20:01:42 #startmeeting tc 20:01:42 \o 20:01:43 Meeting started Tue Oct 4 20:01:42 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:01:44 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:01:46 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 20:01:48 * edleafe hides on the side of the room 20:01:55 Last meeting for the Newton TC membership! Our agenda: 20:01:59 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee 20:02:10 (remember to use #info #idea and #link liberally to make for a more readable summary) 20:02:13 \o 20:02:20 #topic Decide and schedule Cross-project workshops for Barcelona 20:02:26 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ocata-cross-project-sessions 20:02:32 We had 16 proposals by the deadline 20:02:50 one (1) was struck out for some reason (abandoned ?) 20:03:00 another (15) is lacking a session lead, so we should drop it unless there is a volunteer 20:03:12 For the remaining 14, judging by the votes, we have four categories 20:03:31 A/ 2 must-have (5, 13) 20:03:39 ttx: I would volunteer for 15, but I won't be able to make it 20:04:02 B/ 7 pretty obvious choices (2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 16) 20:04:28 hmm, maybe add 14 to that set 20:04:41 C/ 2 slightly-less obvious choices (7, 9) 20:04:47 D/ 2 subpar (8, 12) 20:04:59 So... We should discuss if we should assign a double-slot to any of these 20:05:11 Then see how many of category C we want to approve 20:05:22 To give you an idea, there are two scheduling strawmen on the etherpad 20:05:41 13 looks like a good candidate for a double session 20:05:41 johnthetubaguy's is not assigning any double-slot, and nothing for category C, for a light schedule 20:05:51 mine's is assigning double slots for #5 and #13, and saves #7 20:05:58 maybe even split those 2 sessions over 2 days 20:06:00 slightly busier schedule, but still a lot less busy than Austin (where we ran 3 in parallel) 20:06:19 * Rockyg waves to edleafe and wishes him success 20:06:25 yeah, I was thinking about getting more people to the ones I think we need to worry about 20:06:38 Agree on #13 needing a double slot 20:06:40 but I am warming a lot to ttx's proposal after thinking about it more 20:06:44 Rockyg: thanks! 20:06:45 +1 to keeping the number of parallel sessions to a minimum 20:06:46 dhellmann : for 13 we may end up getting different sets of people show up (not sure if that's good or bad) 20:07:02 What about #5 ? Do you think we can get to something useful there in 40 min ? 20:07:05 dims : I was thinking about having the ability to "sleep on" the first part of the discussion 20:07:18 dhellmann : yep that would help 20:07:31 if we had only one double, I would vote for 13 20:07:32 ttx: I think so, though I'd be interested in smcginnis, diablo_rojo, and thingee's input 20:07:41 dims: dhellmann I'd be worried that the set of people attending the first part would not attend the second part 20:07:51 i thought %5 was an opinion-gathering forum? 20:07:54 er, #5 20:07:57 If we split 13 into 2 sessions, that is 20:08:18 i was definitely planning to participate in #5 anyway 20:08:24 flaper87 : yeah, that's a concern. might be worth the risk, though, esp. if we make it clear up front what the plan is 20:08:37 I feel like it'll start conversations, on #5... at least having a picture of where things are. 20:08:41 ttx #1 wasn't receiving any votes and decided to use another forum to select research priorities for next cycle 20:08:47 dhellmann: Yeah, I think so as well. 20:08:52 piet_: thx for the info 20:08:58 A start at least. 20:09:01 smcginnis : so there's no need for a double session? 20:09:18 diablo_rojo is currently on working on what things look like for other projects. smcginnis has done a great job on the cinder side 20:09:29 dhellmann: I don't think so 20:09:30 we'll probably need to expand to a wider audience after brushing up the topic anyway 20:09:46 thingee : ok, thanks 20:09:49 It's not somethign that will be decided in 40 or 90 min anyway 20:09:55 ttx: +1 20:10:00 for #5. it could use a double if the first is "where is the line" and the second is "a common framework/method". i don't think feeling out the line will happen in less than 40 minutes. 20:10:09 I was planning on emailing the cp liaisons this week about if they will be attending the session/ asking for representation. 20:10:22 dhellmann: If we can only do one, I think there's still value. But two would likely be needed. But I'm OK if we can at least get the conversation started and then defer to the PTG if we really have to. 20:10:26 dougwig: that's true. we could draw out multiple solutions. just the final decision will take place after I think 20:10:29 dougwig: i agree with you there 20:10:45 dhellmann: I guess I'm unsure now :) 20:10:48 heh 20:10:52 diablo_rojo: Good call. 20:10:52 "a common framework" sounds like the e-mail thread which will follow that session 20:10:55 I like the topic split that way 20:10:59 So we could have one session for where is the line, a session on driver log where we can continue to touch on those topics 20:11:06 dhellmann : #3 and #4, do we need 40 mins each or can we club them together? 20:11:08 but yeah, I wonder if the implementation details of a framework are a much much longer discussion 20:11:12 fungi: Could be. 20:11:23 dims : #3 may not need 40 minutes, but I expect #4 will 20:11:26 dims: different topics I think 20:11:37 OK, so only #13 using a double-slot ? 20:11:41 ttx: I kind of feel like the driver log stuff alone needs the 40 mins. If we have extra time, I would be happy to continue the conversation of #5 20:11:45 ack ttx dhellmann 20:12:10 #info #13 should have a doubleslot 20:12:32 Which ones do we want to include from category C ? 20:12:45 #7 and/or #9 20:13:02 7 is "Stewardship Working Group (SWG) discussion" 20:13:03 #info group A/ 2 must-have (5, 13) 20:13:06 I'm not sure how much a single conversaion is useful in #9 20:13:16 that sounds like a conversaion per SDK 20:13:20 9 is "SDK fishbowl" 20:13:20 #info group B/ 7 pretty obvious choices (2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 16) 20:13:30 #info group C/ 2 slightly-less obvious choices (7, 9) 20:13:30 Note that both are narrow-enough and would likely not genberate conflicts 20:13:47 #info group D/ 2 subpar (8, 12) 20:13:47 ttx: I spoke to flanders about #9. I think we agreed there wouldn't be much attendance from the sdk devs themselves. 20:14:02 the real value would be in consumers of the sdks. Mostly talking about shade though at this time 20:14:06 dhellmann: I think ttx said we should add 14 to the obvious choices (in case you want to have an info on that too) 20:14:14 there are efforts in the future pre-next summit to start building this up more for sdk devs 20:14:23 #info group B/ 7 pretty obvious choices (2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 16) 20:14:26 flaper87 : thanks 20:14:33 thingee ttx if the working groups related to SDKs got time, it would be okay to drop 20:14:40 OK, so we'd save only #7 ? 20:14:46 In case people don't know, Flanders works for the OpenStack Foundation in improving our app dev community 20:15:10 he is a cool neighbour 20:15:12 dtroyer_zz : what do you mean "a single conversation"? 20:15:21 ttx does the Product WG also have time elsewhere? 20:15:24 dhellmann: all SDKs at the same time 20:15:26 ah 20:15:39 what ttx said 20:15:41 annegentle: I think they have a workgroup room somewhere 20:15:46 dtroyer_zz: yeah, that's a good point. What is the end goal of a session like that? 20:15:56 is mordred here? his name is on that sdk item too 20:15:57 there is very little that actually spans all of the SDKs, as much as I wish that were not the case 20:15:57 ttx yeah 20:16:15 dhellmann: think he's on a plane 20:16:20 (based on twitter info) 20:16:21 Would that encompass openstackclient as an "sdk" 20:16:29 prod wg definitely has a session and on Friday, a working session 20:16:30 dtroyer_zz : the description makes it sound like the idea is to turn one fishbowl room into a bunch of work sessions 20:16:40 dtroyer_zz yeah it's unfortunate, I was thinking in past summits it's usually the OpenStack client, API WGm and the App Ecosystem WG sessions that are useful 20:16:42 smcginnis: no, plus OSC has its own sessions 20:16:47 right 20:16:55 * ttx tweaks his strawman schedule to remove the double-slot for #5 20:17:00 dtroyer_zz: Gotcha, thanks! 20:17:32 slightly offtopic, With all the email conversations about what the new candidates for TC should/could do, feels like we need a session "Throw eggs at your TC" 20:17:45 or vegetables 20:17:48 smcginnis: see original email on project team slots http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-September/103560.html 20:17:51 :) 20:17:56 thingee: Thanks! 20:18:07 Forgot about that. 20:18:09 smcginnis: and join us! :) 20:18:10 dims: tomatoes will work just fine 20:18:18 dims, fungi : TC Frittata? 20:18:25 dims: better might be to just rotate tc members staffing a dunking booth 20:18:31 :) 20:18:31 dhellmann: lol 20:18:32 throw blueberries at me 20:18:34 OK, so any objections to the current selection ? 20:18:36 stevemar : i have to learn how to say "no fish, no meat" :) 20:18:36 all the blueberries 20:18:40 dims: the SWG is kinda the TC re-inventing whats its doing in a way 20:18:41 ttx : +1 20:18:55 Aa (including double for #13) + Bs + #7 20:18:58 +1 for dunking booth 20:19:00 ttx: none from me 20:19:08 ttx: +1 20:19:09 Trying to fix my schedule 20:19:09 ttx: does your current strawman proposal have all those in at the moment? I guess it does 20:19:17 johnthetubaguy: yes, trying to optimize though 20:19:21 johnthetubaguy : so let's make sure we word it such that people know lot of TC folks will be there 20:19:22 ttx: I like the org/tech split you identified 20:20:15 yep, sort of track-like 20:20:38 ttx: I would appreciate it if you could keep #3 and #13 from overlapping 20:20:39 ++ to org/tech split 20:20:48 tweaked it a bit to remove a conflict I had.. How does that one look for you all ? 20:21:30 check for hard conflicts you may have 20:21:48 i worry that overalpping #4 with anything is going to have some impact on whatever it overlaps with 20:22:04 ttx: I wanted to participate in the decomposition discussion. can #3 move to wed 12:15? 20:22:38 dhellmann: I wanted to avoid having all "architects" missing the decomposition discussion 20:22:42 13 and 6 look a bit bad for me, but meh, nothing is going to be perfect 20:22:43 ah, ok 20:22:57 but especially considering the number of tc members who were mentioning #4 in their platform statements this election, i wonder if havig it overlap with the swg means there won't be a lot of tc members in the swg session 20:23:07 I could swap with the upgrade discussion 20:23:07 also, can we swap 10 and 4 ? 20:23:32 flaper87: same lots of overlap between architects and SWG members 20:23:35 I'd like to attend 4 and 7, that's why 20:23:41 fungi : yeah 20:23:43 gotcha 20:23:44 let me see 20:23:54 * dtroyer_zz is surprised at the conflicts with just two rooms active 20:24:05 dtroyer_zz: it's actualkly not surprising 20:24:06 must mean we've got some good topics 20:24:10 less topics means less optional topics 20:24:14 ttx spotted this earlier, with less sessions we are getting more conflicts 20:24:19 yeah 20:24:56 moved Python 3 a bit, does that look better ? 20:25:03 argh, so now I am skipping 6 with I had intended on leading somewhat 20:25:38 how about that 20:26:02 I still won't be in the SWG session this way, but I don't see a way to avoid that 20:26:28 dhellmann: swap with rolling upgrades ? 20:26:39 y i really want to see what will be in SWG as i missed the training 20:26:41 3<-> 11 20:26:41 ttx: that would work 20:26:45 ttx: +1 to swap it 20:26:47 better... so I kinda want to be in all of them, which is bad, but live 20:26:49 ttx: 3 and 11 20:27:05 done 20:27:20 is 11 in a ops friendly slot still? 20:27:21 sold 20:27:30 johnthetubaguy: argh 20:27:32 I'm looking forward to the PTG, when we'll have more time for these sorts of things 20:27:40 dhellmann + 20:27:40 it is still somewhat ops friendly 20:27:50 (everything on wednesday is) 20:27:50 johnthetubaguy: I think it's ops friendly 20:27:53 if both 13 sessions are on the same day, we can't sleep on it 20:27:59 I still want to be in 11 & 7, but I think 7 should still win 20:28:00 dhellmann: heh, and more potential scheduling conflicts :) 20:28:01 ttx: cool 20:28:11 dims : at this point, I'm prepared to give up on that idea :-) 20:28:13 do we want to sleep on it ? 20:28:23 dhellmann wanted to :) 20:28:39 mtreinish : if we have 2 days, we could have some sessions scheduled in their own slot (community goals, for example) 20:28:39 OK, let's sleep on the schedule 20:28:44 yeah, +1 20:28:54 ttx: dims meant the split between the 2 parts of session #13 20:28:59 I'll do a thread to finalize it tomorrow 20:29:09 dhellmann : right 20:29:10 ++ 20:29:11 I had suggested putting those on separate days, but I don't think it's worth breaking what we've come up with to do that. 20:29:28 ack 20:29:30 We could swap 13part2 with 5 20:29:30 swapping both sessions with another pair might do it 20:30:14 oh well, let's sleep on that and finalize scheduling tomorrow 20:30:14 ttx : yep 20:30:19 13.2 for 5 might work 20:30:28 Need to check that session leads are not dual-booked too 20:30:32 I assume no session leaders are speaking on these days? 20:30:44 #action ttx to start a thread on finalizing schedule 20:30:49 dhellmann: you assume wrong 20:31:07 #info ttx to check for session lead conflicts with talks 20:31:20 #info consider swapping 13.2 for 5 20:31:30 ok, let's switch to another topic 20:31:48 #topic Clarify the process for the TC approved release 20:32:11 #link https://review.openstack.org/374027 20:32:30 Only minor objections, including recommending the use of "Interop WG" instead of Defcore, and removing the duplicate "that" 20:32:43 yeah, I'm happy to prepare a follow-up to fix those wording nits 20:32:50 +1 20:32:57 OK, let's approve that one then 20:33:04 thanks dhellmann 20:33:08 objections ? 20:33:12 ttx: go for it 20:33:13 none 20:33:35 ok done 20:33:43 #topic YAML cleanups 20:33:52 Two small housekeeping items: 20:33:57 * Rename retired-projects.yaml to legacy.yaml (https://review.openstack.org/376828) 20:34:09 That will capture better that projects that are removed from governance are not necessarily abandoned / retired from infra 20:34:24 this one also has enough approvals to pass now 20:34:28 Objections ? 20:34:42 fwiw, that file is not (yet) integrated into our election tooling anyway but is intended to be soon 20:34:58 no objections 20:35:05 so renaming is entirely nondisruptive in that regard 20:35:08 which reminds me, we missed adding OpenStackSalt to that one 20:35:17 ok good to know fungi 20:35:19 ttx: yes it was agreed to add it after 20:35:32 #action ttx to add OpenStackSalt to legacy.yaml 20:35:32 after this merges, i'll take an action on that ttx 20:35:33 there was at least one fuel repo made unofficial recently which should have ended up in there was well 20:35:36 ttx: my understanding is once this patch merges dims will add salt 20:35:40 #undo 20:35:41 Removing item from minutes: 20:35:56 #action dims to propose change to add OpenStackSalt to legacy.yaml 20:36:04 fungi : ack on that fuel repo, will take care of that 20:36:08 #info wording tweaks on the tc-approved-release patch: https://review.openstack.org/382064 20:36:08 i spotted it when trying to figure out why the atc count shrunk over a given time period 20:36:10 and... approved 20:36:15 thank you 20:36:20 thanks dims 20:36:20 * Alphabetise team names (https://review.openstack.org/376070) 20:36:32 This can't really hurt, but is a rebase hell, so better approve it while it's fresh 20:36:36 heh 20:36:52 still missing a few votes 20:36:54 ttx darn, clobbers my api refresh 20:37:39 annegentle: arh. Another rebase hellish one. If you rebase it on top of this one we could approve it in session 20:37:48 ttx nah it's oka 20:37:50 okay even 20:37:52 because the one-week baking period is killing it 20:38:04 ttx I'll fix my links after this one lands 20:38:24 ttx there's seven 20:38:24 TC members; please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/376070/, still missing votes 20:38:36 annegentle: oh, not too bad 20:38:42 yeah 20:38:58 Objections ? 20:39:11 none 20:39:16 ((to the alpha-ordering one) 20:39:22 whoops thought I already voted on this 20:39:25 ok, ready to approve 20:39:38 and done 20:39:45 #topic Add stable:follows-policy tag to heat 20:39:52 #link https://review.openstack.org/379114 20:40:06 This addition was vetted by Tony as stable maint PTL, and there doesn't seem to be any objection so far 20:40:34 ttx did the heat PTL circle in on it? 20:40:49 don't think it's required. 20:40:54 I think Rabi is the current ptl 20:40:57 the author is hte heat ptl 20:41:00 thingee ttx ok, cool 20:41:23 OK, ready to approve 20:41:42 Last-minute objection ? 20:42:04 and... done 20:42:26 wow, we actually have time to discuss Assume Good Faith a bit 20:42:32 #topic Add "Assume Good Faith" to OpenStack principles 20:42:38 #link https://review.openstack.org/365590 20:42:47 Feedback so far seems to be that the idea is good, but this is about personal conduct and therefore is a better match for the CoC 20:42:59 I'd like to start by saying that this proposal did not try to tell folks that do not assume good faith should not be part of the community. I'd like to also add that I don't think assuming good faith stops at simply trusting that members of the community put openstack first when needed. There's more to it than that. For example, it's often said that the TC runs with a secret agenda, which is way 20:43:01 far from being true. This and other things like this have been *assumed* in the past about other members. 20:43:03 That being said, I'm good with linking the CoC. I'd rather have this written down with explicit words that would help us set expctations but I don't want to exclude anyone and I'm happy to keep reminding people to assume good faith. 20:43:07 I think assuming good faith on anyone within a code conduct is not right. 20:43:10 * flaper87 admits the obvious paste 20:43:33 Personally I prefer this kind of thing to be in the CoC because I think it applies to all of our community, beyond the TC's constituency 20:43:34 What it's trying to capture I think is already within the code of conduct. 20:43:56 thingee: It's scattered in the CoC 20:43:56 Also if we start tackling general personal behavior in community in the "principles" document, we'll end up copying all the CoC over 20:44:11 So I'd rather draw the line and point from one to the other (the link is already there). 20:44:12 flaper87: You can propose changes to the CoC sure. 20:44:15 It's there but you have to read between lines to actually get to the "Assume Good faith" point 20:44:24 thingee: yup, I mentioned that in one of my comments 20:44:34 or in one meeting, can't recall 20:44:50 point is. If we prefer to link the CoC then I think we can propose a change to the CoC 20:44:56 this is different from the CoC to me. 20:45:10 flaper87: we already linked the Coc 20:45:11 but again, putting this in the CoC feels like forcing it to people 20:45:23 Definitely all behavior should start from the CoC but this is a governance context document. 20:45:25 which is the same problem we have with my proposal to begin with 20:45:37 flaper87 so I'd advocate to have it be in this document 20:46:04 annegentle: why is it different from a CoC-style expectation ? 20:46:12 annegentle: my preference goes to have it in this document 20:46:20 You can tell people how they must behave (CoC). You can't tell them how to think or feel (Assume Good Faith). 20:46:42 edleafe: Ah. Isee. Good distinction 20:46:51 ttx CoC's have enforcement rules. This is a principle 20:46:57 edleafe: +100 20:46:58 right 20:46:59 thank you 20:47:03 edleafe: loved the wording 20:47:05 that's why I highlighted "we don't blame and shame" in my comment. That's a conduct 20:47:06 we're not going to report people for not assuming good faith 20:47:13 I'm not certain we can tell people how they should think in a "principles" document either 20:47:37 cdent: that can be fixed, likely just poor wording on my side 20:48:06 I think cdent pointed out one other reason why it is different from the CoC: including corporate behaviours here 20:48:24 flaper87: maybe "try to assume good faith" is better then 20:48:36 ttx to me, this principles document tells people how to approach others in the context of OpenStack, and writing down that we all assume good faith is a principle "We should all assume good faith in our interactions" 20:48:50 ttx: I guess 20:48:59 We all fail to assume good faith from time to time 20:49:01 Are we trying to say that we all wear multiple hats, but we need to the right thing when we are thinking/working on openstack? 20:49:02 I've failed 20:49:14 One good thing about this is that we can also link people to it 20:49:20 I fail to assume good faith and use wrong english words :) 20:49:28 :) 20:49:31 ttx: ditto 20:50:06 ttx: I assumed your good faith when reading your email today 20:50:07 :) 20:50:10 flaper87: maybe we could reword it to include a sentence on being mindful of geographical difference etc 20:50:14 To be honest, putting it there doesn't mean people will do it. I'd hope more folks would but that's just my personal hope/belief 20:50:19 ttx: ++ 20:50:40 ttx: +1, and cultures 20:50:41 flaper87 I think it's about the "write expectations down" 20:50:47 I think the intro paragraph positions this well as "guiding principles that are used to inform and shape decisions" 20:50:47 flaper87: heh, but it means you can link to it :) 20:50:48 flaper87: let's see how we can tweak it to make it less of a behavior definition and more of an aspiring thing 20:50:56 annegentle: that's what I want, that's the point 20:51:07 mtreinish: right 20:51:14 ttx: sounds good to me 20:51:25 smcginnis: ++ 20:51:50 ttx: +1 20:52:05 #info Work on wording to make it more aspirational and include being mindful of our language/geographical/cultural diversity 20:52:12 +1 ttx 20:52:20 flaper87 ++ yep 20:52:25 Also, it's fine if some folks don't want to assume good faith but it's not ok to make it public. So, aspiring to assume good faith is definitely the goal 20:52:38 making it public is offensive for many cultures 20:52:39 We might be able to avoid most of the CoC-like language in it, in which case I would not oppose it that much 20:53:05 And by making it public I mean accussing people based on the personal preference to not assume good faith 20:53:06 most of the other principles are either focused on leaders or on teams, not individual contributors. Maybe if it can be reframed a bit more that way that would make it feel like it fits better. 20:53:11 ok, looks like we ahve some way forward 20:53:26 thanks everyone 20:53:43 #topic Open discussion 20:53:47 I think we are all pointing at a thing that we want to capture there, +1 capturing that 20:53:55 Elections are under way, vote if you haven't already. We'll hold the first meeting for the Ocata membership next week 20:54:01 the patchf for the wording tweaks on the tc-approved-release is up https://review.openstack.org/382064 20:54:12 Small reminder that there will be a BoD+TC+UC meeting in Barcelona on Monday afternoon, starting at 2:30pm, followed by dinner at 7:30pm 20:54:17 rebase went fine on this one 20:54:18 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/371538/ 20:54:24 I'll send RSVPs over once elections are complete 20:54:25 dhellmann: I was actually working on adding a principle to say the way to implement change is individual contributors doing the work 20:54:31 * flaper87 read patchf and thought that was a secret command to fix patches 20:54:32 to try and capture that sentiment 20:54:47 I'm trying to come up with the right wording to express that thought clearly though :) 20:54:57 mtreinish : "we work together" 20:55:02 mtreinish: "Contribution Is Our Currency" ? 20:55:03 :) 20:55:15 Own the change you want to happen 20:55:25 hah 20:55:28 heh, those are all better than my tenative title right now "The Mechanism for Change is People" 20:55:54 I'm getting attached to our weird capitalization there 20:55:58 I thought we had a patch up for that already, maybe from sdague? 20:55:58 it's worth noting that the civs maintainer reported cornell's mailservers are either deferring or dropping a lot of messages (hence the resend of all ballots), so lots of the electorate may not have received ballots still 20:56:03 mtreinish: ha ha ha 20:56:17 OpenStack is made out of people 20:56:21 Do-Do-ocracy 20:56:21 fungi : is that software something we could host for ourselves? 20:56:32 Soylent green!!!!! 20:56:32 johnthetubaguy: I think sdague complained about it on the original goals, but I haven't seen a patch for it 20:56:36 dhellmann: we could. 20:56:39 smcginnis: so apparently is soylent green if you watch cloud atlas 20:56:41 Rockyg: ;) 20:56:43 Rockyg : you typed faster than me :) 20:56:59 dhellmann: it is, but then we lose the current third party situation which sort of helps defend us from ourselves (granted the trade-off may be better than losing ballots) 20:57:02 mtreinish: I may have imagined it 20:57:08 fungi : yeah 20:57:32 everyone: please check the tentative cross-project workshop schedule and let me know if you spot hard conflicts 20:57:45 dhellmann: it has come up before 20:58:02 Newton was a great TC session (it's also a great release, despite the general modd) 20:58:07 mood* 20:58:13 dhellmann: I think the loss of the independant third party would be large if we hosted it 20:58:18 ttx: ++ 20:58:31 fungi: is it something we can contribute servers/cpu too? (admitelly, I'm not familiar with the problems they are haivng ? 20:58:36 So as we wrap it up, please find the time to celebrate 20:58:44 anteaya : makes sense. Still, if we've outgrown what they can support, it might be necessary. 20:58:50 flaper87: no, i don't think it's likely to be a resource issue 20:58:56 ttx agreed! Well done, all. 20:58:58 People are using that software everywhere for a lot of things, and they are getting happier and happier using it 20:58:59 fungi: gotcha 20:59:00 flaper87: and it's the cornell university mailservers in this case 20:59:11 fungi: oh, mmh. :( 20:59:13 ttx: well said 20:59:22 ttx: ++ 20:59:24 if through some strange turn of events i'm elected to a seat on the tc, i'm on vacation next week and so won't be around for the meeting 20:59:27 ttx: group hug ? 20:59:34 * flaper87 grabs ttx before he runs 20:59:38 There is probably a chinese proverb with a mountain and a rock to express seeing only the negative aspects :) 21:00:06 "Those who walk the mountain pay attention to the rocks" ? 21:00:08 fungi : thanks for the heads up. best wishes 21:00:29 ttx: are you making up proverbs? 21:00:43 anteaya: I'm making up lots of things 21:00:47 Thanks to all the outgoing TC members for their service! 21:00:48 and that is a wrap 21:00:49 ancient openstack proverb 21:00:51 ttx make it up as you go! 21:00:52 :) 21:00:55 dhellmann: it is worth another discussion yeah 21:00:58 #endmeeting