20:01:37 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:01:37 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Nov 17 20:01:37 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:01:38 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:01:41 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:01:41 <annegentle> o/
20:01:46 <ttx> Hi everyone!
20:01:52 <flaper87> hellooooo
20:01:55 <ttx> Here is our agenda for today:
20:02:03 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:02:15 <ttx> should have some time for open discussion at the end
20:02:20 <ttx> #topic Update deprecation policy for changes not in coordinated releases
20:02:27 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/242117
20:02:35 <ttx> Looks like this is pretty close now.
20:02:45 <ttx> As I said before, it clarifies what the deprecation policy means for intermediary-released projects (before we add any)
20:02:53 <ttx> The latest iteration has clearer wording
20:03:13 <lifeless> ttx: o/
20:03:18 <ttx> I think we can approve it now if people reapply their previous votes
20:03:21 <flaper87> thanks to everyone for working on improving the wording there
20:03:27 <flaper87> and to Jim for baring with us
20:03:32 <jroll> :)
20:03:35 <jroll> words are hard
20:03:38 <flaper87> no objections from me
20:03:40 <flaper87> jroll: no kidding
20:03:50 <mestery> The landslide of +1s roll in!
20:03:52 <dtroyer> that is much better, thanks
20:03:54 <dhellmann> english is hard, let's write python
20:03:57 <russellb> has 8 +1s now
20:04:04 <ttx> Alright, we have a majority now. Will approve in 30 seconds unless someone screams
20:04:17 * flaper87 does the countdown in his head
20:04:20 <lifeless> dhellmann: man, I spent a whole day writing 4 lines of code yesterday. English so easy.
20:04:32 <mordred> o/
20:04:34 <dhellmann> lifeless : heh
20:04:43 <ttx> alright, it's in. Thx jroll for improving on the tag
20:04:52 <jroll> woo, thanks y'all
20:04:52 <ttx> #topic Add team:single-vendor tag
20:05:03 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/218725
20:05:23 <ttx> We have 11 yes on this one, so I'll proceed to approve it unless someone screams
20:05:26 <flaper87> whole bunch of +1s
20:05:33 <russellb> i think where this has landed is a nice compromise on concerns
20:05:34 <russellb> nice work
20:05:38 <mestery> Agreed
20:05:46 <ttx> yeahn thx to jogo for driving most of it
20:05:53 <ttx> approved
20:05:57 <flaper87> and again, baring with us
20:05:59 <flaper87> :D
20:06:11 <ttx> #topic Add Fuel to OpenStack Projects
20:06:12 <jeblair> i +1d but also think it should be single-org -- the application of it to debian seems weird.
20:06:24 <jaypipes> jeblair: ++
20:06:32 <jaypipes> jeblair: I had the same thought
20:06:32 <russellb> agree
20:06:35 <ttx> jeblair: you can propose the wording change now
20:06:45 <ttx> I'm not totally convinced but could change my mind
20:06:50 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/199232
20:06:55 <annegentle> I'd like that wording change jeblair
20:06:59 <ttx> So... I put this one back on the docket this week since we did not come to a final decision (approve or defer) last week due to lack of voters
20:07:09 <ttx> We have one formal NO votes and two formal abstentions in the comments, that leaves 5 unclear positions
20:07:18 <ttx> If we don't have enough YES to approve it, we'll defer it (which now means setting it to abandoned)
20:07:26 <ttx> The group rejecting it should post on the review a list of requirements before they would change their vote
20:07:39 <ttx> (if any)
20:07:48 <lifeless> jaypipes: jeblair: me too
20:07:51 <angdraug> jeblair: have you seen my update from just before the meeting started?
20:08:07 <jeblair> angdraug: just saw that
20:08:09 <ttx> do we have people tat haven't expressed a position yet and would like to ?
20:08:12 <lifeless> more though, the Debian thing isn't 'Debian' working on it; its an openstack vendor
20:08:25 <ttx> lifeless: right, my thoughts
20:08:37 <ttx> but let's wait for the review :)
20:08:50 <ttx> angdraug: link ?
20:08:59 <angdraug> comment on the review you've linked above
20:09:02 <ttx> on the review ? Oh ok
20:09:04 <ttx> reading
20:09:25 <angdraug> in short, we've covered all the remaining gaps that I've listed earlier
20:09:35 <nurla> +1
20:09:59 <angdraug> worked really hard yesterday and today making all the gates work
20:10:01 <jeblair> i'm also happy to see the engagement from the fuel developers about further work.  i think their getting involved is timely considering the changes we're making around zuul, nodepool, and our focus on multinode work
20:10:02 <ttx> mordred: any position on Fuel ?
20:10:28 <annegentle> as a former cross-project PTL myself I appreciate cross-project work :)
20:10:40 <mordred> yah - I'm excited about the stuff from bookwar
20:10:45 <ttx> lifeless: same question
20:10:51 <angdraug> for the record, the thread from bookwar:
20:10:54 <mordred> and I think that collaboration with the fuel team is potentially valuable as we look at multi-node testing
20:11:00 <angdraug> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-November/079284.html
20:11:04 <jeblair> so i'm ready to switch to +1
20:11:21 <angdraug> jeblair: thanks!
20:11:25 <lifeless> ttx: I think we should, *but* jeblair's concerns are significant to me
20:11:46 <mordred> the fuel team being honestly excited to work on the problems with us is the important bit - and it seems that they totally are
20:11:59 <flaper87> mordred: ++
20:12:00 <lifeless> ttx: OTOH no project is perfect, its always an going effort to get better and more efficient and more coverage etc
20:12:01 <mordred> (+1 from me)
20:12:01 <mestery> jeblair's and infra's concerns in general were the reason for my abstaining, if Jim is ok with this, I'm ok with it.
20:12:33 <dhellmann> lifeless: ++
20:12:33 <ttx> yeah, I thought Jim's concerns were valid, I was just fine with giving the Fuel team the benefit of doubt
20:12:43 <mestery> +1 party starting
20:12:44 <russellb> same, as i said on the review, i think it seems wrong to +1 this with an important cross project -1 on it
20:12:47 <annegentle> ttx: me too, well stated
20:12:49 <ttx> since all decisions can be changed
20:13:12 <russellb> +1 now
20:13:16 <jeblair> ttx: you're so much nicer than i am :)
20:13:30 <ttx> You do bad cop
20:13:43 <ttx> I di good cop
20:13:45 <ttx> do*
20:13:51 <angdraug> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Fuel#People
20:13:54 <ttx> anyway, looks like we have more than enough to approve now
20:13:54 <jeblair> but yeah, mordred succinctly expressed my feeling
20:14:06 <angdraug> I've appointed bookwar and igorbelikov as liaisons to Infra team
20:14:13 <ttx> obviously the effort that was statred must continue
20:14:22 <annegentle> I must know bookwar because that's the best IRC nick ever
20:14:25 <angdraug> please feel free to reach out to them on any fuel/infra cross-project issues
20:14:41 <ttx> but I really think the Fuel team is now working hand in hand with all the other teams
20:14:57 <bookwar> annegentle: we actually talked in vancouver i think.. :)
20:15:09 <ttx> so the process was painful but I think it was positive for everyone
20:15:17 <ttx> alrightn approving now
20:15:37 <ttx> that n key is too close to the , key
20:15:52 <ttx> angdraug: all set!
20:16:01 <angdraug> thanks a lot everyone!
20:16:09 <flaper87> angdraug: thank you
20:16:10 <docaedo> angdraug: congrats!
20:16:17 <mihgen> thank you for trust guys. we are happy to work within larger community
20:16:29 <mordred> woot!
20:16:32 <annegentle> bookwar: ++! :)
20:16:37 <nurla> thank you!
20:16:37 <angdraug> we really are excited to work with all of you )
20:16:43 <ttx> #topic Comms workgroup report
20:16:46 <ashtokolov> angdraug: congrats!
20:16:47 * mordred hands the fuel team a box of cookies with half a cookie in it, apologizes for having gotten hungry
20:16:48 <annegentle> welcome angdraug and all!
20:16:51 <ttx> annegentle, flaper87: where are we standing on the communications front ?
20:16:56 <ttx> looks like some blogpost is in order
20:17:04 <flaper87> ttx: yup, it's
20:17:07 <ttx> with what we approved last week and this week, lots of material
20:17:14 <annegentle> ttx: we both unabashedly admit doing nothing in the last 2 weeks :)
20:17:16 <flaper87> we just synced yday (o was that the day before?)
20:17:22 <annegentle> yeah definitely time for a post
20:17:43 <annegentle> do we have any improvement ideas from last six month's of the plan?
20:18:00 <ttx> annegentle: I think that worked reasonably well
20:18:04 <flaper87> We should send a request for feedback
20:18:24 <flaper87> I'm curious to know, after 6 months, whether ppl still read these communications
20:18:29 <annegentle> ttx: I think so, need more twitter power possibly, but other wise it's ok
20:18:29 <ttx> you can include it in the post
20:18:39 <annegentle> flaper87: yeah request for feedback in the post works
20:18:42 <flaper87> ttx: ha, in small letters ?
20:18:47 <jeblair> "if you read this, please send $1 to flaper87"
20:18:48 <flaper87> :P
20:18:52 <annegentle> hee
20:19:11 <ttx> "flaper87 will blog for food"
20:19:25 <annegentle> OK, so post should have newest additions to governance, anything else we want to discuss/get input on?
20:19:27 <flaper87> w000h00000
20:19:30 <mestery> lol
20:19:37 <annegentle> anything from summit, joint tc/board meeting?
20:19:37 <ttx> okonomiyaki!
20:19:54 <flaper87> Themes ?
20:20:06 <flaper87> We might want to mention something about the Mitaka themes
20:20:13 <ttx> flaper87: difficult to mention since we didn't make any real change yet
20:20:38 <annegentle> cross-project comms?
20:20:49 <ttx> annegentle: same, we haven't reached a conclusion there
20:20:51 <lifeless> themes would be good
20:20:54 <flaper87> sure, but we did come up with sort of a list. Or at least mention there's that effort going on
20:21:00 <lifeless> I don't think we have to make the change to talk about it
20:21:02 <lifeless> transparency!
20:21:04 <ttx> annegentle: with you and Mike always being in some tropical island
20:21:11 <flaper87> lifeless: yup, that's were I was coming from
20:21:34 <annegentle> ttx: wishful thinking, I just wrangle kids
20:21:55 <annegentle> flaper87: lifeless: yeah I agree, mention early/often
20:22:05 <ttx> alright... so let's say you post some draft and we'll add to it ?
20:22:11 <annegentle> sounds good
20:22:20 <annegentle> any other comms problems to tackle?
20:22:26 <annegentle> this release?
20:22:39 <ttx> no I think we are good
20:22:45 <ttx> as far as TC comms go
20:23:13 <ttx> ok, next topic ?
20:23:37 <ttx> #topic Project Team Guide workgroup report
20:23:44 <ttx> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-crossproject-doc-the-way
20:23:50 <ttx> We discussed next steps for the project team guide at the Design Summit
20:23:58 <ttx> There are a number of topics we want to cover this cycle
20:24:06 <ttx> like better explain the benefits/tradeoffs for the various release models
20:24:23 <ttx> or common principles like API deprecation rules or the fact that you can expect a DB and a oslo.messaging queue to be around
20:24:33 <ttx> (and soon a DLM!)
20:24:39 <ttx> We want to explain tags and point to projects.yaml as well
20:24:47 <ttx> And finally document community best practices like IRC bouncers or gertty
20:24:55 <ttx> And then explore the wiki for other things that should be moved to the guide
20:25:13 <ttx> I'll drive most of this but would not mind help :)
20:25:20 <ttx> More recently a new question was raised in several reviews
20:25:30 <ttx> Those are adding step-by-step instructions to setup new project git repositories, or moving them from the Infra guide "project creator guide" to the Project Team Guide
20:25:40 <ttx> Personally I would prefer if the project team guide focused on its original objective, which is to document the culture
20:25:47 <ttx> and did not turn into an instruction manual
20:25:53 <persia> +1
20:25:58 <ttx> But that may mean we are missing a true "project setup guide" since this apparently doesn't belong on the Infra guide either
20:26:11 <ttx> Suggestions on that ? Should we just create a new guide for that ?
20:26:16 <jeblair> i thought we talked about that in the session too and the reception for moving it to the ptg was favorable...
20:26:20 <flaper87> I wasn't able to attend the summit session but, just like in our previous project team guide sprints, I'm happy to help with this one.
20:26:28 <jeblair> hrm
20:26:43 <jeblair> ttx: and i don't think the suggestion is to move git repo setup there...
20:26:47 <dhellmann> having a proliferation of guides seems like it's going to make it harder to figure out where to put things, rather than easier
20:27:04 <jeblair> ttx: the parts we're talking about moving there are things like "how do openstack projects use unit tests"
20:27:11 <annegentle> dhellmann: it's about the reviewers, not necessarily the publishing
20:27:14 <jeblair> which seems like a good fid to the ptg for me
20:27:19 <jeblair> good git
20:27:20 <ttx> jeblair: there are test setup instructions proposed around release notes that really sound like a chapter of the infra guide
20:27:20 <jeblair> grr
20:27:22 <persia> dhellmann: The converse issue is that if the PTG gets too long and too detailed, many people won't want to read or watch changes.
20:27:22 <jeblair> fit
20:27:32 <annegentle> new swear phrase: "good git!"
20:27:33 <dhellmann> annegentle : then let's get more reviewers? because it's also confusing for folks to find this information
20:27:51 <sdague> yeh, and you don't get more reviewers by splintering projects
20:27:52 <dhellmann> it would be useful to have one manual telling us how to do our work, even if it covers both theory and practice
20:27:58 <ttx> jeblair: what's being proposed right now is a lot of code snippets and commands
20:28:08 <sdague> it can be a dedicated chapter
20:28:12 <dhellmann> we could, you know, exhibit the trust we keep suggesting other projects show by letting more folks have +2 on the team guide
20:28:18 <jeblair> ttx: that seems like a new thing we didn't talk about then.
20:28:19 <flaper87> I'm more for having it all in the same project/repo
20:28:25 <sdague> dhellmann: ++
20:28:31 <ttx> dhellmann: wouldn't hurt since I seem to be the only one reviewing those days
20:28:39 <annegentle> dhellmann: I think people want to publish this info, but in one case where a bunch of bug triaging info was added to the infra manual, that team didn't want to be responsible for reviewing it... I might be mixing guides here but I think it's an overall pattern. Small review teams, and small repos are fine, but publish to the same place
20:28:46 <ttx> jeblair: it is, which is why I'm asking
20:29:02 <dhellmann> annegentle : right, I'm suggesting that more of that should go into the project team guide
20:29:09 <ttx> jeblair: please review what's being proposed, I think it clearly crosses the line from policy and principles to howto
20:29:21 <annegentle> dhellmann: ok yeah, and I think there's need for howto
20:29:37 <annegentle> ttx: really I think there could be a howto chapter
20:29:39 <annegentle> that's another repo
20:29:41 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack%2Fproject-team-guide+is:open,n,z
20:29:43 <annegentle> then we publish to one place
20:29:49 <jeblair> ttx: can do
20:29:57 <ttx> annegentle: but then project setup instructions are split between infra guide and project team guide
20:30:05 <dhellmann> annegentle : splitting the repos makes it confusing for contributors. Let's just give the right folks +2 on this repo.
20:30:27 <sdague> yeh, and it is git, we can always revert changes that might be bad
20:30:30 <ttx> when I talk about a third repo, it's so that the project setup howto is in a unique location
20:30:43 <dhellmann> ttx: I'm OK with moving the release notes setup instructions to the infra manual, if that's where we're going to put *all* such instructions
20:31:01 <annegentle> dhellmann: ideally we'd put all such instructions in one repo, sure.
20:31:08 <dhellmann> ttx: who would be the reviewers for that new repo?
20:31:09 <ttx> dhellmann: and that is the issue. Only half the instructions live there right now
20:31:11 <annegentle> dhellmann: I was just mentioning that there was a bit of a problem with that
20:31:20 <ttx> dhellmann: Anyone who cares
20:32:12 <ttx> Currently, a project team wanting to set up a new project repository has to read the infra guide. And we are adding material to the PTG about setting up new repositories as well
20:32:15 <ttx> I think that's confusing
20:32:20 <dhellmann> ttx: ok, maybe we should talk to fungi and the infra cores about (a) adding these directions to the infra manual and (b) giving +2 to more folks on that repo
20:32:21 <ttx> I want everything in one place
20:32:27 <persia> Selecting reviewers is easy: start with this team, and watch who else reviews, etc., with regular additions, removals, etc.
20:32:41 <ttx> If that's not in the Infra guide nor the PTG, then I'm fine with a third repo called project setup howoto
20:32:50 <jeblair> how about it goes in the reno repo?
20:32:55 <ttx> I just want everything in the same place
20:32:58 <dhellmann> jeblair : reno is not openstack-specific
20:33:18 <annegentle> hm. jeblair is onto something though, about putting docs nearest to code
20:33:20 <annegentle> hm
20:33:20 <dhellmann> jeblair : also, you would have to know to look at the reno guide to manage release notes before you know what reno is
20:33:38 <mordred> I thnk that's one of the tricky bits
20:33:43 <ttx> annegentle: we could put it in cookiecutter
20:33:45 <mordred> it's "what are the things I should look at"
20:33:50 <mordred> ttx: same problem
20:33:54 <sdague> right, we need one starting point
20:33:55 <mordred> ttx: you have to know about cookiecutter
20:34:03 <sdague> it sounds like that is PTG
20:34:23 <ttx> some info is in the infra guide and will stay there
20:34:24 <sdague> being a starting point you need to either contain the info, or links to the info for everything else
20:34:47 <ttx> sdague: we can always point to another guide from the PTG (or from the infra guide)
20:34:57 <mordred> yah. I think release notes guide being in reno is fine (for instance) if the main guide says "we use reno for release notes"
20:34:58 <sdague> sure, but you need to tell people why they are going theere
20:35:11 * annegentle doesn't know cookiecutter
20:35:16 <dhellmann> mordred : we don't put the instructions for setting up CI in the zuul documentation. How is this different?
20:35:16 <mordred> similar to "we use tox for driving virtualenv unit tests" and "we use testr as a test runner"
20:35:29 <ttx> and I'm fine with principles and policy to be in the PTG. I just don't want to turn something that is a policy guide into somethign only devs will read
20:35:42 <dhellmann> the reno guide has generic instructions, but we do have openstack-specific standards we need projects to follow for their jobs to work
20:35:50 <mordred> dhellmann: I think there needs to be a top-leve thing which tells people what general concepts they need to know
20:35:52 <mordred> and yea
20:35:58 <sdague> ttx: who do you expect the audience to be?
20:35:58 <mordred> openstack specific instructions on how to use the thing
20:35:59 <annegentle> dhellmann: ah ok
20:36:09 <ttx> sdague: any project team
20:36:20 <annegentle> sdague: it's about redirecting questions to a page, providing wider support nets than 1:1 Q:A
20:36:20 <mordred> like "for tox, please use skipsdist and use_develop and do not set system-packages to true"
20:36:23 <persia> I'd like the audience to also include any org that is becoming involved in openstack
20:36:28 <mordred> those are openstack specific things about a thing which has its own manual
20:36:40 <mordred> if you just pointed to the tox manual, it would not help someone get started in the right way
20:36:45 <dhellmann> mordred : right, and in this case it's specific names of directories and tox environments
20:36:48 <sdague> mordred: right
20:36:48 <mordred> yup
20:37:34 <jeblair> these are starting to seem like project team guide things to me.
20:37:39 <ttx> sdague: at the very minimum we should make sure it's all in a specific chapter, if it stays in the PTG
20:38:05 <dhellmann> I'm OK with that. I added these things to release team page because they seemed release related, but we could make a new chapter for them.
20:38:31 <ttx> We could all put them in the "project setup guide" chapter that krotscheck has been pushing
20:38:39 <flaper87> yeah, I'd make a new chapter for them
20:38:41 <jeblair> there's also the organizational question of: do we have 5 sections that each say "add this job to zuul" or one section that says "add these 5 jobs to zuul"?
20:38:41 <dhellmann> sure, that makes sense
20:38:57 <dhellmann> jeblair : one page, several sections, because not all of this applies to every project
20:39:05 <annegentle> ideally these are all "articles" in a guide that everyone can publish to... it's just that the overall TOC isn't really solved, yet.
20:39:19 <ttx> Since you all seem to have an opinion on what belongs to he PTg and what does not, it would be awesome if you could actually review the changes there.
20:39:30 <dhellmann> jeblair : does the project creator's guide move from the infra manual to PTG?
20:39:34 <dhellmann> ttx: +1000
20:39:45 <ttx> because otherwise I'm inclined to ignore you
20:40:01 <mestery> ttx: ++
20:40:02 <annegentle> ttx: for example we started a docs contributor's guide, but had many debates about whether it belonged in the infra manual
20:40:17 <krotscheck> o/
20:40:22 <ttx> and go with my own definition rather than try to guess yours and apply it
20:40:24 <annegentle> ttx: and I agree on the "please review" call but honestly we have to focus efforts -- and publish as easily as possible
20:40:53 <annegentle> my view is, publish as much as you want to review
20:41:03 <jeblair> ttx: i'm #4 in reviews, does that count?
20:41:17 <ttx> annegentle: I tend to agree that published somewhere is better than not publish at all
20:41:36 <ttx> jeblair: it counts! I just felt very lonely lately
20:42:18 * flaper87 hugs ttx
20:42:19 <jeblair> dhellmann: that's a really good question, and i don't have an immediate answer.
20:42:31 <ttx> anyway, I think we have a way forward. Collect opinions on reviews, then worst case scenario include it in the pTG for the time being
20:42:33 * flaper87 is guilty for not doing much reviews in PTG
20:42:36 <dhellmann> jeblair : food for thought. I get that keeping it in the infra manual makes it easier to keep it up to date.
20:42:42 <jeblair> flaper87: you're #3.
20:42:48 <annegentle> go flaper87 go :)
20:42:54 <jeblair> http://stackalytics.openstack.org/?project_type=all&module=project-team-guide&release=all
20:42:58 <ttx> I brag but I'm not even sure I'm #1
20:42:59 <flaper87> jeblair: holy crap... you suck at reviewing PGT
20:43:02 * flaper87 ducks
20:43:02 * dhellmann hands ttx an eclair
20:43:06 <flaper87> PTG*
20:43:38 <ttx> ok, next topic ?
20:43:55 <dhellmann> ++
20:43:55 <ttx> #topic Next Tags workgroup report
20:44:00 <ttx> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-crossproject-next-tags
20:44:05 <ttx> This was mostly a feedback session where we brainstormed potentially useful tags
20:44:11 <ttx> The first set are the wrongly-named integration tags
20:44:17 <ttx> i.e. tags to describe that a project for example has a horizon panel, a devstack plugin or heat resources
20:44:25 <ttx> We had one proposed by sdague for devstack last cycle but it got stuck on the question of whether to distinguish between mainline and plugin or not
20:44:37 <ttx> Second set are the team tags, we might still want a "large-team" tag at some point
20:44:46 <ttx> Then we have contract/assert tags, which got a boost with the upgrade tags from Dan
20:44:53 <ttx> Someone suggested a API versioning assert tag
20:45:03 <ttx> probably to back up mordred's "no more deprecation" call
20:45:15 <ttx> Next we had QA tags, to describe the extent of testing done in each project
20:45:26 <ttx> And finally horizontal team support tags (we might want a new one for stable branch team, and potentially others)
20:45:39 <ttx> I don't think we formally need a workgroup to drive that anymore, since that wasn't very successful in Liberty... Feels like waiting until someone cares enough to propose one is good enough
20:45:53 <mordred> I like waiting until people care
20:45:59 <ttx> so I propose to disband the band of brothers
20:46:05 <flaper87> ++
20:46:07 <mordred> we even get tags from people who have quit openstack that way
20:46:10 <ttx> (and sisters)
20:46:15 <flaper87> I felt that was pretty much the way it was working
20:46:16 <anteaya> ttx: :)
20:46:28 <annegentle> heh
20:46:37 <ttx> we did one meetig and got one tag proposed. We got more just by nudging Dan Smith
20:46:55 <anteaya> there's a workflow
20:47:01 <ttx> so I won't bore you to death with next-tags WG progress repotrs anymore
20:47:04 <ttx> progress!
20:47:05 <annegentle> I do like that we saw tags proposed
20:47:11 <sdague> ttx: ++ disband :)
20:47:18 <ttx> yes we create committees, but we also KILL THEM
20:47:47 <annegentle> nice
20:47:53 <ttx> that said, if anyone is super-interested by one of the themes I just mentioned, feel free to dive in!
20:48:02 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:48:37 <ttx> Anything else ? Any outcome from the Design Summit that we need to work on to make happen ?
20:48:57 <ttx> I feel like the DLM stuff is making slow and steady progress
20:49:16 <ttx> Cross-project comms overhaul is also on a track
20:49:41 <ttx> mordred: what's the next step on the suggestion to never ever ever again deprecate an API ?
20:50:06 <mordred> I thought lifeless was going to write up something
20:50:29 <ttx> mordred, annegentle: we also signed up at the TC/BoD meeting to propose a slightly-modified mission statement
20:50:29 <sdague> so, along those lines - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/245745/ - holding meetings in #openstack-dev or not for cross project things
20:50:35 <mordred> lifeless: right? or have I been drinking too much hibiki 21 again
20:50:38 <annegentle> mordred: ttx: yep we sure did
20:50:41 <ttx> sdague: good one
20:50:53 <mordred> annegentle: I need to sync back up with you on that don't I?
20:50:55 <flaper87> lifeless: are you?
20:50:55 <annegentle> sdague: I'm -1 on it after thinking on it
20:50:57 <ttx> hmmm... hibiki 21
20:51:05 <annegentle> mordred: there's an email... it has words in it...
20:51:21 <ttx> annegentle: I like words
20:51:30 <sdague> annegentle: ok
20:51:36 <sdague> annegentle: and your alternative is?
20:51:44 <annegentle> sdague: it being #openstack-dev channel for cross project meetings. Probably fine for service-catalog though.
20:51:53 * annegentle clicked the link
20:52:35 <sdague> annegentle: oh, right this was me trying to put our weekly checkpoint into irc
20:52:36 <annegentle> sdague: I think meeting channels for meetings is better generally than picking a "room" channel
20:52:47 <dhellmann> annegentle : ++
20:52:48 <sdague> annegentle: sure, and they are all full
20:53:03 <ttx> sdague: maybe it's time for #openstack-meeting5
20:53:06 <jeblair> i would prefer to keep discussion channels open for discussion and have meeting channels; i'm fine making more meeting channels, including a dedicated 'cross-project-meeting' channel (even if it's usually unscheduled)
20:53:07 <annegentle> sdague: yeah let's stick with meeting channels, add more if needed. I think in the session we talked about #cross-project-meeting ?
20:53:07 <sdague> maybe
20:53:26 <dhellmann> we hit a similar issue trying to move the release team meeting
20:53:28 <sdague> having a dedicated cross project meeting room seems good
20:53:30 <jeblair> new channels are pretty low-cost
20:53:35 <annegentle> jeblair: ok, good
20:53:35 <lifeless> mordred: I am writing something
20:53:43 <lifeless> mordred: on the DLM side, its not on my todo to write
20:53:44 <flaper87> lifeless: ++
20:53:45 <ttx> sdague: I want to go on a clean-up rampage first
20:53:47 <lifeless> mordred: I am writing other things ;)
20:53:51 <sdague> especially as the overall time contention would be less
20:54:02 <sdague> because it won't be Nth subteam of new project
20:54:04 <dhellmann> ttx: do we have meetings on the schedule that aren't happening?
20:54:05 <mordred> lifeless: oh. piddle then
20:54:10 <flaper87> lifeless: mordred so, no one is working on the "never ever ever deprecate APIs thing" ?
20:54:13 <ttx> dhellmann: of course
20:54:14 <mordred> ttx: I guess I need to write a thing on the API topic
20:54:25 <mordred> ttx: I'll put that on my list
20:54:27 <lifeless> flaper87: I'm working on a deprecation thing for libraries
20:54:35 <sdague> it would probably be good to have audit of existing meetings to parse the logs and figure out if they are happening
20:54:35 <flaper87> lifeless: roger
20:54:37 <dhellmann> ttx: then yeah, we should clean that up and see if we still need another new channel
20:54:39 <jeblair> mordred: "Never, ever, ever, ever deprecate an API."  hth
20:54:49 <mordred> lifeless: yah - I totally thought you were going to write a thing on api deprecation because you were already writing the one for libraries
20:54:49 <sdague> and if they are happening if they are all really > 30 minutes
20:54:58 <sdague> because I expect there is a lot of over allocated time
20:54:59 <ttx> rigt. I might take that action
20:55:08 <mordred> lifeless: but I'm more than happy to write it
20:55:14 <edleafe> wait - I thought it was deprecate, but never remove?
20:55:15 <mordred> lifeless: just wanted to make sure I wasn't stealing your fun
20:55:18 <mordred> edleafe: yes
20:55:22 <mordred> edleafe: that's what it actually is
20:55:33 <edleafe> mordred: ah, just checking
20:55:35 <lifeless> mordred: right, so I think in libraries we can remove, but it needs to be a long period
20:55:36 <jeblair> good thing i'm not writing it
20:55:46 <sdague> ok, so is there an #agreed that we'll build an openstack-meeting-cp ?
20:55:47 <flaper87> mordred: I'm happy to help you but not sure I can take lead on that
20:55:48 <ttx> jeblair: we need some way to check that a meeting has been happening often enough to justify blocking the slot
20:55:52 <lifeless> mordred: lets compare notes and so on, bu t yes, differen tthings
20:55:57 <mordred> flaper87: cool. I'll do a draft and sent it
20:56:00 <sdague> which will be dedicated for cross project meetings
20:56:12 <ttx> jeblair: it's actually doable now that we have the meeting name strings encoded in the YAML
20:56:13 <edleafe> mordred: I can review too
20:56:15 <mordred> "removing things shifts the burden of support from the devs to their users and is rude"
20:56:27 <jeblair> ttx: agreed, a tool to parse that and check eavesdrop.o.o seems feasible
20:56:37 <lifeless> speaking of hilarious deprecations, I had someone suggest today that a spec was *too strict* because it didn't allow for std-66 (URIs!) changing
20:56:48 <lifeless> not like thats been basically stable for decades....
20:56:55 <mordred> lifeless: wow
20:57:06 <mordred> lifeless: BUT SOMEONE MIGHT WANT TO INNOVATE IN THEIR PRODUCT!!!!!!!!!
20:57:13 <lifeless> mordred: ayup. (see distutils-sig if you want the context)
20:57:47 <ttx> jeblair: I'll try to go and free unused slots, and if I cant free enough of them we should create a new channel
20:57:49 <sdague> jeblair / ttx / annegentle: so, new meeting room?
20:58:01 <jeblair> lifeless: it's actually a standard.  amazing.
20:58:02 * dhellmann looks for mordred's volume knob
20:58:06 <mordred> lifeless: HOW CAN I EVER ABUSE YOUR GOOD WILL IF YOU DON'T LET ME SCREW MY USERS WITH YOUR WORK????!!!!!?????!!!!!
20:58:09 <ttx> sdague: I'll take that action
20:58:21 <jeblair> sdague: ++
20:58:21 <lifeless> jeblair: I know right?
20:58:23 * mordred hands a broken knob he found to dhellmann
20:58:25 <sdague> because I think unless we have a meeting space which is kind of reserved for cross project efforts, every time a new one spins up, finding a meeting time is going to be hard
20:58:31 <sdague> because all the time blocks are booked
20:58:47 <lifeless> sdague: that may mean that you'll just have a raft of people conflicts
20:58:53 <jeblair> sdague, ttx, annegentle: potential followup question -- should this meeting move to that channel? :)
20:58:54 <sdague> lifeless: it might
20:59:05 <ttx> sdague: oh, a cross-project meeting room ? So if we don't reuse #openstack-dev I fear that room won't have the lurkers you're looking for
20:59:06 <sdague> jeblair: I think that would be fine
20:59:22 <annegentle> ttx: honestly it's better not to have only devs
20:59:29 <annegentle> ttx: for cross project work esp.
20:59:34 <ttx> maybe having the TC meeting there is a good way to make it a popular lurking spot
20:59:41 * annegentle fires up https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/next-tc-blog-post
20:59:48 <sdague> lifeless: I did look at all the things that were conflicting here, and there were mostly not any major ones
20:59:55 <dhellmann> jeblair : all meetings in the new room are cross project, but not all cross project meetings are in the room
20:59:59 <ttx> annegentle: the trick is.... people don't necessarily subscribe to new meeting channels
21:00:03 <sdague> and, this is intentionally just a checkpoint 30 minute bit
21:00:09 <ttx> #openstack-meeting has 479 people
21:00:13 <sdague> it's mostly not expected for people to show up
21:00:21 <ttx> #openstack-meeting-4 has 183
21:00:23 <sdague> but it's important to log
21:00:51 <ttx> sdague: ok, I though random lurking was a property of #openstack-dev that made it attractive to hold crossproject meetings
21:00:54 <sdague> because the alternative is going to be people just not doing itin irc
21:00:55 <jeblair> dhellmann: well, if the idea is that meeting conflicts are a proxy for people conflicts, then moving / having truly cross-project meetings there would be beneficial.
21:00:59 <ttx> anyway, time is up
21:01:17 <ttx> I'm closing this meeting but we could continue the discussion on -dev
21:01:19 <annegentle> ttx: still, we need to have meetbot, logs as well as keep "rooms" available for adhoc convos
21:01:23 <annegentle> ttx: heh
21:01:24 <dhellmann> jeblair : I think I see your point
21:01:27 <ttx> #endmeeting