20:01:40 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:01:41 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jul 12 20:01:40 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:01:42 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:01:43 * johnthetubaguy-w sits on train waiting to loose signal
20:01:45 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:01:51 * flaper87 bows
20:02:01 <ttx> Hello everyone! Our agenda for today:
20:02:05 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:02:20 <ttx> Remember to use #info #idea and #link liberally to make for a more readable summary
20:02:31 <ttx> #topic Propose Stewardship Working Group (SWG)
20:02:32 <flaper87> ++
20:02:36 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/337895
20:02:41 <ttx> amrith: care to introduce the topic ?
20:02:47 <amrith> sure, thx ttx
20:02:52 <amrith> in re: https://review.openstack.org/337895, the proposal for the SWG.
20:02:52 <amrith> I took an action item to submit this proposal on behalf of a number of people, mostly
20:02:52 <amrith> members of the TC, on the third day of the training we attended in Ann Arbor. A quick
20:02:52 <amrith> synopsis about that training; it was conducted at ZingTrain (http://www.zingtrain.com). The
20:02:53 <amrith> training focused on a concept called 'servant leadership' which it turns out is surprisingly
20:02:54 <amrith> well applicable to the model of leadership in OpenStack.
20:03:00 <amrith> Our feeling was that there was much that we could learn from this and that it was something
20:03:02 <amrith> that we must investigate further, as a group, and not something that we could just discuss
20:03:04 <amrith> and decide there as a small group.
20:03:14 <amrith> We therefore felt that it would be appropriate to setup an OpenStack
20:03:14 <amrith> working group that would make specific recommendations to
20:03:14 <amrith> the TC, and that the TC could then deliberate and if
20:03:14 <amrith> applicable, adopt.
20:03:33 <flaper87> #info this is an advisory group
20:03:38 <flaper87> amrith: thanks for writing this down!
20:03:40 <Rockyg> /me multitasks poorly
20:03:42 <amrith> <sorry for the formatting>
20:03:43 <amrith> I am happy to see that even in the drafting of this resolution, we have received and
20:03:43 <amrith> incorporated input from jroll, johnthetubaguy, and eglynn. eglynn if you are here, I hope
20:03:43 <amrith> the comment from dhellmann addresses your concern; the SWG is purely an advisory body, it
20:03:43 <amrith> has no authority to make decisions, merely make recommendations to the TC that the TC can
20:03:44 <amrith> then deliberate and decide on a course of action.
20:03:58 * johnthetubaguy-w makes happy noises in the general direction of that group and its intent
20:04:00 <amrith> All are welcome to participate. There's an OpenStack channel (#openstack-swg), there's a
20:04:00 <amrith> weekly meeting that has been proposed (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338134/) for
20:04:00 <amrith> Thursdays at 1800UTC. At this point, the time does not appear to be broadly acceptable, I
20:04:00 <amrith> will have to find an alternate time. This will likely result in a doodle
20:04:06 * Rockyg can't even type right
20:04:08 <amrith> thx to flaper87 for the #info
20:04:20 <amrith> #link https://review.openstack.org/337895
20:04:27 <amrith> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338134/
20:04:35 <amrith> Thanks TTX. I'll shut up now and listen. Thoughts, comments, questions, ...
20:04:53 <flaper87> unless someone has a strong opposition against this group, I think it's an "easy" one.
20:05:04 <ttx> need to digest what you just pasted
20:05:14 <flaper87> I really look forward to see what this group comes out with and to see the group grow
20:05:20 <ttx> protip: paste one line at a time and pretend you type superfast :)
20:05:33 <annegentle> ttx knows
20:05:37 <annegentle> :)
20:05:37 <amrith> I prepared a paste; among friends, no need to pretend :)
20:05:38 <ttx> We already have enough votes to pass this. Is there any question ?
20:05:48 <flaper87> I'd love to see the knowledge in this group to be spread
20:06:04 <flaper87> no objections or comments here
20:06:10 <dims> and recruit actively PTL(s), core(s) etc
20:06:25 <amrith> dims, that is part of the plan
20:06:30 <amrith> there is a session proposed for summit
20:06:35 <amrith> <shameless plug>
20:06:40 <dims> ++ amrith
20:06:41 <ttx> Looks like the present membvers all voted for it anyway, so we won't have more questions
20:06:42 <amrith> where we'd like to share more about the concept
20:06:47 <amrith> and get more people involved.
20:06:51 <johnthetubaguy-w> I want to help with that group, an awesome effort
20:06:53 <annegentle> I like it, and can it then take on the work that ttx and flaper87 and I were going to do last week of coming up with more communications ideas?
20:06:58 <amrith> is eglynn here?
20:07:00 <dhellmann> I'm not sure how big we want this group to really be. At some point it will grow big enough to not be that productive.
20:07:17 <amrith> thx johnthetubaguy-w
20:07:30 <jroll> dhellmann: true that
20:07:38 <ttx> let's see how it goes
20:07:40 <dims> dhellmann : "Anyone
20:07:40 <dims> interested in leadership, stewardship, and OpenStack is welcome to
20:07:40 <dims> join the working group."
20:07:42 <amrith> one question for all; can we have the first meeting on thursday at 1800UTC
20:07:51 <amrith> and figure out the best thing to do for schedule moving forward
20:07:55 <eglynn> amrith: I am ... and TBH happier that the proposed WG is not restricted to the Ann Arbor training attendees
20:07:55 <ttx> amrith: I won't be around, but don't let that stop you
20:07:56 <amrith> or should I resort to a doodle?
20:07:59 <jroll> amrith: I'm free
20:08:01 <dhellmann> dims : yes, though I don't know if we want to heavily recruit. the point was to have a small working group.
20:08:03 <johnthetubaguy-w> dhellmann understand that concern it's totally valid, need to make progress, not just talk
20:08:10 <mestery> eglynn: ++
20:08:20 <dims> ++ johnthetubaguy-w dhellmann
20:08:20 <ttx> Alright, I'll approve this now
20:08:21 <amrith> thx eglynn; wanted to make sure we closed the loop with you
20:08:25 <flaper87> dhellmann: true! The growth I'd love to see is more like new members coming and others passing the torch. I'd love to see the knowledge in the group to be shared and a process to exist.
20:08:30 <amrith> dhellmann, will go ahead with first meeting
20:08:33 <eglynn> amrith: thanks!
20:08:34 * amrith shuts up
20:08:44 <flaper87> eglynn: I don't think it was meant to be like that but I'm glad you commented. That helps clarify it for others too
20:08:46 <dhellmann> amrith : so the 14th at 1800 UTC?
20:08:53 <amrith> dhellmann, correct
20:08:58 <Rockyg> Thanks!  sounds rally healthy for OpenStack
20:09:03 <amrith> thursday (my math was bad; i said 15th earlier)
20:09:07 <amrith> 14th, 1800UTC
20:09:10 * gothicmindfood high fives everyone
20:09:23 <ttx> #info first meeting Thursday Jul 14 at 1800 UTC
20:09:24 <flaper87> amrith: I don't think I'll be able to make it at that time but I'll follow it on ML and logs
20:09:30 <amrith> as currently proposed in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338134/
20:09:44 <ttx> Alright approved
20:09:47 <amrith> thx ttx
20:09:48 <flaper87> w000h0000
20:09:50 <ttx> Let's move on
20:09:52 <jroll> gothicmindfood: ^5
20:10:02 <ttx> #topic Add Juju Charms for OpenStack
20:10:02 <amrith> thx gothicmindfood ...
20:10:05 <annegentle> jroll: nice
20:10:06 <ttx> gothicmindfood: ^5
20:10:14 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/224797
20:10:20 <ttx> Quick bit of history, this was originally proposed in September 2015
20:10:30 <ttx> It was rejected back then due to absence of prior activity.
20:10:39 * johnthetubaguy-w wonders how long he will have data know :( stupid trains
20:10:39 <ttx> Then it was reproposed in May 2016, but since then we clarified the licensing requirements and the Juju Charms were not compatible
20:10:49 <ttx> This is now fixed and "third time's a charm"
20:10:50 <dhellmann> third time's the charm?
20:10:53 <dhellmann> heh
20:10:53 <ttx> (slow clap)
20:10:57 <ttx> dhellmann: I win
20:11:21 * dhellmann yields
20:11:28 * Rockyg *groans*
20:11:30 <edleafe> ttx: did you reject them twice just so you could write that? :)
20:11:30 <ttx> Questions ?
20:11:44 <ttx> edleafe: Noooooo
20:11:55 * flaper87 can tell ttx is laughing right now
20:12:04 <annegentle> groaaan
20:12:07 <flaper87> it looks good to me!
20:12:09 <dims> lol
20:12:24 <annegentle> you win at #dadjoke ttx
20:13:08 <ttx> jamespage: My main objection at this point is that my spam filter tags all [charms] emails as [SPAM]
20:13:23 <mestery> ttx: seems legit ;)
20:13:27 <jamespage> ttx, lol
20:13:40 <annegentle> that's funny!
20:13:51 <jamespage> I'll replace some of the letters with [ch4rm$]
20:13:55 <jamespage> see if that helps
20:14:12 <johnthetubaguy-w> Heh
20:14:29 <ttx> Could use one more vote
20:14:35 <notmorgan> jamespage: [sɯɹɐɥɔ]
20:14:49 <jamespage> that will make my neck hurt
20:14:56 <ttx> annegentle, johnthetubaguy-w ?
20:15:11 <johnthetubaguy-w> Oh, I thought I voted already
20:15:18 <ttx> new patchset
20:15:27 <ttx> annegentle: same
20:15:44 <jamespage> diff was for the readthedoc.io link to the charm-guide
20:15:54 <johnthetubaguy-w> Yeah, I missed that, my bad
20:16:05 <annegentle> jamespage: cool, thanks for doing that
20:16:14 <ttx> annegentle: last call
20:16:16 <jamespage> np - thanks for the reviews and feedback :-)
20:16:33 <annegentle> ttx: done!
20:16:50 <ttx> and win
20:17:07 <ttx> jamespage: thanks for your patience !
20:17:15 <flaper87> jamespage: seriously! :)
20:17:27 <ttx> Alright, next up
20:17:31 <jamespage> ttx, no problem - thankyou for being patient whilst we re-licensed!
20:17:44 <ttx> #topic Add project Tricircle to OpenStack big-tent
20:17:50 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/338796
20:17:51 <joehuang> hello
20:18:14 <ttx> joehuang: thanks for being present! Hoping you're not based in China
20:18:24 <joehuang> first, [Flavio Percoco]'s comment was just answered
20:18:31 <ttx> because that would be an unresonable hour
20:18:32 <annegentle> hi joehuang
20:18:38 <flaper87> joehuang: just read them1 Thanks for explaining :)
20:18:39 <joehuang> I am in china :(
20:18:42 <joehuang> hei
20:18:47 <ttx> joehuang: oops.
20:18:53 <annegentle> joehuang: eesh, thanks for joining us
20:18:55 <ttx> OK, let me introduce the topic first
20:18:55 <joehuang> thanks for understanding
20:18:58 <flaper87> joehuang: :( it must be super late. thanks for joining
20:19:11 <ttx> Tricircle is a mechanism for scaling Nova/Cinder/Neutron beyond a single installation and onto several bottom pods
20:19:18 <ttx> joehuang: feel free to correct me
20:19:25 <ttx> It uses a top setup with Keystone and API proxies, which record the tenant / pod relation, and then pass requests through
20:19:27 <joehuang> will do if needed
20:19:41 <ttx> Reading the current comments on the review, we can find on the positive side that it's mostly stateless, using a design close to how Ubernetes scales beyond a single K8s cluster
20:19:54 <ttx> On the negative side, it reimplements some APIs into the proxies, adds a layer of complexity, and is a bit orthogonal to the Cellsv2 effort
20:20:01 <joehuang> correcet, simally as ubernets
20:20:12 <ttx> Let's try to have an actionable discussion about this, I propose we take turns exposing our views rather than talk all together at the same time
20:20:26 <ttx> Will make it easier for joehuang given it's like 3am where he is
20:20:31 <annegentle> ttx: such as with handraising?
20:20:32 <flaper87> ++
20:20:35 <dhellmann> ++
20:20:36 <ttx> annegentle: yes
20:20:38 <annegentle> ttx: and ++ good idea
20:20:42 <annegentle> ttx: got it
20:20:48 <flaper87> o/
20:20:52 <johnthetubaguy-w> I'll be honest, it's the proxies that worry me, it reimplements APIs in a not very interop friendly way
20:20:59 <ttx> flaper87 has the mike
20:21:02 <flaper87> johnthetubaguy-w: hand raising >.>
20:21:04 <maishsk> o/
20:21:04 <flaper87> :P
20:21:25 <joehuang> hello, john, already explained in the reply to ttx,
20:21:31 <flaper87> Well, as johnthetubaguy-w said, I think the proxying part is the one that really worries me. It's good that they are using tempest
20:21:33 <johnthetubaguy-w> I worry we will end up with two ways of scaling openstack that are not API compatible
20:21:57 <flaper87> which makes it less worrisome as it actually tests the API. However, I've the feeling that won't be enough
20:22:10 <flaper87> And we'll make clouds not interoperable
20:22:15 <flaper87> I'm done
20:22:18 <dhellmann> o/
20:22:34 <joehuang> ok, let me answer a little
20:23:30 <joehuang> first, the bottom openstack can still use cellsv2 in nova
20:24:07 <dims> o/
20:24:26 <joehuang> second, tricircle deals cross neutron networking
20:25:07 <joehuang> the third, some use cases, for example, use case2, use cases3 use case 4, multiple openstack instances required
20:25:18 <joehuang> not just to scale single openstack
20:25:32 <ttx> (next up dhellmann, dims, maishsk)
20:25:41 <joehuang> the deployment decision has already for multiple openstack instances
20:25:48 <joehuang> especially use case 2
20:26:11 <joehuang> financial area is serious on security
20:26:20 <mordred> o/
20:26:43 <ttx> dhellmann: go for your question
20:26:51 <joehuang> for flaper86
20:26:54 <dhellmann> I share the concerns about this being a proxy.
20:27:09 <dhellmann> We've previously declared that DefCore should not test via proxies, because it removes control of the API definition from the team implementing the API. http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160504-defcore-proxy-tests.html
20:27:19 <dhellmann> Regardless of whether the intent is to be absolutely compatible or not, the practice of using a "smart" proxy introduces the chance that some incompatibility will be there, and so a cloud with Tricircle and a cloud without Tricircle will behave differently.
20:27:36 <dhellmann> So while the team itself seems to be doing things a good way, I'm afraid adding this project will break our previous proxy rule.
20:27:49 * dhellmann hands the mic back to ttx
20:28:03 <joehuang> we'll use tempest test cases to test the tricircle for compatibility, and defcore test if needed
20:28:21 * dhellmann picks up the mic for a follow-up response
20:28:26 <ttx> dhellmann: that was not a question, more of a statement of incompatibility, but that's fair
20:28:30 <joehuang> to dhellman, defcore test can be added
20:28:45 <dhellmann> joehuang : the point is that we have already very clearly said that defcore should not test projects through a proxy like this
20:28:55 <dhellmann> so whether or not the tests pass isn't the point
20:28:57 <joehuang> if the api is incompatible, the tricircle has no value
20:29:36 <ttx> dims: you're up
20:29:44 <flaper87> o/ (again)
20:30:07 <dims> joehuang : has tricircle team been able to influence other teams? to make things easier for you?
20:30:16 <johnthetubaguy-w> o/ (joins queue)
20:30:18 <joehuang> tricircle is to route the nova/cinder api, can discuss how to pass the defcore test
20:30:20 <dims> joehuang : how is the collaboration going say with Nova etc?
20:30:22 <jroll> \o
20:30:41 * dims waits for response
20:31:08 <joehuang> to dims, currently has interaction with L2GW
20:31:28 <ttx> (next up: mordred, flaper87, johnthetubaguy-w, maishsk, jroll)
20:31:32 <joehuang> and no feature requirements on nova yet, so new requirement to nova
20:31:54 <ttx> mordred: go for it
20:31:59 <flaper87> ( mordred before me? I won't ever talk)
20:32:05 <maishsk> ;)
20:32:05 <dims> joehuang : looking for any positive collbarations. thanks for your answer
20:32:09 <mordred> haha
20:32:13 <joehuang> thanks
20:32:22 <mordred> so - two short things:
20:32:25 <flaper87> mordred: <3
20:32:38 <joehuang> and also tacker talked to tricircle for multi-site support
20:32:42 <annegentle> wait did maishsk get to go?
20:32:55 <mordred> a) you said that api compat is important, but then you're hiding region names from your api proxy - can you explain the difference?
20:33:08 <ttx> (annegentle: I prioritize TC members over non-TC, hopefully there will be time for outside questions as well)
20:33:36 <mordred> b) for the TC folks - this is a big tent, not a defcore inclusion discussion, so I do hope we don't fall into the trap of judging all of the tech decisions the tricircle team has made
20:33:48 * jroll is fine putting his comments in gerrit instead, if it comes to that
20:33:53 <joehuang> to mordred, region name is not used in any api to nova/cinder/neutro yet : )
20:34:19 <joehuang> yes, thankyou
20:34:28 <joehuang> for big tent
20:34:40 <joehuang> I think two factors to discuss:
20:34:50 <mordred> joehuang: but it is used in the keysotne connection, and it's pretty important data for an end user to understand where their resource are?
20:34:52 <joehuang> does tricircle ruin the mission of openstack
20:35:11 <joehuang> whether tricircle follow the four "open"
20:35:21 <joehuang> it's bigtent, not core project
20:35:50 <mordred> yah. I agree with that. I think the only bigtent concern I have is actually on the subject of duplication of effort
20:36:03 <ttx> flaper87: you're back
20:36:04 <joehuang> to mordred, in keystone, all region, subregion can be shown by the admin
20:36:17 <mordred> which I think is why I was asking about the region name thing - it seems like a difference in conceptual model which could lead it to be a competing view of how we should think of resources
20:36:19 <joehuang> and keystone supports region/sub-region model
20:36:30 <flaper87> Still on the proxy argument. I wonder how tricircle is planning to keep up with project's adding new APIs. It takes a bit longer for defcore to add an API but projects could add new APIs every cycle. In addition to this, I'd like to remind ppl that Glance is still paying the price of nova's image proxy.
20:36:32 <flaper87> If someone uses Tricircle internally, I think it's less of a problem. Tricircle as a public service is probably what worries me the most.
20:36:33 <joehuang> so you will see like a region/sub-region tree
20:36:33 <flaper87> Re mordred's #b point. I'm worried about the proxy and the technical impact that has on the projects and the duplication of efforts.
20:37:46 <ttx> (next up: johnthetubaguy-w, maishsk, jroll)
20:37:49 <joehuang> to flaper87
20:38:23 <joehuang> first, this is bigtent application, and I answered the concerns on one bigtent project, am I wrong?
20:38:28 <joehuang> second
20:39:03 <joehuang> the reference matrial[1] has listed the use cases where we have to use the tricircle
20:39:53 <joehuang> for adding new api, tricircle is a bigtent project(if), will not block nova,cinder/neutorn to add new appi
20:40:32 <ttx> I guess one way to see this question is whether Tricircle is OpenStack, or something that consumes OpenStacks. It's not an easy question and this will likely require several meetings to iron out.
20:40:32 <joehuang> if these projects add new api, tricircle will implement later(not reimplement all code)
20:40:36 <ttx> johnthetubaguy-w: you're next
20:40:43 * johnthetubaguy-w notes nova adds lots of API microversions on every cycle http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/api_microversion_history.html
20:40:48 <jroll> ttx++
20:40:59 <johnthetubaguy-w> So I am worried this hurts the openstack mission
20:41:01 <flaper87> johnthetubaguy-w: my point exactly
20:41:11 <edleafe> ttx: my thoughts too
20:41:35 <johnthetubaguy-w> We have regions and federation, etc
20:41:46 <flaper87> #info Is Tricircle OpenStack? Or is it a project consuming OpenStack?
20:41:55 <joehuang> to john, for these who use nova/cinder/neutron directly can have latest api
20:41:56 <flaper87> not really info, more like a note
20:42:00 <johnthetubaguy-w> Now if it were all client side I would wave it through say, sounds fancy might help someone, cool bananas
20:42:22 <ttx> johnthetubaguy-w: +1
20:42:25 <flaper87> #info most members worried about the duplication of efforts and the gateway aspect of tricircle
20:42:37 <joehuang> tricirle will introduce the feature and microversion later
20:42:47 <johnthetubaguy-w> Now if it's a different API that does a specific thing, then that's not so bad either, it's more like competing with heat orchestration
20:43:10 <johnthetubaguy-w> Feels like heat should orchestra setting up the security groups and l2 gateways between regions
20:43:20 <joehuang> to john, could you read the reply to you about heat
20:43:43 <joehuang> and we need to consider the use cases in the material[1]
20:43:47 <johnthetubaguy-w> Been offline most of the day, so not read all the conversation on there yet
20:43:49 <ttx> maishsk: thanks for waiting. What was your question ?
20:44:02 <ttx> (if it wasn't answered yet)
20:44:04 <maishsk> ttx: THanks
20:44:06 <maishsk> Firstly I think the concept  would be a great addition to OpenStack. My question is about the DB. You mentioned in the commit that Tricircle uses its own DB - can you elaborate a bit more on that? What DB is used? Are you re-using existing DB technologies already present in other OpenStack projects?
20:44:30 <joehuang> to maishsk,
20:44:46 <joehuang> no, it's a small db for routing table
20:44:51 <ttx> jroll: Thanks for waiting. What was your question ?
20:45:01 <jroll> I'm curious how Tricircle does the scheduling. Does it choose an OpenStack instance at random, or does it actually inspect the resources available in each instance and schedule based on that? I worry that this will eventually reimplement Nova's scheduler, or even be different enough that a request would be scheduled to an OpenStack instance that cannot satisfy the request.
20:45:05 <jroll> (also posted in gerrit)
20:45:45 <joehuang> to jroll, not random, in expansion scenario
20:45:59 <jroll> this is about when the user does not specify an openstack instance, by the way
20:45:59 <joehuang> if one exhausted, the new added one should be selected
20:46:27 <joehuang> it's on openstack instance level
20:46:29 <jroll> joehuang: how about geo-distributed case?
20:46:34 <maishsk> joehuang: I dont think you answered the question. A small DB - which means another DB technology in OpenStack?
20:46:36 <joehuang> not on compute node level
20:46:55 <joehuang> to maishsk,
20:46:58 <jroll> joehuang: how does tricircle know that an instance can satisfy the request?
20:47:10 <ttx> maishsk: I think he means a separate database, not a special one
20:47:26 <joehuang> the database has several tables for the tricircle
20:47:38 <jroll> right, it appears to use sqlalchemy https://github.com/openstack/tricircle/blob/master/tricircle/db/models.py
20:47:39 <joehuang> to ttx, +1, thanks
20:47:50 <maishsk> joehuang: understood - much obliged!
20:47:52 <Rockyg> joehuang, is db mysql?
20:48:13 <joehuang> to jroll, support geo-distributed case
20:48:17 <Rockyg> oops.  Thank jroll
20:48:28 <ttx> We still have time for one or two questions before we need to move on to Open discussion
20:48:46 <joehuang> more question can be commented in the patch
20:48:53 <joehuang> so can answer in detail
20:49:01 <jroll> I'm still curious how tricircle knows that an openstack instance can satisfy a build request before scheduling, but that can be answered in gerrit
20:49:06 <flaper87> joehuang: thanks again for your patience and your time. We'll try to put everything on the patch and spare you another meeting
20:49:12 <ttx> The main concern, I think is that a Tricircle cloud is not really an OpenStack cloud. It may look like one, but it's different
20:49:29 <joehuang> to ttx : +++++1
20:49:30 <johnthetubaguy-w> +1 for async
20:49:34 <annegentle> joehuang: thanks for either staying awake or waking early
20:49:36 <ttx> and including it in "OpenStack" would make it a bit confusing
20:50:00 <joehuang> so how to express to reduce missunderstanding
20:50:25 <joehuang> but for bigtent, the tricircle does not ruin the openstack mission
20:50:26 <ttx> joehuang: we'll likely have to think about this question quite a bit, iterate on the review and future meetings.
20:50:48 <joehuang> please consider the use cases
20:50:55 <johnthetubaguy-w> It's the API I find confusing, rather than the text / presentation
20:51:07 <joehuang> which need the tircircle
20:51:20 <ttx> joehuang: thanks again for staying up so late. We'll try to make progress through the review and ML threads to reduce dependence on presence in the meeting
20:51:27 <johnthetubaguy-w> I don't get the need for a single API endpoint I guess
20:51:32 <jroll> the big red flag to me is that tricircle doesn't do microversions yet, which shows me how behind the APIs might get from reality
20:51:48 <flaper87> Let's put all these comments on the review if they are not there already
20:51:52 <johnthetubaguy-w> Jroll +1
20:51:55 <joehuang> to jroll, this could be implemeted step by srep
20:52:15 <jroll> joehuang: I understand that :)
20:52:16 <joehuang> yes in the review comment, so I can answer offline in detail
20:52:18 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:52:19 <jroll> ++
20:52:22 <flaper87> o/
20:52:27 <flaper87> just a quick, hopefully, one
20:52:29 <flaper87> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/332751/
20:52:37 <dhellmann> ttx: do we know when the joint tc/board/uc meeting is in barcelona?
20:52:54 <flaper87> Can we do a quick review on that one? I've moved all the changes requiring discussion to the follow-up patch
20:53:01 <ttx> dhellmann: just asked for update. Looks like the plan is to have it Monday afternoon
20:53:09 <ttx> (summit starts on Tuesday)
20:53:10 <dhellmann> ttx: ok, thanks
20:53:18 <flaper87> ++
20:53:21 * dhellmann is trying to plan travel
20:53:22 <ttx> "2:30-5:00pm Joint TC / UC / BoD mtg"
20:53:37 <dhellmann> those are local times?
20:53:41 <ttx> #info Board+TC+UC meeting planned for 2:30pm Monday Oct 24
20:53:46 <ttx> yes
20:53:48 <flaper87> dhellmann: yup
20:54:12 <ttx> flaper87: I'm fine approving it if you can gather enough votes in-meeting to make it happen :)
20:54:20 <ttx> Next week we have a lot of TC members on the road, due to conferences and various midcycles, so I propose we skip it
20:54:29 <flaper87> annegentle: dhellmann mestery mordred https://review.openstack.org/#/c/332751/
20:54:31 <flaper87> :P
20:54:33 <ttx> The week after, July 26, I'll be off -- flaper87 are you still interested in standing in for me ?
20:54:38 <flaper87> dhellmann: oh you voted already
20:54:44 <mestery> flaper87: I got your back, the first one was good to me
20:55:00 <flaper87> +! for skipping next week's meeting
20:55:02 <flaper87> +1
20:55:13 <ttx> mordred: any progress on the P/Q naming side ?
20:55:14 <flaper87> I'm taking the 26th meeting
20:55:29 <dhellmann> +1 to skipping next week
20:55:30 <mordred> ttx: yes - I spoke with Andrew from Cornell
20:55:46 <mordred> I uploaded too many emails at a time - which has also caused Cornell IT to be cross with him
20:55:55 <mordred> once things have settled down, I'll reupload in batches
20:56:00 <mordred> and all should be good
20:56:04 <ttx> mordred: I'd love to meet that guy!
20:56:08 <flaper87> mordred: annegentle: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/332751/ :D
20:56:16 * flaper87 got his email
20:56:34 <johnthetubaguy-w> +1 on the skip
20:56:44 <flaper87> ttx: 7, go!
20:56:56 <annegentle> I'm out 7/26 anyway
20:56:57 <joehuang> hello, may meet some tc in OpenStack china days to talk about the tricircle f2f
20:57:10 <ttx> #info Skipping Jul 19 meeting due to too many TC members on the road. Next meeting on Jul 26 with flaper87 chairing
20:57:22 * flaper87 writes that down in his calendar
20:57:31 <flaper87> "Do not travel on the 26th"
20:57:38 <mordred> flaper87: good luck with that
20:57:41 <ttx> flaper87: you might not have quorum either on Jul 26 but worth a try
20:57:42 <flaper87> mordred: :P
20:57:48 <ttx> Any other work in progress someone wants to report on ?
20:57:49 <flaper87> ttx: yeah
20:58:23 <annegentle> I'd like to reschedule with ttx and flaper87 this week to talk comms, I'll send an invite
20:58:31 <annegentle> and of course anyone else who wants to join
20:58:31 <dims> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/339175/
20:58:34 <flaper87> annegentle: thanks!
20:58:36 <ttx> At the TC meeting time, I'll be watching a play at the Avignon theater festival
20:58:40 <ttx> (on the 26th)
20:58:46 <dims> would love to have folks chime in again
20:59:15 <flaper87> ttx: I'll make sure to have OPs pwoer to kick/ban you if you show up on the 26th from the play
20:59:26 <ttx> annegentle: I'm off Wed-Fri this week, then traveling Mon-Thu next week. Feel free to move to email or have it without me
20:59:47 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
20:59:56 <flaper87> dims: on my to read for tomorrow! Thanks for writing that down
20:59:59 * flaper87 stfu
21:00:27 <dims> thanks flaper87
21:00:30 <annegentle> ok
21:01:12 <ttx> alrighty, closing this
21:01:15 <ttx> #endmeeting