45 <jaypipes> I prefer 1/ really, but I'm more than happy to let their current strategy fail and then revisit.
20:22:45 <dhellmann> ttx: how much confusion do you think it really raises to call both "tags"? and how likely are we to get them to change the name of their thing?
20:22:49 <annegentle> I'd like for this ops group to be a working group for running with the ideas for "measures for maturity"
20:23:13 <ttx> dhellmann: I know every time we said "we could call both things the same" we ended up regretting it down the road
20:23:17 <ttx> when it's too late to change
20:23:19 <dhellmann> ttx: true
20:23:27 <flaper87> ttx: ++
20:23:27 <lifeless> jaypipes: I think its entirely fine if you have the bandwidth to engage with them; but I don't think the TC movement forward should depend on aligning
20:23:28 <mordred> ++
20:23:58 <ttx> jaypipes: could be worse, their grammar could be xml
20:24:06 <jaypipes> lifeless: why you calling *me* out specifically?
20:24:21 <lifeless> because you're specifically saying you think they'll fail
20:24:31 <sdague> well, unless someone comes up with something more catchy than "ops tags" it's going to be what sticks
20:24:35 <lifeless> I don't have an opinion on whether their approach will fail or not
20:24:38 <lifeless> as yet
20:24:42 <jaypipes> lifeless: I have *already* engaged with them. and their answer has been "f off, we'll do it our way".
20:24:56 <lifeless> jaypipes: haha, so that makes 1 a no-go anyhow :)
20:24:58 <zaneb> sdague: "ops metrics?"
20:25:01 <mordred> they could call their tags "tenants"
20:25:08 <sdague> or policy
20:25:08 <mordred> or maybe "projects"
20:25:16 <ttx> well, i won't cmoe up wit a name, just pointing out that tags is not the best word to describe what they are up to. Also that they shouldn't feel constrained to use our format there
20:25:18 <flaper87> categories ?
20:25:21 <zaneb> rofl
20:25:21 <jeblair> mordred: ;)
20:25:27 <edleafe> zones
20:25:31 <lifeless> flaper87: ops monoids?
20:25:32 <russellb> metadata, catalog
20:25:38 <mordred> edleafe: domains
20:25:40 <russellb> so many choices of things that already have uses
20:25:44 <flaper87> lifeless: lol
20:25:46 * jaypipes looks forward to the ops:packaged:centos:call-me-maybe:ok-with-cern-this-week "tag"
20:25:51 <dtroyer> hopefully something similar to 'ops' can be incorporated to help distinguish the different sources
20:25:55 <russellb> this bike shed is about to fall over from too much paint
20:25:58 <jgriffith> LOL
20:25:59 <mordred> jaypipes: dude. that's an AWESOME tag
20:26:07 <lifeless> I want it cerulean
20:26:08 <sdague> russellb: heh
20:26:13 <mordred> russellb: maybe we can paint the paint a different color
20:26:15 <flaper87> jaypipes: LOL
20:26:19 <dtroyer> just a bare word doesn't help the reader know what they are looking at.  that probably applies to 'tags' too
20:26:23 <flaper87> mordred: I vote black
20:26:29 <jgriffith> noops-tag
20:26:32 <mordred> flaper87: which shade?
20:26:35 <lifeless> ops-ribs
20:26:38 <ttx> OK, I think I have what I need here
20:26:39 <mordred> lifeless: YES
20:26:42 <jaypipes> look, there's nothing wrong with structured information. but like I said in the reviews on the ops tags repo, that's what I like to call "documentation".
20:26:46 <jeblair> ttx: and plenty of 'helpful' suggestions
20:26:50 <lifeless> [if you figure out how my brain went there, you get a cider in tokyo]
20:26:52 <ttx> we can move on, unless you want to further paint the yak
20:26:53 <anteaya> dtroyer: you make a good point
20:26:53 <flaper87> mordred: dark, deep, obscure and evil
20:27:01 <russellb> "ops project catalog"
20:27:02 * russellb shrugs
20:27:03 * flaper87 gets his mind back on the meeting
20:27:13 <ttx> #topic Add the Searchlight Project
20:27:21 <flaper87> +1
20:27:30 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/188014
20:27:38 <ttx> Looks like most people like it
20:27:47 <ttx> Looks more like a split than a new thing to me
20:28:05 <jeblair> ttx: agreed on both
20:28:09 <ttx> and since it's not exactly the same team, we can definitely have a new "project team" for it
20:28:10 <TravT> basically we think this improves focus on the search concept as a well defined service while also un-complicating some of the glance story.
20:28:10 <sdague> yeh, the team doing it has something pretty solid already. Their initial design already had a separate end point
20:28:12 <ttx> since now we can
20:28:29 <jaypipes> no brainer, IMO.
20:28:31 <sdague> it was basically pushed into glance because of old governance, but definitely best on it's own
20:28:41 <flaper87> Agreed, plus, the demo itself was quite isolated already
20:28:41 <mordred> ++
20:28:47 <flaper87> ttx: go go go go
20:29:02 * ttx checks votes
20:29:14 <ttx> alright, more than enough here
20:29:19 <russellb> maybe it should be SearchLight instead of Searchlight
20:29:24 <russellb> (kidding..)
20:29:26 <ttx> last call for objections
20:29:29 <annegentle> russellb: groan :)
20:29:30 <sigmavirus24> russellb: don't do that
20:29:31 * sdague hits russellb with a hallibut
20:29:38 <kragniz> russellb: pls no
20:29:40 * dhellmann puts down the club he was swinging at russellb
20:29:47 <russellb> lolol.
20:29:50 <TravT> lol
20:29:55 <sigmavirus24> rassellb plz
20:30:07 <jgriffith> actually I think russellb has a point...
20:30:09 <jgriffith> just kidding
20:30:15 <ttx> Greenlight?
20:30:17 <sigmavirus24> ಠ_ಠ
20:30:21 <ttx> approved
20:30:27 <kragniz> woo!
20:30:28 <TravT> :)
20:30:36 <sigmavirus24> ლ(╹◡╹ლ)
20:30:40 <dhellmann> congrats to the Searchlight team!
20:30:40 <lakshmiS> great!
20:30:42 <russellb> thanks for coming to the meeting in case there was more discussion needed, team :)
20:30:43 <ttx> Though I wonder what animal mascot a Searchlight can have but that's for another day
20:30:56 <sigmavirus24> ttx: eye of sauron
20:30:57 <sigmavirus24> ;)
20:31:00 <russellb> lol!
20:31:01 <rosmaita> one of those deep water fish
20:31:01 <sjmc7> :-)
20:31:03 <russellb> that's amazing
20:31:04 <TravT> i do hope we get a patch next summit...
20:31:12 <kragniz> TravT: we'd better
20:31:23 * TravT still feeling unhappy that horizon didn't have one
20:31:30 <russellb> searchlight spelunkers
20:31:30 <lifeless> an eye of sauron ?
20:31:33 <annegentle> rosmaita: ha!
20:31:39 <mordred> lifeless: sigmavirus24 beat you to that
20:31:39 <ttx> Alright, this is moving faster than I thought
20:31:44 <ttx> #topic Workgroup reports
20:31:48 <lifeless> mordred: no, not w.r.t. horizon
20:31:55 <ttx> * Project Team Guide
20:31:55 <lifeless> mordred: it was deliberate
20:32:02 <ttx> We have a repository initial commit at https://review.openstack.org/189514
20:32:07 <ttx> jeblair: what's the current make up for the core team there ?
20:32:07 <jeblair> i helped!
20:32:21 <jeblair> ttx: apparently you can +2...
20:32:29 * jeblair stalls for time
20:32:38 <ttx> yeah, but if i'm te only one I guess I should not wait for another
20:32:47 <flaper87> ttx: I can +2
20:32:52 <flaper87> done
20:32:55 <flaper87> approved
20:33:00 <jeblair> ttx: oh, it's the tc
20:33:08 <ttx> tc
20:33:10 <ttx> yep
20:33:24 <sdague> ttx: what's the approval rules expected there? normal core rules, or something more complicated?
20:33:26 <ttx> let's do a simple 2 +2s though, not a majority vote :)
20:33:35 <sdague> I'm fine with that
20:33:37 <ttx> it's doc
20:33:50 <sdague> anything contentious can come back to the meeting for a fight
20:33:51 <ttx> we migt actually refine that to the group of people actually working on it
20:33:53 <dhellmann> ++
20:34:02 <jeblair> i also plan on doing a little more work before the sprint.  i will add files for each of the sections based on the preliminary toc so that we can paralellize and avoid some conflicts.
20:34:02 <ttx> but I'm fine with tc for starters, that might encourage others to join
20:34:09 <flaper87> ttx: I assumed it was like that
20:34:16 <ttx> jeblair: that would be very helpful yes
20:34:24 <flaper87> ttx: as in, the group of folks that raised their hands 3 weeks ago
20:34:27 <flaper87> (or was it 4)
20:34:30 <flaper87> :P
20:34:39 <ttx> flaper87: the list is on the etherpad
20:34:59 <flaper87> ttx: yup
20:35:03 <dhellmann> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/project-team-guide
20:35:04 <jeblair> i'll go ahead and update the gerrit acl to a new group then so we can change it easier
20:35:17 <ttx> I planned to write stuff on planes this week but ended up discussing battery life with morganfainberg
20:35:44 <ttx> * Communicatoins workgroup
20:35:49 <ttx> annegentle: flaper87: ?
20:35:50 <flaper87> #link http://www.openstack.org/blog/2015/06/technical-committee-highlights-june-5-2015/
20:35:59 <flaper87> That's the last report we published
20:36:00 <annegentle> posted!
20:36:21 <annegentle> tweet it y'all!
20:36:36 <annegentle> ttx: squandering airplane wifi
20:36:40 <flaper87> I wonder if enough people have been getting it (I guess we ask this question every week)
20:36:40 <ttx> annegentle: flaper87: did you get any feedback ? Like from people apprecating you doing this ?
20:36:49 <ttx> +i
20:36:55 <flaper87> ttx: the first week we did and it was good
20:36:58 <annegentle> ttx: not really, but we have lately been coinciding accidentally with the Weekly round up
20:37:02 <flaper87> but I haven't heard much lately
20:37:17 <annegentle> so we might try publishing Wednesdays? I dunno.
20:37:17 <anteaya> flaper87: where/how was this appreciation conveyed?
20:37:26 <ttx> I fear it's one of those things people complain about when it's not there, but won't exactly cheer when it is
20:37:35 <anteaya> ttx: I sense the same
20:37:45 <annegentle> heh that's fine, I'm used to that :)
20:37:48 <flaper87> anteaya: IRC, email and twitter
20:38:06 <flaper87> but again
20:38:08 <anteaya> flaper87: any links? I missed the email appreciation apparently
20:38:22 <flaper87> there wasn't much and it was just the first day
20:38:50 <flaper87> anteaya: it might have been just IRC and twitter. I'll try to find logs and emails
20:38:52 <annegentle> timing note: we'd need to publish Wed. if we want a link in Friday's weekly newsletter
20:38:53 * flaper87 has a very bad memory
20:39:01 <ttx> ok, anything else on the communications wg ?
20:39:07 <annegentle> think we can wait til next Wed. to do another post?
20:39:12 <flaper87> annegentle: +1
20:39:21 <ttx> I think it's fine yes
20:39:24 <anteaya> flaper87: thank you
20:39:30 <dhellmann> maybe a simple email to announce Searchlight's status change?
20:40:06 <flaper87> dhellmann: can TravT do that? I think it'd be great if he presents the project too
20:40:11 <ttx> maybe can be the co-PTLs there self-congratulating
20:40:12 <anteaya> I like the idea of training folks who want this info to find it in one place, not scattered
20:40:23 <anteaya> since I believe scattered was one of the complaints
20:40:41 <ttx> and then mention it in next week edition
20:40:46 <dhellmann> flaper87, ttx: that works for me
20:40:50 <TravT> flaper87: what?
20:40:59 <flaper87> anteaya: we can have one "official" place and let the rest of the folks share as they want
20:41:00 <TravT> just trying to figure out why the gate job failed...
20:41:04 <ttx> TravT: send email to list saying you got accepted
20:41:08 <flaper87> TravT: ^
20:41:22 <flaper87> TravT: where you == SearchLight
20:41:24 <flaper87> :P
20:41:28 <anteaya> flaper87: yes, as long as they can track from the "offical" place
20:41:31 <TravT> i can do that, but also would be pretty happy if it came from any of you. :)
20:41:37 <annegentle> anteaya: I think regularity is fine to set expectations for "where" in addition to "when"
20:41:43 <jeblair> oh, i think there's an oslosphinx problem right now, we may need to reapprove some changes
20:41:43 <ttx> * Other workgroups
20:41:52 <jeblair> TravT, ttx: ^
20:42:00 <ttx> ANy other workgroup naturally emerging from chaos while I was looking the other way ?
20:42:05 <anteaya> annegentle: as you see fit, but I do think discoverablity was an issue
20:42:08 <dhellmann> jeblair, TravT : I think they decided that was actually a pbr issue and lifeless was working on a new release?
20:42:17 <lifeless> it was and we are
20:42:24 <TravT> ok.  good.
20:42:33 <annegentle> anteaya: yeah I do agree
20:42:40 <ttx> no progress on the scuba team yes ?
20:42:44 <ttx> yet*
20:42:44 <TravT> dhellmann also are you who we talk to about pulling the repo in?
20:42:57 <TravT> we've been working on splitting it out from glance as-is in the following repo: #link https://github.com/lakshmisampath/searchlight/
20:42:57 <lifeless> its just hit gate jobs
20:42:58 <dhellmann> TravT: I can help you get set up for that, but the infra team does the real work
20:43:15 <TravT> i'd like to get it back under gerrit...
20:43:19 * ttx blames that guy in the bavarian costume and his damn beer
20:43:20 <dhellmann> TravT: drop by #openstack-relmgr-office
20:43:43 <anteaya> ttx: bavarians have nice hats
20:44:02 <markmcclain> ttx: not yet.... need to schedule set time with lifeless to start work on it
20:44:13 <russellb> i'm pretty sure the import process is documented ..
20:44:16 <ttx> markmcclain: ack
20:44:37 <dhellmann> russellb: it is, but I don't mind helping out
20:44:38 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:44:40 <lifeless> ack yah
20:44:45 <lifeless> mea culpa
20:44:47 <ttx> I pushed an agenda for rotating the chair of the cross-project meeting:
20:44:54 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/CrossProjectMeeting#Chair_rotation
20:44:55 <lifeless> I want to get the requirements thing really moving before focusing on arch
20:45:10 <russellb> TravT: http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/creators.html
20:45:11 <ttx> We'll include volunteer PTLs in the rotation, but wanted to give a chance to TC members to take their slot before
20:45:11 <ttx> This week's meeting will be chaired by Mark, anyone interested in leading next week's ?
20:45:14 <lifeless> since reducing debt is what thats all about
20:45:30 <ttx> just edit the wiki if you are
20:45:35 <TravT> russellb: thanks.
20:45:38 <dhellmann> lifeless: ++
20:45:49 <ttx> having a few weeks advance on that rotation would be nice
20:46:29 <annegentle> I can't the next two weeks, sorry, guess I could then volunteer for last week of June or something
20:46:31 <dhellmann> with all of those people to choose from, we shouldn't have to repeat being chair
20:47:25 <ttx> dhellmann: right, I prefer to be ready to sub in case of last-minute issues ,rather than put myself on the rotation again
20:47:37 <markmcclain> ttx: I think that makes sense
20:47:43 <ttx> annegentle: feel free to insert your name at a later point
20:47:56 <annegentle> I'm taking June 30th! You can't have it! :)
20:47:59 <ttx> not everyone at the same time
20:48:00 <dhellmann> ttx: right
20:48:17 <ttx> mordred: The dates on the M naming poll mentioned opening of the poll on Jun 8, so I guess we shouldn't delay that a lot more
20:48:30 <ttx> I suspect you might want to finalize that before you board your next plane
20:48:37 <mordred> yup
20:48:40 <mordred> working on it now
20:48:50 <mordred> the japanese openstack user group is helping to validate the current list
20:49:03 <ttx> the japanese community did a.. pretty nice job vetting the names for us
20:49:05 <mordred> because, you know, it's nice to have friendly help
20:49:06 <mordred> yah
20:49:07 <dhellmann> nice
20:49:09 <mordred> they're AMAZING
20:49:12 <ttx> it's like the first time the locals just take over the process
20:49:27 <mordred> Ive also asked fungi for the email list so I can set up the polls
20:49:34 <mordred> so as soon as I have that, I'l get the election under way
20:49:42 <fungi> yep, i'm trying to wrangle those now
20:49:59 <ttx> Also, *lots* of great names this time
20:50:02 <mordred> yah
20:50:05 <mordred> the list is pretty amazing
20:50:17 <mordred> so I am not going to propose any of the non-valid names to the TC for override
20:50:28 <mordred> even though there are several good ones in that list too
20:50:29 <ttx> mordred: +1
20:50:35 <jeblair> honestly, i'm excited about using condorcet on a list like that
20:50:39 <mordred> yah
20:50:52 <flaper87> jeblair: it kinda makes it worth it :D
20:51:05 <mordred> also with an electorate the size of the entire foundation membership
20:51:39 <fungi> you'll definitely need to split it a bunch of times to feed it into civs
20:51:43 <ttx> mordred: you'll see there is a bit of unfun with more than 1000 voters in CIVS
20:51:52 <fungi> i think they limit batches to 1k addresses
20:51:57 <fungi> yeah, that
20:51:57 <anteaya> yes
20:52:00 <mordred> meh. I can handle it
20:52:02 <ttx> and then you have to just pray they won't all vote at the same time
20:52:17 <mordred> so - quick question
20:52:25 <anteaya> first 20 minutes
20:52:35 <ttx> mordred: you have 8 min
20:52:58 <fungi> worst case i'll scrape addresses from the foundation member db via an ugly join query
20:53:03 <lifeless> "quick"
20:53:04 <mordred> CIVS has an option for a public poll where you just have a link and you can vote, and it does ip address matching for uniqueness
20:53:19 <mordred> this isn't really a poll likely for gaming and wants inclusivity
20:53:23 <markmcclain> fungi: do I get to vote this time or does CIVS still have archaic domain restrictions?
20:53:34 <mordred> perhaps we should just make one of those and post the link to the mailing list/twitters ?
20:53:53 <jeblair> mordred: that's neat; and it's pretty close to what we used to do.  maybe we should think about it next time (especially if this time is difficult), but stick with emails for this go-around?
20:53:54 <edleafe> won't ip uniqueness be a problem for people at the same work location?
20:53:55 <mordred> markmcclain: what are your domain problems?
20:53:58 <fungi> markmcclain: no clue, honestly. starting to wonder if we should just host a civs instance ourselves
20:53:59 <ttx> mordred: IP matching makes some corporate blocks unable to vote more than once though
20:54:05 <mordred> edleafe, ttx: good point
20:54:20 <lifeless> use your phone to vote
20:54:24 <markmcclain> mordred: CIVS barfed on .xyz domain during the last elections.. need .com, .net, etc
20:54:25 <ttx> mordred: surveymonkey did IP+Browser cookie, which is slightly better
20:54:30 <mordred> markmcclain: hah
20:54:35 <fungi> mordred: civs doesn't believe some tlds created after, like, y2k, really exist
20:54:57 <mordred> fungi: neither do I
20:55:04 <fungi> hah
20:55:07 <russellb> all those new tlds can get off my lawn
20:55:23 <ttx> (as an aside, the "starting point around Nova" came up again in discussions at the OpenStack CEE day. It's like a question people actually have, not something we dreamt up)
20:55:27 <mordred> k. well, well do emails this time but maybe investigate open polls next time
20:55:34 <jeblair> markmcclain: as long as you can vote with your arpanet address as a backup
20:55:36 <russellb> ttx: ++
20:55:45 <markmcclain> jeblair: haha
20:55:45 <mordred> ttx: ++
20:55:50 <annegentle> ttx: heh yeup
20:55:54 <annegentle> yep even
20:56:10 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
20:56:12 * dhellmann thinks annegentle's texas accent is getting thicker
20:56:23 <johnthetubaguy> whats is "starting point around Nova" ?
20:56:24 <annegentle> dhellmann: oh noes
20:56:27 * russellb out next week
20:56:52 <ttx> johnthetubaguy: a tag describing the minimal set of projects you need to deliver a minimal compute capability
20:56:55 * annegentle says "I am from OHIO and stamps foot."
20:57:06 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: ah, cool, thanks
20:57:09 <ttx> also known as the needle in the haystack
20:57:15 * annegentle also out next week
20:57:28 <johnthetubaguy> theres probably three correct answers there, but yes
20:57:42 <dougwig> only three?
20:57:49 <ttx> johnthetubaguy: my guess is that they want an answer. Not necessarily The answer
20:57:58 * dtroyer thirds out next week
20:57:59 <russellb> starting point, not end point
20:58:07 <ttx> but that's discussion for next week
20:58:11 <jeblair> last time we talked about this, we narrowed it to two answers, so that's pretty good.
20:58:13 <johnthetubaguy> ttx: seems a fair request, but yeah
20:58:15 <anteaya> like when you start piano you start with twinkle twinkle little star
20:58:41 <russellb> mary had a little lamb
20:58:42 <ttx> al-righty. Let's close this
20:58:43 <mordred> jeblair: actually, I think sdague and I finally understand we were talking about two different things
20:58:50 <mordred> so I'm on board with sdague's definition of that now
20:58:55 <jeblair> mordred: still sounds like two answers :)
20:58:56 <russellb> thanks, ttx
20:58:57 <anteaya> russellb: that works too
20:59:00 <ttx> Thanks for coming!
20:59:03 <mordred> he was answering that question - my competing answer is answering a diffrent question
20:59:05 <ttx> and see you next week obviously
20:59:06 <sdague> yeh, I need to massively refresh that document after a bunch of conversations that were had
20:59:26 <ttx> sdague: you think you can do it for next week meeting ?
20:59:26 * johnthetubaguy needs to go read that...
20:59:28 <russellb> sdague: thanks for driving the proposal
20:59:35 <sdague> yes, I think so
20:59:37 <mordred> my competing answer is "as a production end user, what is the minimal thing that's useful to run compute workloads"
20:59:40 <ttx> cool.
20:59:43 <mordred> sdague is answering the question from CEE day
20:59:54 <mordred> "what is the smallest set of things I can deploy so i can start poking with this thing"
21:00:13 <ttx> this compute thing, but yeah
21:00:15 <mordred> yah
21:00:17 <ttx> #endmeeting