20:01:02 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:01:02 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Oct 11 20:01:02 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:01:03 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:01:05 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:01:14 <stevemar> o/
20:01:18 <ttx> First of all, congratulations to the recently-elected (and reelected) members!
20:01:20 <sigmavirus> o/
20:01:25 * edleafe cranes his neck to see the new people
20:01:27 <Rockyg> /me multi-lurking an not typing well
20:01:32 <bswartz> welcome new TC!
20:01:36 <ttx> For the first meeting of the Ocata TC membership, I focused on urgent stuff
20:01:50 <Rockyg> Huzzah!
20:01:52 <ttx> And deferred to next week more long-term stuff, to give time for new members to consider those
20:01:55 <stevemar> when do i learn the secret handshake?
20:01:57 * bauzas waves late
20:01:59 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:02:05 <ttx> stevemar: in person only
20:02:10 <stevemar> :)
20:02:15 <ttx> (remember to use #info #idea and #link liberally to make for a more readable summary)
20:02:22 <ttx> #topic Welcome Ocata membership !
20:02:28 <ttx> First a bit of housekeeping
20:02:32 <ttx> * Gerrit rights
20:02:42 <ttx> I set up your Gerrit rights, so you should all be able to RollCall-Vote +1/-1, let me know if you can't
20:02:52 <ttx> * -tc ML access
20:03:00 <ttx> We use the openstack-tc mailing-list for administrative communication between TC members.
20:03:06 <ttx> Like meeting reminders
20:03:09 <ttx> The list is moderated for non-members
20:03:18 <ttx> I removed the moderation bit for all the people who were already subscribed
20:03:27 <ttx> Couldn't find Emilien nor Jeremy though, so please subscribe and let me know when you have
20:03:37 <EmilienM> I did subscribe this morning
20:03:45 <dhellmann> #link http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
20:03:48 <ttx> ah! let me fix that for you then
20:04:13 <ttx> alright, mod bit cleared
20:04:22 <ttx> #action fungi to subscribe to openstack-tc and let ttx know so that he can clear the moderation bit
20:04:28 <thingee> o/
20:04:32 <ttx> * Update member roster (https://review.openstack.org/384543)
20:04:42 <ttx> This one updates the member list, I think it's good to go
20:05:13 <dims> yep, +1
20:05:15 * johnthetubaguy is listening but having connection troubles
20:05:27 <ttx> (it removes the {chair} thing so that we actually record the selection of the chair as a specific change
20:05:44 <ttx> will approve now unless someone objects
20:06:06 <ttx> done
20:06:16 <ttx> so it's official now, welcome :)
20:06:24 <ttx> * Select chair
20:06:34 <ttx> We need to select the chair, I'm happy to continue in that role
20:06:43 <ttx> Especially since Doug continues to take most of the release management weight off my shoulders in Ocata
20:06:53 <EmilienM> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/384546/
20:06:54 <ttx> If someone else wants it, please propose something similar to my candidacy:
20:06:58 <ttx> ^
20:07:07 <stevemar> ttx: gordc had a comment on that one, can you shed light on your reply? :)
20:07:38 <ttx> stevemar: I trained dhellmann and flaper87 in the various tools and techniques I follow. I can train anyone else interested
20:07:39 <dhellmann> stevemar : the first rule is you don't ask ttx about his cloning experiments in public
20:08:05 <stevemar> dhellmann: my bad, i'm still new to this
20:08:08 <stevemar> ttx: sounds good
20:08:12 <rattboi> 35
20:08:35 <bauzas> rattboi: 42
20:09:00 <edleafe> stevemar: geez, even I knew that
20:09:22 <ttx> ok, looks like I'm still the only candidate
20:09:28 <dims> ttx : happy to have you continue. +1
20:09:33 <ttx> so I'll approve the change now unless someone asks me to pause
20:09:36 <thingee> +1
20:09:38 <EmilienM> same here
20:09:39 <dhellmann> +1
20:09:52 <ttx> ok done
20:09:59 <ttx> * Confirmation of change approval rules & agenda buildup process
20:10:08 <ttx> Small reminder of how we currently operate...
20:10:24 <ttx> (we can change it of course but here is the status quo)
20:10:34 <ttx> Changes or resolutions must be proposed before Thursday 20:00 UTC for discussion at the next meeting
20:10:47 <ttx> Sometimes we defer stuff if there is too much for one meeting
20:10:54 <ttx> We also need to discuss/mention them at at least one TC meeting before approving them in a formal vote on the review
20:11:07 <ttx> Ultimately things are approved if there are more approvals than rejections, and at least 5 approvers
20:11:18 <ttx> Though in most cases we just merge them when the majority (7 votes) is reached
20:11:34 <ttx> There are a number of standing exceptions to that rule (to remove most of the useless discussions), all documented in
20:11:38 <ttx> #link http://governance.openstack.org/reference/house-rules.html
20:11:50 <ttx> For example, a team adding a new repository, change will be approved after one week if there is no objection.
20:12:07 <ttx> (it's part of the funny role of the chair to keep that relatively fluid)
20:12:13 <ttx> (If there is an objection then it will be discussed at the following meeting)
20:12:28 <ttx> To facilitate finding the things we actually have to vote formally on, I mark them with topic: formal-vote
20:12:38 <ttx> Questions ?
20:12:54 <dhellmann> it might be a good idea to write down the baseline rules on that house-rules page, too
20:13:03 <dhellmann> I can take that if you'd like
20:13:09 <EmilienM> it sounds clear, and mostly documented in governance.o.o
20:13:12 <ttx> dhellmann: it's kind of what's written in the charter
20:13:19 <dhellmann> ah, ok
20:13:21 <ttx> I didn't want to duplicate
20:13:41 <dhellmann> #link http://governance.openstack.org/reference/charter.html#motions
20:13:59 <ttx> Note that releasemanagement team is talking about moving most of the release details stuff out of the TC governed file, since that's mostly noise governance-wise
20:14:10 <stevemar> EmilienM: ++, i re-read them recently, if i have questions i'll ask
20:14:24 <ttx> but it might not be as easy as we think :)
20:14:40 <ttx> * Barcelona reminders
20:14:51 <ttx> A few reminders for those who will be in Barcelona
20:14:57 <ttx> There will be a joint Board/TC/UC meeting, Monday at 2:30pm
20:15:04 <ttx> (we'll discuss the agenda in next topic)
20:15:14 <ttx> This will be followed by the "Marketplace Mixer Booth Crawl Happy Hour" (whatever that is) between 5:00 and 7:00pm
20:15:27 <ttx> probably involves alcohol
20:15:31 <dhellmann> do we have the location for the meeting, yet?
20:15:38 <ttx> let me see
20:15:53 <dhellmann> it was probably in the announcement email for the board meeting
20:15:56 <stevemar> dhellmann: not according to the schedule, nio
20:16:01 <ttx> was "CCIB Level 2 (Plata 1 in Spanish)" in an email I received in July
20:16:16 <ttx> checking the Board wiki page
20:16:44 <dhellmann> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/24Oct2016BoardMeeting
20:16:45 <dims> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/24Oct2016BoardMeeting
20:16:55 <ttx> not any more precise
20:17:03 <ttx> "CCIB Level 2 (Plata 1 in Spanish)"
20:17:07 <dims> just a shade slower than dhellmann :)
20:17:16 <ttx> Then dinner with the BoD, UC and Foundation Staff at 7:30pm, you should all have rezceived an RSVP for that
20:17:30 <ttx> mordred: around?
20:17:44 <ttx> mordred wanted to set up some ex-and-current-TC dinner
20:17:54 <ttx> no news about that though
20:18:01 <dhellmann> please not on Monday, I'm already triple-booked
20:18:20 <ttx> there is no official party day so avoiding Monday should be easy
20:18:45 <ttx> Questions on that before we move on ?
20:18:49 <piet_> ttx any way I can get an invitation to the dinner with the BoD, UC and Foundation Staff at 7:30pm?
20:19:10 <ttx> piet_: it's probably a closed set, I can ask around though
20:19:38 <ttx> #topic Discuss BoD/TC meeting agenda
20:19:58 <ttx> So... any topic you want to see discussed at the BoD+TC+UC meeting in Barcelona ?
20:20:02 <ttx> I'd like to get back to Alan Clark with this ASAP, since we haven't synced yet
20:20:06 <ttx> and time is running out
20:20:15 <ttx> Looks like the UC already has an item on the agenda, discussing the charter
20:20:24 <ttx> Let's take notes on:
20:20:28 <ttx> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/bcn-bod+tc+uc-topics
20:20:40 <ttx> I already added a couple there, based on past discussions with Alan and a number of TC members
20:20:57 <ttx> - A lot of Board members are confused with our criteria for project acceptance, so I think we could spend some time discussing that
20:21:12 <ttx> - I also would like to discuss the recent drops in upstream developer investment, with layoffs at multiple member companies
20:21:16 <ttx> and the risk that poses to OpenStack as a whole
20:21:19 <dhellmann> ++
20:21:24 <piet_> UX project would like to do a quick overview of the six studies that were conducted on behalf of the community over the last six months. This is a general overview of issues that were identified.
20:21:25 <mtreinish> ttx: is worth having a topic on the dco again? I can't remember why we haven't dropped the cla yet
20:21:33 <dims> ttx : ++
20:21:33 <mtreinish> ttx: yeah those are both good topics
20:21:37 <johnthetubaguy> +1 on the upstream developer investment
20:21:50 <ttx> mtreinish: we can get a status update on DCO yes
20:21:52 <stevemar> yeah, nice to see that addressed and not ignored
20:21:53 * smcginnis is concerned about that as well
20:22:02 <ttx> Last time I asked it was blocked on infrastructure more than on the Board though
20:22:49 <anteaya> yes
20:23:03 <mtreinish> ttx: tbh, I never understood the details on that. What would be blocking that in infra
20:23:04 <anteaya> whatever openid provider we have
20:23:11 <anteaya> openstackid/ipsilon
20:23:13 <mtreinish> how is that coupled?
20:23:40 <anteaya> clarkb: do you have more on this?
20:23:44 <clarkb> mtreinish: aiui the boards dco decision us contingent on us using openstack member accounts for auth
20:23:47 <mtreinish> I mean I understand the desire to get off of launchpad's sso, but what does that have to do with with dropping the cla
20:23:59 <clarkb> so that they can map users to corp cla signers easily
20:24:04 <mtreinish> clarkb: ah, ok
20:24:16 <dhellmann> piet_ : I'm not sure I understand how your proposed presentation fits in with the intent of the joint meeting. Can you explain that a bit?
20:24:52 <dhellmann> piet_ : that's not usually the sort of thing we do at these meetings, since we don't have a lot of opportunities for the board, tc, and uc to all be together and discuss issues
20:24:58 <ttx> mtreinish: with that in mind, is it still useful to get an update there ?
20:25:03 <mtreinish> clarkb: I'm not sure I really buy that it'll make it easier. But, I'll just file it under board decision in my head
20:25:21 <ttx> dhellmann: also I expect we'll spend a lot of time on the UC charter part
20:25:27 <mtreinish> ttx: probably not, although I think bringing it up just to make sure people don't forget about it is useful
20:25:31 <sdague> ttx: whether or not it's a bod topic, it seems like a thing we should figure out how to have some regular checkpoint
20:25:33 <dhellmann> ttx: yes, that seems likely
20:25:50 <sdague> it only seems to get looked at when there is a joint tc/bod session
20:25:59 <sdague> probably should have eyes on it more often than that
20:26:03 <ttx> mtreinish, sdague: ok
20:26:26 <ttx> if only to say "this time we are not really waiting on you" :)
20:26:37 <piet_> dhellmann Sure, but I could make the argument that most of the issues are related to usability. However, the board and TC are not always aware of these issues.  Also, PWG has also been given slots at these meetings.
20:27:22 <dhellmann> piet_ : yes, I didn't consider that a good use of time but that was a thing the board asked to have on the agenda for that meeting.
20:27:57 <dhellmann> I would much rather we spend time discussing issues that need to be resolved than seeing presentations. So is this related to a community or governance issue in some way?
20:28:04 <piet_> dhellmann Not quite understanding you
20:28:19 <thingee> piet_: the pwg has a slot because the board would like to see a roadmap of what's being worked.
20:28:36 <ttx> whoever proposed the goal overview: it wouldn't hurt to present that initiative yes
20:28:43 <dhellmann> piet_ : are you going to do an information dump, or are you asking for us to decide something for you?
20:28:56 <dtroyer> the point about PWG is that it's the board scheduling the time, not us
20:30:17 <dims> if anyone wants to see what items we had in Austin it's here (https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/6PuSKyUOHk)
20:30:29 * dhellmann thinks people are typing in the etherpad instead of here in conversation
20:30:53 <dhellmann> piet_ : does line 20 apply to the goals thing or to the user research thing? (I think that's your pink on the etherpad)
20:31:24 <ttx> anyway, we won't get to the bottom of the agenda within the hour.
20:31:31 <ttx> let's continue the brainstorm on the etherpad, I'll communicate with Alan later this week and we can cobble together the agenda from that
20:31:52 <ttx> please add your name next to the suggestion
20:31:58 <ttx> so that we know who would drive it
20:33:09 <piet_> Removed
20:33:45 <ttx> Anything else on that ? or moving on to next topic ?
20:34:11 <ttx> #action TC members to brainstorm and add suggestions on the joint agenda etherpad before end of week
20:34:39 <ttx> #action ttx to reach out to Alan Clark to build the final agenda
20:35:13 <ttx> #topic Discuss when next election period shall happen
20:35:22 <ttx> So.. this is one of the most urgent changes for us to discuss
20:35:40 <ttx> The PTL and TC election timeframes are defined in the TC charter, but the wording there assumes there is a thing called "the Design Summit" and that it happens at the same time as the thing called "the Summit".
20:35:50 <ttx> So we need to change the charter to account for the PTG + Summit change
20:36:05 <ttx> I raised a thread about that a month ago, but it started on a wrong assumption, and quickly rabbit-holed on a detail
20:36:11 <ttx> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-September/103115.html
20:36:22 <ttx> Roughly speaking we have 3 options
20:36:28 <ttx> 1/ Vote a few weeks before PTG
20:36:36 <ttx> 2/ Vote a few weeks before Summit
20:36:40 <ttx> 3/ Get more creative
20:36:51 <ttx> My original plan was (2), to avoid switching PTLs in the middle of the PTG prep
20:37:03 <ttx> (and to avoid reducing terms for the recently-elected folks)
20:37:11 <sdague> my preference is #1, because that feels very close to what we currently do
20:37:14 <ttx> but then elections always fall in the middle of something interesting
20:37:21 <EmilienM> 1/ implies Ocata PTL won't be PTL during 6 months, right?
20:37:23 <mtreinish> ttx: for 2 though, doesn't that mean the ocata ptl serves into pike
20:37:28 <dhellmann> quite a lot of folks view the PTL as a release manager, too, so seem to want it to sync up with the release cycle
20:37:33 <dhellmann> EmilienM : right
20:37:33 <stevemar> EmilienM: yep
20:37:34 <anteaya> sdague: for me too, I also favour option 1
20:37:37 <EmilienM> dhellmann: I agree
20:37:59 <ttx> 1 implies short PTLs and shorter terms for the Ocata membership of the TC
20:38:00 <johnthetubaguy> #1 feels the closest to what we do today
20:38:14 <dhellmann> ttx: the ptl and tc elections don't need to be at the same time
20:38:14 <ttx> (unless we decouple the PTL and TC elections)
20:38:15 <EmilienM> imho, it would make sense to keep release schedule in account
20:38:17 <dims> one time cost ttx?
20:38:30 <sdague> ttx: it does, though I'm not sure that we really need to keep TC and PTL elections in sync
20:38:45 <dims> ++ sdague
20:38:47 <johnthetubaguy> sdague: thats an interesting point...
20:38:47 <ttx> sdague: yeah.. that is an option
20:38:52 <stevemar> probably doesn't need to be sync'ed at this point
20:38:59 <ttx> could avoid some election fatigue I guess
20:39:14 <dtroyer> It may make sense to do #1 for PTL and #2 for TC
20:39:16 <sdague> it seems to me the TC is more like the BOD, especially as the election is already for more than 1 cycle
20:39:16 <anteaya> or create some
20:39:17 * edleafe understands "election fatigue"
20:39:18 <ttx> Also lets us spend more time on the TC election to allow one week of campaigning for exmaple
20:39:27 <sdague> I'd be fine with #1 for PTL, and #2 for TC
20:39:33 <mtreinish> dtroyer: yeah I kinda like that
20:39:55 <dims> +1 dtroyer
20:39:59 <ttx> ok, I can try to come up with some strawman before the next
20:40:01 <edleafe> dtroyer: that sounds like the best choice
20:40:03 <ttx> meeting*
20:40:11 <dhellmann> is it ok to change the length of the ptl term for ocata now that those folks have been elected?
20:40:26 <johnthetubaguy> #1 for PTL, #2 for TC fits quite well
20:40:27 <sdague> dhellmann: we're calling it ocata PTL right?
20:40:30 <ttx> we won't see how bad it is until we draw it
20:40:35 <dtroyer> ocata is an exception schedule-wise, I suspect making this change now isn't going to be much of a surprise
20:40:36 <mtreinish> dtroyer: does the charter explicitly say 6 months or is it by cycles?
20:40:38 <sdague> I honestly think a lot of PTLs assumed it would be a shorter term
20:40:46 <mtreinish> s/dtroyer/dhellmann
20:40:47 <sdague> because we call it named after a cycle
20:40:48 <johnthetubaguy> I know some folks were assuming they would PTL for last time
20:40:52 <dtroyer> mtreinish: I don't know
20:40:52 <anteaya> mtreinish: the by laws specify time
20:40:54 <edleafe> dhellmann: or extend it to a longer term
20:40:54 <johnthetubaguy> oops
20:40:56 <johnthetubaguy> less time
20:41:00 <johnthetubaguy> +1 sdague
20:41:04 <EmilienM> dhellmann: as a PTL, I don't feel hurt by this thing
20:41:08 <mtreinish> dtroyer: sry, tab complete fail :)
20:41:15 <dtroyer> :)
20:41:28 <stevemar> EmilienM: same :P
20:41:31 <anteaya> mtreinish: http://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/
20:41:50 <mtreinish> anteaya: we're talking about ptls though
20:42:03 <anteaya> mtreinish: ah sorry, not that I've come across
20:42:16 <dhellmann> #link http://governance.openstack.org/reference/charter.html#election-for-ptl-seats
20:42:17 <EmilienM> sdague: indeed, we all knew Ocata was short. I don't think PTLs will be surprised
20:42:18 <dims> mtreinish : good point
20:42:20 <dhellmann> that says 6 months
20:42:22 <ttx> mtreinish: we need to update teh charter anyway
20:42:26 <dhellmann> yeah
20:42:38 <ttx> but better if we don't have to modify bylaws appendixes
20:42:50 <ttx> so keeping (2) for teh TC would be a good bet
20:43:08 <ttx> I'll re-read all of this and make sure we can come up with something that works
20:43:20 <ttx> and have it up for you to consider before next meeting
20:43:31 <mtreinish> ttx: ok, sure that's fine. But we probably should say it also applies to cycles in progress somewhere when we merge it then
20:43:34 <sdague> ttx: ++
20:43:39 <mtreinish> assuming we change it to be per cycle
20:43:41 <ttx> then if that's the thing we want to propose, communicate it to a wider set of PTLs and check that they don't mind having a short cycle :)
20:43:50 <dhellmann> #link http://www.openstack.org/legal/technical-committee-member-policy/
20:43:55 <johnthetubaguy> sounds like a good plan
20:43:59 <dhellmann> so the bylaws also say 6 months for tc members
20:44:02 <mtreinish> ttx: ++
20:44:13 <ttx> #action ttx to build a strawman with PTl elections aligned with PTG and TC elections aligned with summit, see how it flies
20:44:23 <mtreinish> dhellmann: that shouldn'y be a problem if we keep tc elections to #2
20:44:44 <dhellmann> mtreinish : right, but since it's in the bylaws if we do want to change it it's going to be harder
20:44:52 <johnthetubaguy> I worry about elections for PTL being aligned with some super critical point in the release, so we need to double check all that for sure
20:45:17 <johnthetubaguy> bylaws mean all members have to vote?
20:45:31 <anteaya> johnthetubaguy: where do you read that?
20:45:32 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : yes
20:45:33 <ttx> johnthetubaguy: 25% or something
20:45:45 <johnthetubaguy> anteaya: just attempting to remember
20:45:45 <anteaya> johnthetubaguy: ah a change in the by laws
20:45:46 <ttx> anteaya: he means bylwas changes mean foundation members vote
20:45:51 <dhellmann> well, right, not "all members" but we can't change them on our own
20:45:54 <anteaya> ttx: yes, thanks
20:46:05 <ttx> OK, sounds like we have a way forward
20:46:05 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, sorry, thanks for translating me!
20:46:17 <ttx> moving on to next topic ?
20:46:27 <anteaya> johnthetubaguy: I thought you were saying the by laws made voting mandatory
20:46:41 <dhellmann> ttx: ++
20:46:42 <ttx> #topic Easy cleanups
20:46:49 <ttx> just a few things that we can probably quickly merge:
20:47:00 <ttx> (scream if we shouldn't)
20:47:02 <ttx> * wording tweaks on the tc-approved-release tag definition (https://review.openstack.org/382064)
20:47:26 <ttx> need to refresh the +1s on this one
20:47:30 <dtroyer> (it has been revved)
20:47:39 <ttx> since I forced a last-minute refresh on it :)
20:47:49 <ttx> alright, 7
20:47:54 <ttx> approving
20:48:03 <ttx> * Simplify governance website title (https://review.openstack.org/382399)
20:48:16 <ttx> could use one more
20:48:24 <stevemar> needs one more
20:48:48 <ttx> alright, approving
20:49:04 <ttx> * Record OpenStack-Salt as a Legacy project (https://review.openstack.org/382536)
20:49:18 <ttx> this one has all it needs
20:49:35 <ttx> * Record Fuel repos that were retired (https://review.openstack.org/382633)
20:50:16 <ttx> so I don't disagree with this one (though it will conflict with the one just before)... but it's first time we actually record specific repositories being dropped vs. full teams
20:50:38 <ttx> since I'm not convinced of the utility of this file I'm fine with it
20:50:41 <dims> ttx : y, i can rebase depending on which goes first
20:50:56 <ttx> whatever fungi says is helpful to generating voters lists
20:50:57 <dims> ttx : checked with fungi about the data in the diff, he was ok
20:51:09 <dhellmann> yes, we said this was a case we needed to account for in case someone only contributed to a dropped repo for voting rights
20:51:13 * EmilienM realizes we called a project "shotgun" :-O
20:51:28 <dims> EmilienM :)
20:51:32 <ttx> ok, approving it now, and it will likely fail to merge
20:51:32 <johnthetubaguy> at some point, I guess we empty the file, after the contributions are no longer within the voting window?
20:51:33 <mtreinish> ttx: hmm, that does make it look a little confusing. It seems like we retired fuel
20:51:52 <ttx> mtreinish: yeah, that's why I was questioning it
20:51:53 <mtreinish> although I don't have any suggestions on doing it better
20:51:55 <johnthetubaguy> that partial bit is quite... subtle
20:51:55 <dims> mtreinish : see "partial" key :)
20:51:58 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : either that or we make sure fungi's voter roll building script pays attention to the dates
20:51:58 <anteaya> ttx: yes he also doesn't know the benefit of the file yet, he wants to work with integrating it with the tooling when he gets a chance
20:52:08 <dims> johnthetubaguy : right
20:52:09 <mtreinish> dims: I missed that, and I'll continue to miss it :)
20:52:19 <johnthetubaguy> dhellmann: I was just wondering how to stop the file from growing for ever
20:52:24 <mtreinish> dims: as I expect most people will
20:52:24 <ttx> ok, let's record the info there and continue to ignore the contents of that file
20:52:27 <anteaya> he being fungi
20:52:30 <dhellmann> I'm happy to take this as-is, and let fungi propose an alternate schema if it makes his tool work easier
20:52:38 <dims> ++ dhellmann
20:52:46 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : yeah, we should probably schedule cleanup on a regular basis
20:52:49 <ttx> I'm also fine with deleting that file if it proves more of a hassle than a useful thing
20:52:57 <dhellmann> johnthetubaguy : like with extra-atcs
20:53:00 <ttx> but in the mean time, let's record data
20:53:10 <johnthetubaguy> dhellmann: yeah, good point, very similar
20:53:13 <ttx> dims: conflict generated
20:53:24 * ttx approves anyway
20:53:31 <dims> ack ttx will rebase after the meeting
20:53:38 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:53:43 <piet_> dhellmann Sorry for the outburst on the etherpad - there is a bit of frustration happening on my part
20:53:49 <ttx> I published the cross-project workshop schedule last week:
20:53:54 <ttx> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/global-search?t=Cross%20Project%20workshops
20:53:59 <ttx> stevemar: you wanted to suggest an adjustment ?
20:54:14 <dhellmann> piet_ : I'm just trying to understand what you're looking for to help you find the right venue.
20:54:52 <stevemar> ttx: yep, i am listed as a chair for scaling-review-teams-and-subsystem-maintainers-part-1 but have a conflict
20:55:01 <ttx> I think it's doable to swap the two sessions at 5:05pm with the sessions at 3:55pm... Any objection ?
20:55:11 <stevemar> ttx: if we could swap the 5:05 session with 3:55 that would be wonderful
20:55:29 <ttx> we'll keep the pairs together since we know they don't generate (too much) conflict
20:55:40 <ttx> just swap the timeslots
20:55:40 <dhellmann> ttx: I would like to keep the goals sessions where they are
20:55:46 <ttx> ah. hm
20:55:52 * ttx checks
20:55:53 <dhellmann> ttx: but you can swap the others
20:56:13 <ttx> ISTR that generated a conflict
20:56:16 <dhellmann> it seems better to have the general discussion of goals before the specifics, but maybe that's not so important
20:56:24 * ttx digs in his memory
20:56:42 <piet_> dhellmann I don't always get the impression that the TC or board really deeply understands some of the issues that are being confronted by operators and/or app developers.  It's having a significant impact on adoption.
20:57:12 <stevemar> ttx: you could also -1 my request, the scaling review team is a two-parter
20:57:20 <EmilienM> piet_: are these issues documented?
20:57:33 <ttx> dhellmann: so you'd rather not swap "goals" and "decomposition" ?
20:57:40 <dhellmann> piet_ : you're probably right. I'm not sure the format of this meeting is necessarily the best way to solve that.
20:57:57 <dhellmann> ttx: sorry, I was looking at 5:55 not 5:05
20:58:09 <johnthetubaguy> piet_: I would love to read more about what is known around those
20:58:18 <dhellmann> ttx: if you want to swap 3:55 and 5:05 that would be ok
20:58:24 <dims> piet_ : we could do a hangout or equivalent even before barcelona once there's some material for us to chew on
20:58:26 <stevemar> ttx: swap proprietary drivers and scaling review teams?
20:58:30 <ttx> to be clear, I propose to swap "goals" with "decomposition" and ""capabilities" with "cross-service comms"
20:58:35 <johnthetubaguy> piet_: happy to work with you to get those issues from unknown to known, and see how to make that happen
20:58:46 <sdague> piet_: or get an ML thread started with that feedback
20:58:50 <dhellmann> ttx: I have no issue with that.
20:58:55 <piet_> EmilienM We are starting to document our findings.  However, the TC and Board really need to help drive
20:58:59 <johnthetubaguy> yeah, ML thread would be a great start
20:59:02 <ttx> the things happening at 3:55pm with the things happening at 5:05pm
20:59:05 <piet_> Feeling better
20:59:16 <ttx> #action ttx to swap the two CPW sessions at 5:05pm with the sessions at 3:55pm
20:59:20 <anteaya> piet_: yes, I also think a mailing list thread would help set some context
20:59:21 <sdague> I know that bringing specific feedback from the ops meetup back to the Nova team via the ML got a whole lot of things worked on
20:59:21 <dims> ++ to ML thread sdague piet_
20:59:27 <EmilienM> piet_: I would be happy to help too
20:59:45 <dhellmann> piet_ : yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I didn't think it was important, just that the meeting may not be the right venue
21:00:16 <ttx> dhellmann: ++
21:00:18 <anteaya> piet_: meetings are best for decisions, if folks have no context it can be a waste of time to introduce material at a meeting
21:00:24 <ttx> ok, time is up
21:00:24 <piet_> Just as a distraction, what is the biggest challenge for operators in terms of documentation?
21:00:25 <dhellmann> piet_ : that feedback might also go into setting some goals, once we have specific ideas for addressing the issues
21:00:28 <johnthetubaguy> piet_: OSIC wants to remove blockers, if I can get more data on that, we might be able to help
21:00:40 <EmilienM> we make OpenStack for our users - http://governance.openstack.org/reference/principles.html#openstack-is-built-for-our-users - so let's gatter your feedback
21:01:00 <anteaya> thanks ttx
21:01:03 <ttx> Time to close it, thanks everyone
21:01:07 <dhellmann> thanks!
21:01:08 <ttx> #endmeeting