20:02:00 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:02:01 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Nov 10 20:02:00 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:02:02 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:02:05 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:02:05 <ttx> Hi everyone
20:02:15 <ttx> Long agenda for today, a bit of backlog accumulated over the last weeks:
20:02:19 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:02:24 <ttx> Let's start
20:02:29 <ttx> #topic Add senlin project to big tent
20:02:34 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/235172
20:02:38 <ttx> Do we have anyone from the project ?
20:03:07 <ttx> We have enough approvals to approve this now, any questions ?
20:03:10 <dhellmann> it seems like we have a glut of orchestration-related projects
20:03:11 <jruano> i'm here as a rep for senlin. qiming should be here as well
20:03:12 * edleafe is tempted to drink it, but sees it's 2pm...
20:03:22 <ttx> I'm not sure I totally understand what a "generic clustering service" does, wouldn't mind a quick explanation
20:03:23 <dhellmann> edleafe : convert to UTC
20:03:34 <flaper87> edleafe: what dhellmann said
20:03:35 <flaper87> :D
20:03:37 <krotscheck> o/
20:03:40 <edleafe> dhellmann: :)
20:03:42 <flaper87> ttx: ++
20:03:57 <flaper87> I went through the wiki a bit but a clear explaination wouldn't hurt
20:04:01 <ttx> jruano: do you have an elevator pitch for what Senlin does ?
20:04:05 <dhellmann> jruano : can you explain senlin without using the word "cluster"?
20:04:15 <ttx> or generic, or service
20:04:17 <sdague> orchestration to me seems quite a lot like installation, there are going to be different approaches, that's fine
20:04:31 <dhellmann> sdague : yeah, that wasn't a complaint, just an observation
20:05:02 <dtroyer_zz> This is meant to be a layered service, correct?  And not used by other OpenStack services directly?
20:05:12 <jruano> one sec, qi ming is joining
20:05:21 <dhellmann> it sounded a bit like heat, except it seems to drive heat
20:05:32 <jruano> when we talk about "cluster" it is more so an aggregation, or grouping
20:05:49 <russellb> i have a hard time wrapping my head around 9 +1s on the project, but the discussion here is "so what is this project again?"
20:06:07 <edleafe> russellb: I was thinking the same thing
20:06:17 <Qiming> sorry for being late, was trapped in another meeting
20:06:33 <dhellmann> russellb : I don't see anything *wrong* I'm just observing that their language is vague enough that potential users might not understand what they are building
20:06:34 <russellb> not necessarily calling for specific action ... just an observation, i guess.
20:06:35 <Qiming> basically, it was started as a autoscaling-service (ASS) :)
20:06:43 <ttx> what dhellmann said
20:06:49 <mestery> russellb: +1
20:06:56 <Qiming> but we soon found out that it is really about a clutering thing
20:07:06 <sdague> russellb: agreed :) my +1 is lets go for it. If people want to hold for discussion, that is kind of what the -1 vote is for
20:07:14 <Qiming> create and manage groups of homogeneous objects (heat stacks, nova severs) etc.
20:07:49 <dhellmann> Qiming : can you explain how that's different from murano or heat? is it the fact that it manages a group of things?
20:08:00 <Qiming> an 'array' data type for programing openstack cloud
20:08:07 <dhellmann> heh, ok
20:08:11 <ttx> ok, that makes sense :)
20:08:24 <ttx> Alright, other questions ?
20:08:31 <ttx> otherwise I'll approve now
20:08:39 <dhellmann> wfm, let's go
20:09:07 <ttx> Alright, you're in.
20:09:22 <ttx> Qiming: I really liked your Tokyo meetup summary on the ML, btw
20:09:40 <Qiming> thanks guys, we are still open to any suggestions/comments
20:09:41 <ttx> gave me confidence you had a good grip on scope and feature vs. maturity
20:09:41 <dhellmann> sdague : on a procedural note, I hope it's not required to vote -1 to ask questions or have a discussion about something
20:09:56 <ttx> moving on...
20:10:00 <ttx> #topic Freezer application to join the Big Tent
20:10:04 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/239668
20:10:08 <ttx> Anyone from Freezer ?
20:10:11 <daemontool> re: Freezer I'm here just in case any clarification  is needed
20:10:26 <ttx> here the jury still sounds out
20:10:36 <ttx> OK, so my initial take on this one is that it's a bit young (especially in using only logged IRC discussions)
20:10:41 <ttx> But I could easily be convinced otherwise, Fausto's answers have been satisfying
20:10:47 <ttx> And they streamlined the licensing
20:10:49 <dhellmann> my only quibble here is on the mission wording, so if we want to add the project and iterate on that it's fine with me
20:11:14 <ttx> sure we can iterate on the mission wording if it's not 100% there
20:11:22 <ttx> Does anyone have questions for daemontool ?
20:11:41 <daemontool> :)
20:11:47 <flaper87> I don't. daemontool has been diligent and he has addressed most of the concerns on the review
20:11:59 <flaper87> I think maturity from a community perspective will grow
20:12:02 <sdague> yeh, it also seems like the mission might evolve as it matures, because it is kind of a new area and you discover some things as you go
20:12:12 <dhellmann> daemontool : did my most recent comments on the mission statement make sense?
20:12:28 <daemontool> dhellmann,  I think they make sense
20:12:33 <sdague> so fixing mission either in pre / post merge is fine by me
20:12:39 <flaper87> if there's something that can be addressed during the meeting, it'd be cool
20:12:51 <dhellmann> k, I'll +1 and we'll see where we stand on votes and I can work with daemontool on wording
20:12:56 <flaper87> I'm fine with +1'ing it now or after a new patchset
20:13:03 <daemontool> perfect :)
20:14:00 <ttx> ok, still a couple votes short
20:14:26 <jeblair> +1
20:14:36 <memogarcia> +1
20:14:59 <ttx> ok, it has majority now
20:15:03 <ttx> and no objection
20:15:11 <ttx> Will approve now unless someone screams
20:16:32 <ttx> ok approved
20:16:53 <ttx> daemontool: please work with dhellmann on polishing the mission statement
20:17:11 <ttx> #topic Added JavaScript to Common Testing Interface
20:17:13 <daemontool> brilliant, will do, thanks a lot :)
20:17:16 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/232756
20:17:23 <ttx> krotscheck: o/
20:17:27 <ttx> Feels like the latest rev addresses all the concerns posted so far
20:17:27 <krotscheck> ohai
20:17:37 <flaper87> and it's 9 votes
20:17:48 <ttx> right, approving now unless there is something to discuss ?
20:18:19 <ttx> "bower, gulp, grunt, *sigh*" Approved
20:18:29 <ttx> #topic Introduce assert:supports-upgrade and assert:supports-rolling-upgrade tags
20:18:33 <krotscheck> Woot!
20:18:35 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/239771
20:18:39 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/239778
20:18:45 <ttx> I think these are great maturity assertions and can't wait to see them in
20:19:03 <ttx> any last-minute comment ?
20:19:13 <ttx> FWIW I plan to engage with project teams on the assert:* tags so that they are aware of them
20:19:24 <flaper87> ttx: ++
20:19:26 <ttx> Before those are published on the project navigator and become embarassing to projects that should have asserted them
20:19:26 <russellb> i think they're a very nice addition.
20:19:36 <sdague> yep, nice job dansmith
20:19:40 <russellb> i have a feeling we might need a way to add some attributes
20:19:40 <dansmith> \o/
20:19:47 <russellb> but we can deal with it later
20:19:57 <sdague> yeh, this seems like a very reasonable stake in the ground
20:19:58 <russellb> and project docs might be enough
20:20:00 <ttx> quick and smooth, approved
20:20:04 <dhellmann> russellb : yeah, we used to have tag attributes
20:20:07 <dansmith> woohoo, thanks!
20:20:23 <ttx> #topic Add Fuel to OpenStack Projects
20:20:28 <russellb> dhellmann: could just be an attribute that says "see this page for project docs that go into detail about the upgrade procedure / caveats / limitations / whatever"
20:20:29 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/199232
20:20:33 <russellb> moving on :)
20:20:39 <russellb> dansmith: thanks for pushing that
20:20:43 <dhellmann> russellb : exactly what I was thinking
20:20:49 <ttx> anyone from Fuel around ?
20:20:52 <angdraug> I'm here
20:20:57 <ttx> angdraug: o/
20:21:11 <ttx> looking at current state of votes
20:21:21 <ttx> Looks like we still have two -2s
20:21:22 <sdague> so I -1ed https://review.openstack.org/199232 just until the 7 tests get over, which seem like they are in progress. I'm +1 once those are in.
20:21:45 <angdraug> do we really need to hold until that's done?
20:22:06 <ttx> I'm fine trusting them on delivering those (and if they don't remove them)
20:22:19 <jeblair> i think the multinode thing is unclear -- are you working with anyone from infra on that?
20:22:28 <angdraug> having gates is of tremendous value to our project, no reason to remove them
20:22:30 <dhellmann> it sounds like everything we've asked for is in progress, right?
20:22:33 <jeblair> because we *can* run multinode tests, however, we can't run test on specialized hardware.
20:22:42 <jaypipes> dhellmann: or done already, yes.
20:22:45 <dhellmann> angdraug : I think ttx meant remove fuel from official status if the tests don't materialize
20:22:56 <flaper87> I don't think we need to hold them off on that, if there's work in progress and reviewable things up
20:22:57 <dhellmann> jaypipes : k
20:22:57 <sdague> I think multinode is out of scope
20:22:59 <ttx> yes, what dhellmann says
20:23:05 <dhellmann> sdague : agreed
20:23:06 <jeblair> sdague: why?
20:23:07 <sdague> it needs a lot more generic work
20:23:16 <jeblair> we have multinode tests for nova and neutron
20:23:17 * flaper87 +1'd
20:23:24 <sdague> jeblair: they aren't voting
20:23:26 <angdraug> dhellmann: ttx: got it, sounds fair to me :)
20:23:38 <sdague> there are no currently binding multinode jobs
20:23:56 <jeblair> sdague: that's not because we lack the ability to run the jobs, it's because the jobs themselves aren't ready
20:23:58 <sdague> ttx: I'm fine flipping to +1 under your condition
20:24:14 <angdraug> there's a lot of expectations about multi-node environments wired into fuel-qa
20:24:19 <flaper87> sdague: I think current +1's are under that condition
20:24:26 <flaper87> at least mine is for sure
20:24:28 <jeblair> what i'm concerned about is whether there is effert to work with and improve upstream testing
20:24:47 <jeblair> rather than "meet minimum requirements of PTI"
20:25:01 <angdraug> jeblair: I think the +1 from EmilienM is a good confirmation that we are willing to work with other projects
20:25:23 <ttx> yeah, I think if they suddenly stop currently-started alignment efforts we should definitely revise our decision.
20:25:29 <ttx> That's valid for every project out there
20:25:29 <lifeless> hi, sorry I've been afk - electrician here; and now power is being cut off :(
20:25:39 <dhellmann> jeblair : what ttx said
20:25:47 <flaper87> lifeless: :(
20:25:51 <jeblair> angdraug: that's great, but where's the work on closing the gaps on the more complex tests?
20:26:11 <lifeless> flaper87: occupational risk of working from home :) Mostly a net win :)
20:26:33 <angdraug> jeblair: give us time, please
20:26:53 <angdraug> let us finish the conversion from Fuel CI to openstack gates first
20:27:09 <flaper87> jeblair: hypothetically, how much longer would it take for them to complete that work?
20:27:12 <jeblair> i'm happy to give you time.  i'm being asked not to give you time.  :)
20:27:27 <jaypipes> jeblair: how so?
20:27:40 <flaper87> I think Fuel has been held of long enough and they've addressed most of our concerns. The missing ones are WIP, AFAICT
20:27:43 <jeblair> jaypipes: i'm being asked to approve inclusion now.  i'm happy to delay inclusion.
20:27:48 <flaper87> off*
20:27:59 <angdraug> right now, fuel-qa uses fuel-devops to provision virtual nodes, which works directly on top of libvirt
20:28:04 <jaypipes> jeblair: oh, sorry, misunderstood you :)
20:28:11 <angdraug> going from that to nodepool is a major rewrite of lots of bits
20:28:31 <ttx> anyway, still a couple votes short
20:28:51 <sdague> personally it feels odd to hold fuel to a bar higher than other projects about the multinode work in upstream. As someone that's done a good chunk of multinode upstream work, I don't think it's fair to hold up new teams behind having to integrate with that in current state.
20:28:52 <ttx> anyone else besides jeblair with unaddressed concerns ?
20:29:08 <jeblair> sdague: there are still fuel projects running only noop jobs.
20:29:31 <sdague> is this the 7 jobs?
20:29:36 <angdraug> yes
20:29:39 <sdague> or is there something beyond that?
20:30:05 <angdraug> and 6 jobs for new repos we've created last week
20:30:17 <angdraug> which already have non-voting gate jobs
20:30:23 <angdraug> we just need to finish testing them and enable
20:30:46 <angdraug> that's it
20:31:01 <sdague> angdraug: right, and you said a few weeks to complete that, right?
20:31:04 <angdraug> yes
20:31:11 <ttx> russellb, mestery, annegentle, lifeless, mordred, dtroyer, markmcclain: any question left ?
20:31:15 <jeblair> sdague: and i'm not asking for complete work on the multinode thing, just the start of some interaction, because i think today, there's very little understanding across teams on this
20:31:22 <angdraug> end of year deadline gives us enough buffer time for unforeseen complications
20:31:48 <flaper87> it looks like this will have to wait another week as there are not enough votes
20:32:02 <flaper87> we should perhaps move on and continue the discussion on the review
20:32:13 <ttx> right, i'll check the votes on this one at the end and see
20:32:18 <markmcclain> ttx: honestly I'm on the fence and would personally like to see the inflight work completed
20:32:20 <sdague> jeblair: I definitely agree there is very little understanding across teams, started chatting with clarkb about that today. But I think that is a broader thing, because I don't think we've made a reasonable discussion space for that as of yet
20:32:30 <ttx> markmcclain: that is fair
20:32:41 <sdague> it's been a lot of scatter shot, which we need to make better
20:32:45 <markmcclain> ttx: otherwise I do think the projects fits within out mission
20:32:54 <ttx> Alright, let's shelve this for a few minutes
20:33:03 <ttx> #topic Other changes
20:33:09 <ttx> * Limit type:service to user-facing services
20:33:13 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/242124
20:33:23 <ttx> that one is ready, will approve now
20:33:25 <flaper87> what's up with monasca ?
20:33:31 <ttx> next topic
20:33:34 <flaper87> kk
20:33:42 <ttx> we should have time to cover it
20:33:48 <ttx> * Provides links in the charter to the list of projects
20:33:52 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/241424
20:34:01 <ttx> This one is technically a charter change, even if it's a minimal one... So we might want to have 2/3 approvers (9)
20:34:01 <flaper87> you did say "time permitting"... flaper87 stfu
20:34:16 <ttx> and we have them now, approving
20:34:25 <ttx> * Update deprecation policy for changes not in coordinated releases
20:34:29 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/242117
20:34:35 <ttx> This change clarifies what the policy means for intermediary-released services like Ironic
20:34:45 <ttx> Note that it doesn't affect projects which already asserted this, since those are all cycle-with-milestones currently
20:35:03 <ttx> Looks like that one could use a few more iterations though
20:35:15 <ttx> let's table it until next week
20:35:20 <ttx> * Rename Ceilometer projects to Telemetry
20:35:25 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/240809
20:35:37 <sdague> so, some times with things like https://review.openstack.org/242117 - it's helped with more words, and examples
20:35:53 <sdague> because I feel that in the effort to condense those things, it gets more confusing
20:36:05 <ttx> sdague: agreed
20:36:05 <russellb> feels like deja vu back to the days of programs
20:36:13 <russellb> (the ceilometer change that is)
20:36:41 <ttx> russellb: yeah there is a bit of that
20:36:51 <dhellmann> naming things is hard
20:36:54 <russellb> indeed
20:37:13 <ttx> I'm fine with the change though, even if it seems to assert ownership of a territory
20:37:14 <jaypipes> grunt, gulp, bower *sigh*
20:37:22 <ttx> as long as we all know that's not the case
20:37:27 <russellb> seems fine ... most projects identify with their primary deliverable ... this one isn't as clear and deserves a different name
20:37:28 <russellb> wfm
20:37:47 <ttx> ok, approving, unless someone screams. We can always change it /again/
20:37:55 <flaper87> ttx: lol
20:38:10 <russellb> i think we've sailed past projects claiming territory for the most part, except maybe at the very bottom of the stack
20:38:17 <edleafe> Teleceilometry
20:38:27 <ttx> I'll keep the last ("Rejecting other deferred project applications ?") for open discussion
20:38:34 <ttx> #topic Adding Monasca to OpenStack
20:38:39 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/213183
20:38:44 <ttx> Anyone from Monasca around ?
20:38:46 <rhochmuth> o/
20:38:53 <ddieterl_> o/
20:38:58 <rbrndt> o/
20:39:02 <mhop> o/
20:39:13 <ddieterly> o/
20:39:15 <flaper87> I saw sdague approved the test job
20:39:19 <flaper87> I'm good with that
20:39:35 <sdague> it is experimental only, but it's a start
20:39:48 <flaper87> sdague: yup
20:39:57 <ttx> Approving this on the same grounds I'm approving Fuel, going in the right direction
20:39:59 <flaper87> same thoughts as for the Fuel case
20:40:04 <dhellmann> yeah, I'm happy with the progress since the last time I looked
20:40:08 <flaper87> ttx: indeed
20:40:09 <ttx> flaper87: get out of my mind!
20:40:22 <jeblair> i'm also satisfied this is going in the right direction
20:40:50 <ttx> Alright, questions? objections?
20:41:13 <ttx> (8 yes, ready to approve)
20:42:07 <ttx> alright, approved
20:42:13 <ttx> rhochmuth: welcome :)
20:42:19 * jaypipes wonders why folks haven't voted on the Fuel proposal but did on the Monasca proposal... :(
20:42:26 <flaper87> rhochmuth: thank you :)
20:42:33 <rhochmuth> thanks everyone
20:42:51 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:43:07 <ttx> First, back on the Fuel review
20:43:37 <ttx> still missing a couple votes.
20:43:40 <jeblair> statements like "this is not required by the pti" concern me.
20:43:41 <flaper87> As I mentioned on the tc m-l, I'll help with automating tags updates but don't expect me to do that by the end of this week
20:43:42 <flaper87> :D
20:43:55 <ttx> * Rejecting deferred project applications
20:44:00 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2015-November/001055.html
20:44:11 <angdraug> jeblair: why? do you think we'll stop at exactly what PTI requires?
20:44:13 <ttx> So my suggestion of assigning TC mentors to track deferred project applications was not very popular
20:44:31 <russellb> i volunteered for one, but it's one i was interested in tracking regardless
20:44:35 <jeblair> angdraug: yes, that statement makes me worry about that.  i hope not.
20:44:38 <angdraug> the reason I've made that statement is that I'm concerned about scope creep for acceptance requirements
20:44:50 <flaper87> FWIW, I liked it and I think it makes sense
20:44:51 <ttx> That means the burden of "resubmitting when ready" should fall on the proposer, which I'm fine with
20:44:52 <flaper87> Some projects need it, others don't
20:45:03 <ttx> But then we should just more clearly reject application changes, so that putting a change back up for review really means "we think we are ready now"
20:45:04 <flaper87> Monasca and Fuel did a great job dealing with the requirements
20:45:08 <angdraug> back in July, there were no objections to declaring multi-node testing a long-term goal
20:45:10 <flaper87> other projects need more guidance
20:45:15 <ttx> So we should Rollcall-1 Compass, Kiloeyes, Kosmos and Juju applications
20:45:30 <ttx> flaper87: sdague thinks it's not a great use of our time
20:45:46 <jeblair> angdraug: i agree, and i still won't block based on that.  but i'd like to see effort and collaboration begin in that direction.
20:45:55 <angdraug> there were two very clear objections: PTI and collaboration with puppet-openstack
20:46:03 <flaper87> yeah, I'm more of a mentoring person, hence my tendency to vote for that kind of "programs"
20:46:13 <flaper87> not saying sdague isn't, btw. :D
20:46:19 <sdague> ttx: well to be specific, I think there are a lot of priorities, and it seems odd to focus on not-yet-openstack instead of openstack projects
20:46:24 <sdague> especially by policy
20:46:28 <jaypipes> sdague: agreed.
20:46:32 <sdague> individuals can do whatever they want
20:46:45 <sdague> russellb helping on a not-yet-openstack project, is totally cool
20:46:58 <sdague> but it shouldn't be expectation set for TC
20:47:02 <angdraug> jeblair: you will see that, but I'd rather not make that an additional requirement for the fuel proposal
20:47:03 <russellb> seeems fair
20:47:05 <jeblair> angdraug: the thing i'd like to be clear is that the goal is that as much as possible is tested in the upstream project infrastructure because it is accessible to all developers and does not rely on a single company's resources.
20:47:06 <flaper87> I don't think we need this to be an expectation
20:47:09 <ttx> sdague: sure but then how do you propose we signal when a project is ready to be reconsidered ? Should we reject the review until it's reproposed ?
20:47:18 <russellb> maybe clearly outlining a way they can reach out for review of particular aspects?
20:47:20 <flaper87> I think this has to be a volunteering job and, it's fine to not have a mentor
20:47:22 <dims> jeblair +1000, that much is very clear
20:47:32 <angdraug> Fuel CI is also accessible to all developers (including its source code)
20:47:37 <russellb> like "you had concerns about this piece, what do you think of our progress?"
20:47:42 <russellb> i  guess just the ML is fine for that kind of thing
20:47:49 <angdraug> I agree that migrating off Mirantis hosted infra is a worthy goal though
20:47:49 <flaper87> I mentioned on that thread that we need to have a better way for folks to reach out
20:47:56 <flaper87> or communicate that better
20:48:02 <flaper87> 800-CALL-THE-TC
20:48:17 <russellb> flaper87: +1
20:48:18 <sdague> ttx: yes, that seems fine, the virtual abandoned reviews seem better to be actually abandoned.
20:48:32 <flaper87> Perhaps, inviting some of these projects to participate in the TC meeting whenever they need guidance
20:48:35 <ttx> russellb: I'm mostly concerned with the mechanics of the submission and the experience for the submitter. Currently it sits in open reviews until something happens and it's put back on the meetin docket
20:48:41 <ttx> (something unspecified)
20:48:49 <russellb> yeah, good point
20:48:50 <dhellmann> flaper87 : I'd rather do it offline, 1:1
20:49:02 <russellb> abandon with a nice comment "this isn't no, never, it's just not yet" seems fine
20:49:11 <ttx> ok so shoudl we abandon  Compass, Kiloeyes, Kosmos and Juju applications now ?
20:49:14 <flaper87> dhellmann: perhaps, but that's some sort of ad-hoc mentoring, isn't it?
20:49:16 <russellb> "please resubmit when you think it's time to re-evaluate progress on the concerns listed"
20:49:18 <dhellmann> ttx, russellb : so let's abandon them with the instructions about next step
20:49:23 <russellb> +1
20:49:23 <ttx> I'm +1 on that
20:49:26 <sdague> +1
20:49:33 <dtroyer_zz> +1
20:49:38 <flaper87> we *almost* did that with Monasca
20:49:40 <jeblair> +1
20:49:42 <flaper87> but without the abandon part
20:49:45 <russellb> and we can even give a TC member the action of writing up that response when we discuss it in meeting and decide that's the response
20:49:52 <dhellmann> flaper87 : yes, and I think that's ok. Projects that are serious about their applications will ask for help. All of the current proposers did.
20:49:53 <flaper87> I think it worked well for them
20:49:59 <ttx> OK, I'll abandon them
20:50:09 <flaper87> dhellmann: yes, I was just pointing out that we've kinda adopted that already
20:50:13 <dhellmann> russellb : yeah, though I think only ttx can actually abandon them
20:50:13 <ttx> unless someone beats me to them
20:50:15 <flaper87> I agree it's fine
20:50:19 <dhellmann> flaper87 : ok
20:50:32 <russellb> dhellmann: ah ok
20:50:56 <ttx> anyone can post a summary of what's expected of them though :)
20:51:01 <flaper87> how many proposals have we rejected that are missing things that are listed in the governance repo?
20:51:07 <dhellmann> ttx: sure
20:51:17 <ttx> Compass, Kiloeyes, Kosmos and Juju
20:51:21 <ttx> flaper87: ^
20:51:37 <flaper87> Does that mean we're not communicating the requirements properly?
20:51:46 <flaper87> I don't think the number is high
20:51:53 <flaper87> just an open question to evaluate our process
20:52:04 * flaper87 will put more thoughts on this
20:52:22 <ttx> On the Fuel review, I think jeblair voiced his opinion and vote. I'm more interested in the members who haven't voted +1 or -1 yet
20:52:23 <dhellmann> flaper87 : it was not clear early on that we wanted things to actually exist when the teams asked for official status, but I think we've fixed that
20:52:29 <jeblair> ttx: thanks
20:53:03 <ttx> markmcclain said he was on the same line as jeblair (even if he didn't express it on the review)
20:53:04 <angdraug> ttx: that would be russellb dtroyer_zz markmcclain based on monasca votes
20:53:16 <flaper87> dhellmann: but that applies to just one of those projects, iirc.
20:53:24 <ttx> and lifeless mordred
20:53:36 <ttx> and annegentle
20:53:43 <dhellmann> flaper87 : I think I saw a comment on the juju review suggesting they create their repos and start work, too.
20:53:43 <sdague> mordred is in a weird TZ today, he was awake before me
20:53:46 <angdraug> mordred: doesn't seem to be around, lifeless mentioned power outage...
20:53:53 <dhellmann> flaper87 : the other was kiloeyes, right?
20:53:57 <flaper87> dhellmann: yes
20:54:01 <dtroyer_zz> re Fuel, I'm just not convinced it fits OpenStack's mission…  we generally have stayed away from being a distro
20:54:17 <angdraug> dtroyer_zz: Fuel is a deployment service, not a distro
20:54:32 <sdague> kiloeyes is a monasca fork by an ibm team, and I agree with mordred's email, it's like 6 commits, it's not a thing
20:54:34 <flaper87> dhellmann: I'll put some thoughts on this and see if I can come up with something. It might be we're done enough but I never trust that kind of statements :D
20:55:03 <dhellmann> flaper87 : ok. I think we have, but I agree it's worth another look.
20:55:14 <ttx> dtroyer: I think we crossed that bridge a long time ago, with Puppet recipes or TripleO
20:55:17 <russellb> i don't have any argument against fuel, but I don't like the idea of approving it when jeblair has reservations on infra stuff.  i'd rather respect that
20:55:48 <dtroyer_zz> ttx: I see those a bit differently, puppet/chef/etc are more of a toolkit than an install/deploy interface
20:55:50 <ttx> russellb: that is fair. Same as markmcclain
20:55:51 <angdraug> ttx: dtroyer_zz: ... or ansible or chef :)
20:55:51 <russellb> ttx: certainly the tripleo case ... i see puppet or chef as a little different, as it's not a full deployment solution ... just some of the supporting bits IMO
20:56:01 <sdague> dtroyer_zz / ttx: OSAD
20:56:12 <dhellmann> jeblair : it's not clear to me whether your objection is "fuel  has refused to do X" or "fuel has not yet done X" or "fuel seems to be indicating they may never do X"
20:56:33 <jeblair> angdraug: i suggested this in #openstack-infra but maybe you didn't see it -- can you start a ml thread or an infra meeting agenda item on what the delta is between what we are able to run upstream and what you need?
20:56:34 * flaper87 thinks is the second one
20:57:03 <angdraug> jeblair: yes, thread on ML sounds like a good start
20:57:13 <angdraug> bookwar: can you take that action?
20:57:30 <bookwar> yes, sure
20:58:02 <ttx> Alright, sounds like it will be back next week
20:58:06 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
20:58:08 <dims> angdraug bookwar let's do both ML and infra meeting
20:58:12 <jeblair> dhellmann: the second plus a little bit of wanting to see that there's effort into more than just the minimum.  fuel chose to run their own ci for even things like pep8, so i'd like to see that they enthusastically value the public project infrastructure.  :)
20:58:36 <dhellmann> jeblair : ack, thanks for clarifying. that's a completely reasonable position
20:58:54 <angdraug> can you sum up the expectations for Fuel for the next round?
20:59:36 <jeblair> angdraug: for me, finish the migration of the low hanging fruit and start a dialog on the more complex jobs.
21:00:08 <ttx> It's just harder for an established project to join than for a brand-new one
21:00:09 <jeblair> angdraug: i do not believe that is a significant expansion from the earlier request.
21:00:16 <angdraug> as I mentioned, I see the latter as a new requirement :(
21:00:18 <ttx> it's weird but it's the case
21:00:49 <russellb> ttx: kinda makes sense too
21:00:59 <ttx> They have to go out of their way to prove they will follow community, while a new project is more easily given the benefit of doubt.
21:01:13 <dims> ttx well said
21:01:15 <ttx> russellb: yes, and I expect other projects might be bitten by that in the future
21:01:25 <russellb> easier to adapt to openstack processes and tools when you have no existing baggage to shuffle
21:01:26 <ttx> It's a consequence of the "are you one of us" approach
21:01:41 <ttx> when you come from a different group, you have to prove more
21:01:43 <flaper87> I think we're out of time
21:01:45 <ttx> yes
21:01:49 <ttx> Thanks everyone
21:01:50 <jaypipes> dtroyer_zz: what is the difference between devstack and Fuel in your mind with regards to "supporting the OpenStack mission"?
21:01:50 <flaper87> that said, I agree with ttx
21:01:59 <ttx> #endmeeting