20:02:06 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:02:07 * flaper87 hands lifeless some coffee \_/?
20:02:07 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jun 16 20:02:06 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:02:08 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:02:10 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:02:15 <ttx> Meeting agenda for today:
20:02:17 <lifeless> flaper87: child with post-tonsilectomy-pain
20:02:25 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:02:27 <flaper87> lifeless: :(
20:02:41 <ttx> #topic Add compute starter kit tag
20:02:44 <edleafe> o/
20:02:50 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/180112
20:03:00 <ttx> sdague rewrote his proposal to clarify that it is really meant as a starter kit rather than a core / kernel / layer1
20:03:04 <sdague> hey, so there is a new revision out there
20:03:10 <adrian_otto> ttx can we add https://review.openstack.org/190949 to the agenda backlog please?
20:03:11 <ttx> two weeks ago we agreed that the TC should have an opinion on "start here for this use case today", and I think this strikes the right wording
20:03:35 <ttx> adrian_otto: that was on today's agenda
20:03:43 <adrian_otto> oh, sorry I missed it!
20:03:45 <ttx> adrian_otto: would you prefer it not discussed today ?
20:03:57 <adrian_otto> nm, I retract my request
20:04:05 <flaper87> I think the wording improved a lot and it's clearer
20:04:09 <ttx> On the compute starter kit tag -- Obviously there will still be people opposed or indifferent to it, but I think we can reach a majority on this first version, and iterate on it
20:04:12 <sdague> people that didn't like the last one philosophically are probably not likely to like this one, however people that found confusion in the last one might hopefully find this clearer
20:04:20 <krotscheck> o/
20:04:23 <ttx> I would be fine removing the dependency on an ops:production-ready tag, since it's a bit unlikely we'd have that anytime soon
20:04:31 <ttx> But I'd be fine with that being submitted as a subsequent change
20:04:56 <ttx> I find it always easier to merge a version and iterate than try to come up with the perfect thing in one go
20:05:26 <sdague> given that it's a light TC week, I'd also recommend we have a discussion slice next week. With only 7 folks here it's hard to get all the thoughts on the table
20:05:31 <j^2> o/
20:05:35 <flaper87> yeah, that's the only reason I didn't +1 it for now
20:05:51 <zaneb> sdague: I think this is really moving in a better direction, I appreciate all your work on taking into account the feedback
20:06:08 <lifeless> ++
20:06:13 <lifeless> I'm quite comfortable with it
20:06:14 <flaper87> sdague: +1 on holding off until next week. That'll give folks some extra time to think this through
20:06:16 <jaypipes> sdague: I'd be +1 if you removed that one requirement about the production-readiness sign-off by the ops community.
20:06:17 <lifeless> we could tweak forever
20:06:26 <flaper87> that said, I'm happier with this version
20:06:26 <ttx> sdague: would you consider removing the dependency on an hypothetical ops production-ready tag ?
20:06:37 <flaper87> and removing the production requirement would be preferable
20:06:41 <sdague> sure, I can remove that bit
20:06:46 <jaypipes> sdague: it's light-years better than the original kernel:compute proposal.
20:06:47 <sdague> I'd do that post meeting
20:06:57 <jaypipes> sdague: excellent work on the rewrite.
20:06:58 <sdague> jaypipes: well, that's how we make the sausage
20:06:59 <zaneb> is there a reason for laying out the requirements at all?
20:07:15 <zaneb> last time we talked about just making an opinionated decision
20:07:30 <dhellmann> o/
20:07:30 <flaper87> would it be crazy to say that we could eventually have a starter_kit in devstack ? (that's pretty much what it does already, since things are being moved out to plugins)
20:07:34 <ttx> sdague: frankly, we have plenty of time in this meeting, so if you want to take 5 minutes to edit it and collect +1s, that could save us a slot next week
20:07:34 <sdague> so, I feel like they inform the decision to be made. And I like why's more than just things.
20:07:43 <ttx> We have a huge backlog with stuff proposed late last week
20:07:47 <jaypipes> zaneb: the requirements for the tag lay out at least a reasonable set of considerations vs. just "my opinion".
20:08:02 <flaper87> I think the requirements provide some extra info on why those projects are also considered part of the starter kit
20:08:07 <ttx> I like the requirements.
20:08:23 <ttx> I just feel like we won't have an ops production-ready (binary) tag anytime soon
20:08:23 <sdague> ttx: well, I'd still like to leave a discussion window because we're missing half the TC, and the draft only hit yesterday
20:08:27 <jaypipes> ttx, flaper87: I like them as well, save for the productionness one.
20:08:34 <flaper87> jaypipes: yup yup
20:08:42 <jaypipes> sdague: agreed
20:08:48 <sdague> I don't want anyone feeling like they were run over with this
20:08:52 <sdague> because that was not the intent
20:08:56 <jaypipes> right
20:09:00 <flaper87> +1
20:09:06 <flaper87> well, early feedback from me: +1
20:09:15 <ttx> sdague: alright, fair enough
20:09:28 <sdague> ok, well, once we get to another topic, I'll edit and update, so we'll have it before the meeting is over
20:09:47 <sdague> any further questions / comments?
20:09:48 <ttx> ok, we can come back to it and collect early votes at the end of the meeting then
20:09:59 <sdague> sounds good
20:10:30 <ttx> let's cover the other topics now
20:10:31 <ttx> #topic Adding distribution packaging to OpenStack
20:10:39 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/185187
20:10:57 <ttx> On this one, I think the ones advocating for waiting for the team to form first were right
20:11:07 <ttx> Since in the last two weeks, the discussion went from scoping this to RPM+DEB, to Ubuntu+Debian only, to Ubuntu jumping off the boat (yesterday)
20:11:11 <jaypipes> jamespage: did you see my recent question to you on the ML thread about packaging? It was to inform my decision on this particular governance proposal....
20:11:22 <ttx> So this all only confirms my opinion that we should wait to first have a working, scoped team before we recognize it as an OpenStack project team.
20:11:38 <jeblair> ttx: or phrased another way, the folks who wanted a concrete proposal before doing anything were right :)
20:11:51 <ttx> jeblair: we were both right I think
20:11:58 <flaper87> agreed, I was clear last week on the intensions for this proposal but things seem to have shifted a bit
20:11:59 <lifeless> ttx: anything proposed late last week is not backlog
20:12:04 <lifeless> ttx: it becomes backlog next week
20:12:17 <jeblair> at any rate, it does seem like this is losing steam
20:12:18 <ttx> lifeless: anything proposed post Friday 0800 utc is backlog
20:12:36 <ttx> lifeless: according to the rules we agreed on at the start of this cycle
20:12:36 <lifeless> ttx: I think thats too narrow to get folk form opinions
20:12:38 <dhellmann> I think it would be fine if zigo wanted to put the repositories he uses for packaging up on gerrit, but I agree that we should have some team collaborating before we call them a team
20:12:44 <lifeless> ttx: sure, I think we made a mistake
20:12:47 <jaypipes> zigo: you around?
20:12:50 <zigo> Hi.
20:12:55 <zigo> I am.
20:13:08 <ttx> lifeless: I don't get it -- want more time or less time ?
20:13:16 <zigo> Reading ...
20:13:37 * jaypipes disappointed this has lost steam...
20:13:39 <lifeless> ttx: more, but I'm distracting from the main event.
20:13:43 <jeblair> back to the issue -- i'm pretty bummed because it seems like at the summit a lot of folks thought this was a good idea
20:13:50 <zigo> I think I'll use stackforge to start with.
20:13:54 <lifeless> ttx: so, stack.push(); packaging.discuss()
20:13:54 <jaypipes> jeblair: ++ I am bummed as well.
20:13:59 <zigo> That's fine.
20:13:59 <flaper87> zigo: that's a good call
20:14:22 <zigo> So let's put this as WIP, and revisit later, ok?
20:14:43 <ttx> dhellmann: right, and FTR I'm fine with creating a bunch of repositories. But for the sake of not renaming / moving them to attic because nobody uses them, I'd rather see the discussion on the team scope continue for a bit
20:14:52 <AJaeger> zigo: Or Abandon and un-abandon later ;)
20:14:54 <zigo> Paul Belanger needs help anyway for packaging stuff for infra.
20:15:03 <dhellmann> ttx: sure
20:15:06 <zigo> So the project needs to happen anyway.
20:15:28 <jeblair> i'm not opposed to stackforge for this
20:15:31 <zigo> (ie: packaging zuul + nodepool)
20:15:40 <dhellmann> ttx: I'll defer to jeblair on naming, since it's the infra team that has the burden of dealing with renames
20:15:42 <zigo> (and others...)
20:15:45 <flaper87> zigo: I think starting somewhere and working out the requirements is a good thing. It'll help building a better/stronger proposal
20:15:48 <AJaeger> we have now RDO and SUSE folks talking about this as well - there's a separate patch for that...
20:15:54 <ttx> zigo: you mean that even if it's only you/Debian, you'd still do it under openstack infrastructure, right ?
20:16:08 <flaper87> zigo: if there's anything we can do to help out with the organization/teams do let us know
20:16:12 <zigo> ttx: Yes, but it may not be the way I thought to begin with.
20:16:12 <jeblair> (i'm not going to be super-excited to move it, but i also don't want to get in the way of work while we figure that out)
20:16:23 <ttx> zigo: me neither tbh
20:16:43 <zigo> ttx: I'll have to think about how, and see if the team inside Mirantis wants to do it with me as well.
20:16:52 <ttx> zigo: it's less compelling, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing to have
20:17:04 <zigo> We're having a meeting at the end of the month (29th to 3rd), we'll see what comes out of the discussions in Moscow.
20:17:16 <zigo> brb
20:18:09 <jeblair> AJaeger: makes an interesting point -- we still have at least one .deb and two .rpm groups interested in the general concept
20:18:09 <ttx> zigo: so yes you can WIP it (by prefixing the git commit title with WIP) or abandon it temporarily to get it out of the agenda until ready
20:18:43 <jeblair> do we want to ask them both to start in stackforge, or give them both provisional access to openstack/ namespace?
20:18:58 <AJaeger> jeblair: see https://review.openstack.org/191587
20:19:00 <zigo> ttx: deal !
20:19:58 <zigo> Yeah, I need to know where to host stuff. /stackforge or /openstack, both is fine to me, but I'd like a definitive answer ASAP, as it's been a real blocker for nearly a month now.
20:20:10 <dhellmann> jeblair: I think using the openstack/ prefix is fine in this case
20:20:24 <ttx> dhellmann: it will need a adopting project
20:20:40 <ttx> (or be attached as a TC repo)
20:21:05 <zigo> Please get a vote on the namespace today, so it can move forward (and again, i don't mind either ways...)
20:21:10 <ttx> (I'm fine with all solutions: stackforge, openstack under TC, openstack under X)
20:21:16 <dhellmann> ttx: ok, I guess we're sticking to that for now? I thought we discussed the option for provisional repos.
20:21:18 <lifeless> ditto
20:21:34 * AJaeger is just a bit scared of 200 repos under stackforge that in a few months will move to openstack...
20:21:37 <jeblair> why not just approve the project with the current small team?
20:22:07 <AJaeger> zigo: how large is the team? Right now it looks like it's just you, is that correct?
20:22:24 <ttx> jeblair: I'm slightly worried that zigo will ragequit and not do it upstream since the others don't want to play in the same sandbox
20:22:25 <flaper87> I honestly would prefer to give it some time to mature before approving the project
20:22:34 <ttx> but then we can retire the team I guess
20:22:46 <sdague> well, do we need an update on the scope of the proposal? Maybe that becomes more clear. I think even if it's just a debian effort for some tools, doing it our collab framework is nice
20:22:51 <flaper87> lets let them figure things out and come back with a stronger (or just clearer) proposal
20:22:53 <zigo> AJaeger: At the end of the month, I hope it's going to be others from Mirantis too, but for the moment, yeah, just me.
20:22:59 <jeblair> sdague: ++
20:23:10 <flaper87> sdague: that's what I'd like to see clarified in the proposal
20:23:11 <sdague> I really don't want to do the magnum thing and have four  months of stall because of a namespace decision
20:23:22 <sdague> because that's silly
20:23:37 <zigo> FYI, I had the project to do packaging in upstream infra since a long time ago.
20:23:38 <adrian_otto> sdague: +1
20:23:45 <ttx> sdague: right, which is wjy I offer we create the repo anyway
20:23:49 <zigo> Monty can confirm we had such a discussion back in Atlanta.
20:24:07 <zigo> I *never* give-up, I'm obstinated ! :)
20:24:08 <flaper87> I think having the repo as a TC (or provisional) repo is fine
20:24:27 <flaper87> The problem is not the repo/namespace (or it shouldn't be)
20:24:30 <sdague> so, here's the thing, zigo has been around for a while, and hasn't rage quit yet, even when we've given him some reasons to :)
20:24:43 <flaper87> if that doesn't work out well (which I doubt), then fine
20:24:47 <ttx> jeblair: prefer stackforge or openstack-provisionally-under-TC-attached-repos ?
20:24:49 <sdague> so I'm happy that if we have a more concrete and narrowly scoped proposal to put it in openstack and let it be a thing
20:24:59 <ttx> sdague: yeah, me too
20:25:11 <jeblair> let's do that
20:25:19 <jaypipes> ++
20:25:20 <flaper87> woohhhooo
20:25:28 <fungi> thank you for not planning a 200+ repo rename ;)
20:25:29 <zigo> \o/
20:25:29 <markmcclain> +1
20:25:38 <dhellmann> ++
20:25:42 <zigo> fungi: It wont be that much, I've listed about 120 only! :)
20:25:43 <ttx> I'm fine with a narrowly-scoped team that says "zigo and friends will do Debian" -- I was just skeptical of "all distros will collaborate together here"
20:25:49 <sdague> zigo: ok, so by next week, please have a proposal revision
20:25:49 <fungi> last weekend't 61 repo rename was plenty painful
20:25:51 <AJaeger> zigo: 120 for now ;)
20:25:57 <zigo> fungi: And to begin with, it's going to be a lot less.
20:26:10 * dhellmann hopes they are all named consistently
20:26:19 <zigo> I'll start slowly, and see how it goes...
20:26:22 <flaper87> dhellmann: ++
20:26:24 <AJaeger> ttx: The extra time helped to figure out that Deb + RPM really are too different for one team...
20:26:35 <flaper87> zigo: updates on the progress are really appreciated
20:26:44 <jaypipes> "Zigo and Friends" sounds like a new Saturday morning cartoon that would come on after Spongebob Squarepants.
20:26:44 <fungi> i'm not concerned by the number of repos, just needing to rename them all from stackforge to openstack at some point, so starting in openstack sounds good to me ;)
20:26:49 <jeblair> zigo: talk to the rpm folks too to agree on a compatible repo naming scheme
20:27:05 <ttx> zigo: if you rework your proposal while we discuss another topic, we could pick it up at the end of this meeting and collect early approvals on it
20:27:15 <zigo> dhellmann: It's going to be github.com/something/deb-<package-name> as per the name of packages at https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=openstack-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
20:27:29 <jeblair> sounds good
20:27:36 <jeblair> wonder what the rpm folks use?
20:27:41 <dhellmann> that looks pretty clear
20:27:51 <ttx> jeblair: next week topic I guess
20:27:56 <flaper87> no idea
20:28:07 <AJaeger> jeblair: Debian: cinder, RDO/SUSE: openstack-cinder
20:28:33 <zigo> AJaeger is correct, so it wont be the same repo names.
20:28:35 <jeblair> right, but will the packaging repos end up being 'rpm-openstack-cinder' or something?
20:28:37 <ttx> ok, let's move on and wait for the narrowly-scoped proposal to appear
20:28:45 <sdague> ttx: ++
20:28:47 <ttx> #topic Add Solum to OpenStack Projects List
20:28:47 <zigo> jeblair: I believe so.
20:28:57 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/190949
20:29:14 <ttx> Had two questions, posted them on the review
20:29:35 <ttx> 1/ I had the impression this was slowly losing steam, I guess mostly because I saw Adran focused on Magnum and dual-PTLing
20:29:43 <adrian_otto> jogo had raised a concern about IRC logging. The channel has been logged since day one in 2013 at https://botbot.me/freenode/solum/ and the meeting topic announces that.
20:29:49 <sdague> fyi - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180112/5 is revised (the compute starter kit update with production ready removed and typos fixed)
20:29:58 <jeblair> adrian_otto: it would be good to add solum to the openstack irc bots
20:30:00 <ttx> sdague: will pick it up at eom
20:30:08 <adrian_otto> ttx, the developer activity level is healty, but the externally visible PTL outputs are lower because of split focus.
20:30:14 <dhellmann> adrian_otto: do you object to having it logged along with the other openstack channels?
20:30:23 <adrian_otto> dhellmann: not at all,
20:30:30 <adrian_otto> I'm happy to switch it
20:30:37 <ttx> adrian_otto: do you have plans for succesion planning ?
20:30:44 <dhellmann> I wouldn't mind both, but adding openstack is a pre-req
20:30:54 <lifeless> ttx: did you just ask for plans about plans...
20:30:58 <lifeless> ttx: METAPLAN
20:31:08 <ttx> lifeless: maybe it's early for you, but here it's late !
20:31:12 <sdague> on the solum thing, the only thing that stuck out to me was I wonder if we have a diverse_team:danger_will_robinson tag, because stackalytics for liberty is ... pretty mono culture
20:31:24 <lifeless> ttx: oh its late for my brain today. CANNOT BRAIN
20:31:25 <adrian_otto> yes, I plan to serve the current term through Liberty, and we can welcome a new leader at the next election if I need to continue focusing on Magnum
20:31:34 <jeblair> oh, i think we're only missing eavesdrop; the other bots are there
20:31:37 <jeblair> won't be a problem.
20:31:48 <ttx> 2/ I still have qualms about squarely adding a PaaS project to OpenStack, big tent or not
20:31:49 <j^2> I’d like to say that I’ve always like the project Solum, i just wish it got more development and eyes on
20:31:52 <adrian_otto> or we can transplant the role to a successor if the team feels they need it
20:31:56 <ttx> but I think I may be in minority there
20:31:59 <dougwig> adrian_otto: just have people go all game of thrones over the position.
20:32:15 <sdague> ttx: yeh, for me, scope is not a concern, if there are people working on it
20:32:17 <adrian_otto> dougwig: ;-)
20:32:32 <sdague> it feels cloud scope, even if it's at the top end of our current function stack
20:32:32 <datsun180b> so which one of us is Stannis?
20:32:35 <ttx> sdague: right, fits the "vaguely related to openstack mission" enough
20:32:43 <dhellmann> sdague: I concur with the diversity concern, but we've removed that requirement for new projects
20:33:08 <sdague> dhellmann: right, we've removed it, I just wonder if we should have a 3rd tier in our tag
20:33:23 <sdague> where something is over 90% a single org
20:33:29 <datsun180b> we've (read: adrian) has been working hard to clean up our tasks and make it easier to see what is a ground-floor bug and what isn't in LP
20:33:29 <ttx> dhellmann, sdague: about the diversity:danger, I think it's more a data point that the project is losing steam, rather than a reason for exclusion
20:33:35 <dhellmann> sdague: ah, like an explicit "not diverse" tag?
20:33:42 <sdague> because that's a very dangerous place for a project to be
20:33:51 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh
20:33:54 <ttx> hence my question
20:34:24 <dhellmann> yes, not so many commits this cycle, either
20:34:34 <adrian_otto> dhellmann: we productized it
20:34:34 <zaneb> http://stackalytics.com/?project_type=stackforge&module=solum-group&metric=commits&release=kilo <- so this is probably the relevant graph to look at
20:34:42 <ttx> adrian_otto: would you say the project is rackspace-only at this point ? or it's just an unfortunate stats for start-of-liberty that shall correct itself ?
20:34:45 <dhellmann> adrian_otto: I'm not sure what you mean by that
20:34:52 <adrian_otto> so it's now the basis of a production cloud service that's coming to market
20:34:56 <flaper87> adrian_otto: do you think the above is something that'll change later this cycle?
20:35:14 <sdague> ttx: right, again, I wouldn't exclude solum for that. But I'd like it to trigger a conversation about 3rd tag state on diversity
20:35:26 <adrian_otto> so the activity level needed to integrate it with a public cloud will be redirected back upstream post launch
20:35:28 <flaper87> fungi: has 5 commits there
20:35:29 <adrian_otto> since that work is done
20:35:48 <jeblair> fungi is a machine.
20:35:57 <flaper87> jeblair: ++
20:36:18 <jeblair> well, a script, actually.
20:36:24 <fungi> i suppose so
20:36:34 <ttx> ok so.. looks like there aren't so many questions, we just need to collect votes
20:36:34 <fungi> literally
20:36:41 <flaper87> if we solve the 3rd tag state that sdague mentioned, I'd be comfortable with getting it in
20:36:52 <flaper87> but that shouldn't block solum
20:36:57 <fungi> i can personally guarantee my commits there are exceedingly trivial ;)
20:37:04 * flaper87 just contradicted himself
20:37:08 <sdague> heh
20:37:13 <ttx> fungi: which makes it even, more a rax-only show
20:37:14 * flaper87 no brain power
20:37:58 <sdague> so summary, +1, though I'd feel better with my +1 if there was a PTL election now, because the current PTL has said they don't have time for the project
20:38:04 <ttx> Alright, I think we can move on, will take some time to add votes to it, given the low attendance
20:38:09 <lifeless> sdague: +1
20:38:38 <adrian_otto> sdague: the team should decide what's working for them
20:38:44 <ttx> right, I like the idea of having projects relatively healthy at the time of their addition
20:39:01 <adrian_otto> look at the blueprint list and bug list. It's totally up to date.
20:39:16 <datsun180b> and it's ^ his fault primarily
20:39:40 <dhellmann> adrian_otto: the ptl role is an interface to the rest of the projects, though, and part of being an official project is making sure those responsibilities are being fulfilled. It's not all about internal leadership.
20:39:48 <adrian_otto> but there was a time while I was getting magnum ready for launch where I was less involved that I have been in recent weeks
20:40:00 <dhellmann> that's not to say you're not doing a good job, just that it becomes more than the team's needs now
20:40:25 <adrian_otto> dhellmann: fair enough. My suggestion is try it, and if it's not working, I can abdicate to a successor.
20:40:48 <ttx> ok, let's move on
20:40:58 <dhellmann> so that's 2 things we'd have to take on faith: team diversity and PTL capacity and energy
20:41:07 <ttx> will take some time to get to enough votes to pass anyway
20:41:23 * flaper87 will bring this back to the review
20:41:32 <ttx> dhellmann: maybe add those to the review for reference ?
20:41:44 <dhellmann> ttx: doing that now
20:41:52 * flaper87 will let dhellmann do it
20:42:02 <jeblair> dhellmann: well, we don't have to take diversity on faith, we know it's not diverse
20:42:02 <flaper87> :P
20:42:14 <ttx> back to the future...
20:42:16 <ttx> #topic Add compute starter kit tag
20:42:24 <ttx> sdague posted new revision
20:42:31 <ttx> time to follow up those +1 promises
20:42:42 <jeblair> this is more like groundhog day
20:42:46 <ttx> "up on those" I guess would be better
20:43:14 <dhellmann> jeblair: I meant that it will increase
20:43:31 <sdague> dhellmann: the promiss is the activity will increase
20:43:42 <ttx> dhellmann: I'm not sure we have a promise on diversity increase -- and I guess that's fine
20:43:43 <dhellmann> sdague: right, that's what we're taking on faith
20:43:45 <sdague> the diversity will actually go down, because it's all rax product folks
20:43:55 <ttx> but I agree that critical levels of non-diversity could make up a good tag
20:43:56 <jeblair> dhellmann: right; i'm not sure it will.  i'm not sure i would say we should vote on it expecting that.
20:44:08 <sdague> though, it's currently 99% on commits and 100% on reviews, so it can't really get worse
20:44:27 * fungi enjoys being the 1% anomaly everywhere
20:44:37 <sdague> fungi: you aren't the 1% in liberty :)
20:44:38 <ttx> I propose we move on to WG reports while we colect votes on the tag
20:44:40 <flaper87> I can work on a proposal for the "spartans" tag
20:44:50 <fungi> sdague: oh, even better!
20:45:02 <ttx> #topic Project team guide workgroup report
20:45:10 <ttx> Remember we'll have a virtual sprint on Thursday-Friday to jumpstart this
20:45:18 <ttx> (I have a few meetings 1400-1700 on the Thursday but otherwise will be around on channel)
20:45:25 <flaper87> I'll participate on Thursday but I'll be flying on Friday
20:45:35 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/VirtualSprints#OpenStack_Project_Team_Guide
20:45:41 <ttx> The openstack/project-team-guide repo is now ready for use, thanks to jeblair
20:45:57 <ttx> I may cheat and work on the intro tomorrow
20:46:02 <jeblair> did we decide where to publish it?
20:46:21 <ttx> jeblair: not really.
20:46:39 <flaper87> from the communication WG, I think we should hold-off until next week when we'll have more things to share
20:46:40 <jeblair> (we have docs-draft builds working, so we'll be able to see it rendered in review during the sprint; so this isn't urgent)
20:46:40 <ttx> jeblair: I assumed it could live under governance.o.o but I have no strong opinion on that
20:46:52 <ttx> #topic Communications workgroup report
20:47:06 <ttx> flaper87: that's what you said next week though ?
20:47:10 <jeblair> ttx: okay, i'll work on publishing it there
20:47:12 <ttx> arh *last* week
20:47:13 <flaper87> last week there weren't any posts
20:47:21 <flaper87> and I think we'll hold off until next week
20:47:45 <flaper87> Since we'll have more to talk about
20:47:54 <flaper87> unless there are things you guys would like ot communicate
20:47:59 <ttx> flaper87: true that we only have partial decisions today so far
20:48:08 <flaper87> yeah, not worth it, IMHO
20:48:28 <flaper87> I can start workin on a draft and avoid having it published on friday
20:48:39 <flaper87> At least with the initial contents from today's meeting
20:48:42 <flaper87> that's about it
20:48:46 <ttx> though we could pass the starter-kit tag with sdague, dhellmann and jeblair's votes
20:48:54 * markmcclain has to step out from meeting
20:49:00 <ttx> and markmcclain
20:49:21 <sdague> ttx: right, but I really would feel uncomfortable about that
20:49:24 <flaper87> although that's true, I'd also appreciate other folks comments
20:49:40 <lifeless> ttx: you also have mine, unless gerrit barfed
20:49:44 <dhellmann> sdague: what's the plan for this new tag? is it your intent to use this in any way to build other tags, or in any other way change the relationship between projects at the TC level or for governance in some way?
20:49:45 <sdague> I think we should give this the week, and get as many TC members to voice their opinions on there.
20:49:55 <ttx> sdague: OK, i'll keep it alive until next week
20:50:07 <ttx> #topic Other workgroups
20:50:19 <ttx> Any other workgroup (or workgroup embryo) wanting to report ?
20:50:32 <lifeless> architecture - mark and I haven't synced up yet; this week I have been super distracted by cynthias tonsillectomy
20:50:38 <sdague> dhellmann: my intent is that we can use this as a common set of language for new folks coming in about where to start.
20:50:49 * ttx looks up words
20:50:49 <lifeless> \everything\ gets hard during that
20:50:55 <lifeless> ttx: removal of tonsils
20:51:10 * ttx looks up more words
20:51:12 <lifeless> ttx: big spongy things in throat that help immune system for first couple years
20:51:19 <dhellmann> sdague: ok. I would object to using this to make any project more special than any other in the overall tent, but if it's just documentation then I can put aside my assertion that it should live in a documentation repository.
20:51:22 <lifeless> ttx: also a related set in the back of the nose
20:51:28 <ttx> lifeless: sounds painful enough.
20:51:46 <lifeless> ttx: yeah. cut out and cauterised. 10 day recovery
20:51:59 <sdague> dhellmann: I'm hoping that the new language explains that well enough, if not, let me know where you think there needs to be clarity
20:52:40 <ttx> Alright, anyone else?
20:52:46 <dhellmann> sdague: the current language is clear, but I'm frankly worried about it because of all of the past drafts. I don't want us to ever have a requirement that a project must have this tag in order to get something from the community, for example.
20:53:00 <dougwig> sdague: to some degree, it doesn't matter on the wording, but rather how it's received/used.  note how 'core' has taken on a meaning entirely different from anything written down.
20:53:17 <sdague> dougwig: sure, and I do understand that
20:53:48 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:53:56 <sdague> but as I hopefully layed out, without this we're loosing getting a bunch of folks through the door. I'm hoping this makes an easy door to get them inside, so they can understand all the cool stuff in OpenStack
20:54:10 <ttx> Remember we are still looking for volunteers to chair the cross-project meeting:
20:54:14 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/CrossProjectMeeting#Chair_rotation
20:54:21 <krotscheck> I have updates to the CORS specification from last week, as requested-> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/189924/
20:54:22 <ttx> I wrote a "meeting chair guide" to help the volunteers, it's at the same URL ^^
20:54:33 <ttx> Nobody nominated for this week so I'll do it. Would be nice to have a volunteer for next week, though
20:54:39 <ttx> Anyone ?
20:55:22 <ttx> ...
20:55:24 <SlickNik> ttx: I can do it next week — let me sign up on the wiki.
20:55:32 <ttx> SlickNik wins!
20:55:37 <ttx> thx
20:55:41 <sdague> cross project meeting starts cutting into dinner / family time in this TZ, so not it
20:55:47 <ttx> Also: The M naming poll is under way.
20:55:55 <ttx> I won't be *that* person and complain my favorite option was unfairly excluded by evil poll organizers :)
20:56:09 <lifeless> yeah, this is also time for me to do C -> kindy
20:56:37 <jeblair> ttx: i have a change up to address that: https://review.openstack.org/191974
20:56:51 <ttx> jeblair: I saw that.
20:57:02 <ttx> jeblair: which is why I tease.
20:57:56 <ttx> About meetign time -- we could in theory move it to another slot. I just don't look forward working late at nights *two* nights per week
20:59:13 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
20:59:14 * dhellmann would be open to a morning meeting if that makes anything easier for lifeless & ttx
20:59:40 <ttx> dhellmann: it's not totally crazy to rotate the cross-project meeting
20:59:52 <dhellmann> ttx: oh, I was even talking about the tc meeting
20:59:53 <lifeless> ttx and I are the two corners of a triangle
20:59:54 <flaper87> and me
20:59:57 <lifeless> dhellmann: is the third
21:00:03 <lifeless> nothing can make it easier for both of us at once ;)
21:00:09 * dhellmann straightens out his pointy hat
21:00:11 <flaper87> lifeless: :(
21:00:18 <ttx> tc is a harder thing. We tried and failed. I'm fine with where it stands now
21:00:21 <lifeless> flaper87: we both live in the best place in the world
21:00:28 <lifeless> flaper87: don't feel too sorry :)
21:00:30 * flaper87 thinks we should all move to NZ (or move lifeless to EU)
21:00:42 <ttx> alright time is up
21:00:44 <nikhil_k> Blacksburg is awesome too
21:00:46 <ttx> #endmeeting