20:01:31 #startmeeting tc 20:01:31 * rockyg takes usual spot in back 20:01:32 Meeting started Tue Apr 18 20:01:31 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:01:33 * flaper87 hands mordred some actual steak 20:01:34 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:01:36 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 20:01:36 mmmm 20:01:41 Hi everyone! 20:01:46 Last meeting for the current membership before the election results Friday 20:01:52 Our agenda for today is at: 20:01:57 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee 20:01:58 * mordred has enjoyed all of these humans 20:02:10 #topic Add TC repo project-navigator-data 20:02:11 mordred: are you eating humans? 20:02:15 #link https://review.openstack.org/453867 20:02:19 o/ 20:02:22 * ttx checks there were no last-minute objections before approving 20:02:34 cdent: yup 20:02:36 there were none, so approving now 20:02:44 ship it 20:02:50 #topic Resolution on OpenStack's mission for cloud applications 20:02:51 ttx: while we're on that - I'm about to send out an email requesting people add information to the repo 20:02:57 o/ 20:02:57 #undo 20:02:57 Removing item from minutes: #topic Resolution on OpenStack's mission for cloud applications 20:03:08 mordred: oh right, want to say more on that ? 20:03:11 ttx: I'm assuming "just send it" is fine with everyone? 20:03:16 mordred: fine by me 20:03:22 yup 20:03:22 tl;dr "hey everybody, send patches with versions" 20:03:24 cool 20:03:26 the sooner the better 20:03:33 * johnthetubaguy finally gets connected and joins in 20:03:34 bombs away 20:03:39 #topic Resolution on OpenStack's mission for cloud applications 20:03:44 zaneb: sorry for false start 20:03:48 #link https://review.openstack.org/447031 20:03:50 no worries :) 20:03:55 this one seems to have passed the community RFC bar 20:04:01 I think we can finally approve it now ? 20:04:11 zaneb: thanks for writing that zaneb 20:04:13 gah 20:04:18 ship it 20:04:20 what's the next step after this resolution? what change are we hoping to trigger? 20:04:23 zaneb: I'm going to refer to you by name twice in all sentences now zaneb 20:04:24 also, yeah, thanks zaneb 20:04:36 mordred: no worries mordred 20:05:01 * ttx approves before discussing the next move 20:05:53 thanks everyone! 20:05:55 dhellmann: I read it more as a statement to clarify the direction, rather than an action plan 20:06:03 but maybe zaneb has more up his sleeves 20:06:07 ttx: yeah, ditto 20:06:14 ttx: that's how I read it too 20:06:21 dhellmann: stuff in the footnote would be a good start 20:06:46 I believe johnthetubaguy already has some discussions set up for the forum 20:06:49 I was hoping the VM & BM working group session at the forum would be a great place to continue the conversation about making progress on that 20:06:51 ok. I thought maybe it was tied to some specific feature requests, like -- ok, cool, thanks zaneb 20:07:08 yeah, I should dig out the link 20:07:11 I think it will facilitate a number of discussions, by providing a reference 20:07:17 I believe we may also have some free session slots, if we want a session devoted to this 20:07:18 johnthetubaguy, zaneb I think I have that on my calendar already, but link would be nice 20:07:47 * ttx waits for link before moving to next topic 20:08:24 https://www.openstack.org/summit/boston-2017/summit-schedule/events/18749/writing-applications-for-the-vm-and-baremetal-platform maybe 20:08:25 dhellmann: I'd be happy to help facilitate a session like that 20:08:31 thats the one 20:08:38 or is it https://www.openstack.org/summit/boston-2017/summit-schedule/events/18750/operating-the-vm-and-baremetal-platform-12 20:08:38 ttx: thank you! 20:08:46 its writing applications ones 20:08:49 yes! on my schedule already 20:08:54 at least, that was my intention with those 20:09:03 #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/boston-2017/summit-schedule/events/18749/writing-applications-for-the-vm-and-baremetal-platform 20:09:07 zaneb : great, maybe you can check in with Tom F? 20:09:14 possibly also related I have a"Exposing deployer choices to end users without death" on Tuesday 20:09:25 dhellmann: ack 20:09:32 #topic Add a "docs:install-guide-verified" tag 20:09:35 zaneb : feel free to cc me 20:09:39 #link https://review.openstack.org/445536 20:09:47 Alexandra and Doug worked on this new version which should avoid most of the objections imho 20:09:59 ttx: well, it's now docs:follow-policy 20:10:20 yes, the idea here was to structure this tag similar to the other policy tags defined by teams like stable and vmt 20:10:23 (with an s) 20:10:30 fungi: yep, my typo 20:10:30 sdague: I think it's clearer now yes 20:10:50 where the general stuff is here, and the details are defined in the doc team contributor guide 20:11:00 zaneb: I am struggling to work out if I can still get to the summit, but I would love to help with the prep either way 20:11:04 so any last-minute objection before we approve ? 20:11:22 * flaper87 likes this version better 20:11:33 nope, I did kind of find the other name more meaningful, but I get why this matches the other pattern 20:12:00 i can get behind the name on the grounds that it indicates a deliverable's documentation is developed and released following the docs team's policy 20:12:16 pretty much yes 20:12:24 OK, let's approve it now then 20:12:30 fungi: yeh, just policy is one of the most overloaded terms in openstack land :) 20:12:31 yeah, seem really useful to tell folks, whatever we call it 20:12:34 30 revs should be enough 20:12:53 sdague, fungi: I think asettle and I would be happy with a name change if you have an alternative to suggest 20:13:04 we could do that as a separate patch 20:13:10 dhellmann: yeh, I'm fine with moving forward 20:13:18 ttx, there's a typo patch on top of this one that I think we can probably fast-approve 20:13:19 * ttx pushes the blue button 20:13:30 suggesting new names violates my personal no-bikeshed policy ;) 20:13:43 typo patch approved too 20:13:48 fungi: ++ 20:13:50 thanks, everyone 20:14:07 we'll probably have one of these from the i18n team, soon, too (I need to talk with Ian) 20:14:08 dhellmann: thank you and thanks asettle 20:14:08 fungi: just suggest docs:not-a-bikeshed :) 20:14:08 dhellmann: thanks to you for helping push it through the finish mine 20:14:15 and thanks asettle for driving it 20:14:22 fungi: what color do you think the bikeshed would be if it existed? 20:14:26 finish line. finish line. Not mine. 20:14:38 finish mine sounds dangerous 20:14:41 finish mine seems like a thing 20:14:53 #topic Remove App Catalog from official projects 20:15:01 #link https://review.openstack.org/452086 20:15:19 This seems to have gathered enough approvals from the current membership 20:15:32 But since it is a first for a project team that is still alive, I was wondering if we should throw it on the ML again before pushing the button 20:15:40 one thing that feels missing here (and why i haven't rollcall-voted yet) is that it's missing input from the ptl (either for or against) 20:15:41 There was a thread already, which quickly went off-topic 20:15:51 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-March/113362.html 20:16:03 olaph: ^^ 20:16:04 olaph: ^^^ 20:16:14 mordred: err, you win 20:16:15 ttx: for the sake of openness and over-communication, I'd send one more email 20:16:15 mtreinish: you used more carets than I did, I think you win this one 20:16:20 i've abstained because of conflict of intrest :) 20:16:40 yeah, I understand how it can be difficult to vote on that for olaph 20:16:50 indeed 20:16:54 you're willing to defer to the tc's judgement in this matter and have no input into it? 20:17:19 I think it's more, "I understand why you're doing it", based on past discussions with olaph and doaceado 20:17:21 i mean, that is also a position 20:17:35 and nice to have recorded (now it is, i suppose!) 20:18:10 sure, I can at least put something to that affect in the patch 20:18:24 We could also wait for the next membership to confirm this, and/or start a new thread 20:18:26 certainly doesn't need a -1 or +1 if you don't feel like adding one 20:18:36 But then it's not as if it was hard to reverse it 20:18:46 but a sentence in a comment would be helpful to me at least 20:19:06 yeah, it would be nice to have the abstention recorded formally 20:19:34 mostly just so there's a record that someone representing that team is aware of the proposed change 20:19:38 Would you rather approve it now, and let it simmer for one more week and get the next membership to approve it ? 20:19:42 if nothing else 20:19:43 ttx: I don't really see significant objections from any of the folks running for the TC. Do we need to wait? 20:20:02 dhellmann: I'm fine with approving now, just checking the rest of the TC's view 20:20:05 I'm not opposed, just wondering. 20:20:28 if all approvers are fine with approving this week (once olaph's comment is posted), I'm fine too 20:20:49 and only ~half the tc's up for reelection 20:20:51 * flaper87 is fine w/ approving 20:21:25 Alright, let's give some time to olaph and revisit at end of meeting 20:21:33 #topic Propose the addition of an status:maintenance-mode 20:21:39 #link https://review.openstack.org/449925 20:21:58 amrith: around ? 20:22:03 yup 20:22:05 Last time we discussed this, and in mtreinish's recent review, the objection is that it conflates two different cases 20:22:05 hello 20:22:13 1/ being under maintenance mode because the team is struggling and can't really add features 20:22:22 2/ being under maintenance mode because the deliverable is feature-complete 20:22:32 In (1) the tag communicates the need for more contributors, while in (2) it communicates that the project is done 20:22:38 which is arguably two different things 20:22:57 if I can break fungi's bike-shedding rule, I think this name should be reserved for case 2 20:23:11 mtreinish: you would rather have this one explicitly targetr only (1) ? 20:23:23 it seems that amrith's need is to cover case 1 20:23:38 dhellmann, help me understand this please. 20:23:40 dhellmann: it's just my personal policy for not involving myself in bikeshed discussions. feel free to adopt it yourself or not as you see fit ;) 20:23:45 ttx: yeah, the way everything is worded in the tag it definitely seems to be targetted to #1 20:23:57 what would you like the proposal to state? that the reason for this state (to-be-named) is because we need more contributors? 20:24:10 dhellmann: yeah and I think maintenance should be reserved for #2 20:24:12 status:dying-please-help 20:24:51 sure, works for me, just tell me what you want. Personally, I think the distinction being made here is highly academic. We are making the perfect be the enemy of the good (IMHO). 20:24:57 I kind of feel like it's a bit of an artificial distinction 20:24:58 right, I was going to ask, where is the action different, I guess is the contributor side, one project is asking for help, the other is saying "we are done" 20:25:03 yeah, if you're looking for more help I don't think this tag name is going to get it 20:25:12 just based on motivation. Everything could get more features with more people. 20:25:19 sdague: yeah, me too, was fine with conflating the two. For /users/, the end result is the same 20:25:23 yep 20:25:28 yeah, for users it seems the same 20:25:31 dhellmann, we're not looking for the tag to suggest that more help is needed; more that people shouldn't expect too much 20:25:31 * dhellmann shrugs 20:25:33 so the suggestion is to make it more obviously a help-wanted sign? 20:25:35 its the contributor side I wasn't so sure about 20:25:36 and tags are for users 20:25:59 for users it might be the same. But it depends on the audience, because one is actually looking for contributors to step up 20:26:00 personally I would keep it as is, and create a priority list of help wanted 20:26:04 again, let me reiterate, my desire is to communicate what Mad TV called "lowered expectations". 20:26:05 amrith : I guess it's the difference between "don't expect too much" and "we wish we could do more" 20:26:14 I think the only other thing I might suggest is that the TC membership is added as core to any project that ends up in this state, so that critical stuff has someone around to make sure things get through 20:26:22 i.e. we could put a project in maintenance-mode *and* on the priority list of things needing urgent help 20:26:31 Yes, I intend "don't expect too much". of course the corollary is "if you expect more, step up". 20:26:33 and as a random person looking to contribute if I saw maint-mode, I wouldn't even try to contribute 20:26:49 because we've definitely gotten into weird states where litterally there was no one around that could approve on a project like sqlalchemy-migrate 20:26:51 mtreinish, we aren't looking for random people 20:26:51 sdague: as apposed to just doing self-approvals, which I presume is the alternative? thats interesting 20:26:53 to contribute 20:27:00 johnthetubaguy: there might not even be a self 20:27:09 sdague: good point 20:27:09 but to a person interested in trove; who sees the maintenance mode, it would mean "if I want more, I have to step up" 20:27:17 I don't feel that strongly about it, but it's not clear to me what outcome you want from having the tag so I'm trying to weigh the various possible interpretations. 20:27:49 dhellmann, I'm looking for the tag to be an acknowledgement of "lowered expectatins" 20:27:56 amrith: ++ 20:27:59 amrith: ++ 20:28:02 I see the reason for wanting the distinction, and it may make a different to the user if they can sort out _why_ this tag was added. 20:28:20 I think the right place to put that distinction is in a help wanted list, not in a tag 20:28:26 dtroyer_zz: maybe, but we have a commit message on the tag add 20:28:36 just because tags are mainly for users, while help wanted lists are mainly for contributors 20:28:43 sdague: yes, how many users will now how to find that? 20:28:44 sdague: that assumes someone goes and digs it up from the log 20:28:51 mtreinish: it does 20:28:56 fwiw, "maintenance" suggests to me being complete, not in need of help 20:29:03 i have a dream that users will become our contributors, but i understand the concern 20:29:15 edleafe: ++ 20:29:17 edleafe, let's leave the name out of it; let's call it 'tag-whose-name-is-tbd' 20:29:22 I do think there's a difference between saying expectations are low and will stay there, and expectations can go up with more help, and I'm not sure that this tag description clearly says the latter as it seems to do for some of the rest of you. 20:29:26 dtroyer_zz, ++ you need to say somewhere for the guy who wants more, how to step up 20:29:28 fungi: not saying those are not highly-overlapping groups. But it's still two different hats 20:29:29 status:lowered-expectations 20:29:40 ameade: the name matters because it carries connotation, which may be different from what you intend 20:29:52 agreed dtroyer_zz 20:30:03 hence I'm un-entangling the name conversation from the intent 20:30:12 once we agree on intent, we can bikeshed the name 20:30:21 so, having become accidental maintainer of a number of projects, inside and outside of openstack, I totally think tagging them as maintenance mode only is a good idea 20:30:23 that said, the current description is better than having no tag at all 20:30:26 because people do have expectactions 20:30:27 dhellmann: ++ 20:30:42 ++ 20:30:51 like, sqlalchemy-migrate and grenade would be great candidates for this tag 20:30:55 sdague: ++ ... people don't really always know that mox3 was intended for transition, for instance 20:30:56 I think it's fine to merge this and refine 20:30:59 yah. and sqlalchemy-migrate 20:31:04 mordred: ++ on mox3 20:31:12 as dhellmann said, something is better than nothing here 20:31:18 and we get tons of drive-by feature additions for git-review as another example 20:31:20 there is a whole lot of stuff that people assume there is a much deeper bench than there really is 20:31:24 fungi: ++ 20:31:31 mordred: mox3 info later? 20:31:31 sdague, ++ 20:31:31 ttx: though once the tag is applied we have to be careful with redefining it 20:31:37 I'm onboard with this tag, but want to be clear since we're talking about expectations that it may not set the intended ones all the way around 20:31:45 dhellmann: ++ 20:31:47 sdague: but in most of those cases we don't intend this to be a transient state 20:31:56 mtreinish: some times 20:32:00 granted, the people who are submitting features to a repo and aren't aware of its development status aren't likely to know to look for our governance tags either 20:32:05 ttx, and others, if we are ok with the intent of the tag (lowered expectations), can we now discuss names? 20:32:05 like sqlalchemy-migrate is always in maint-mode 20:32:11 mtreinish : ++ 20:32:20 maybe we can take that transient part out 20:32:28 in a revision 20:32:40 status:currently-in-maintenance-only-mode 20:32:49 maybe, I think projects get to this state for a lot of reasons 20:32:53 dhellmann, I don't follow the take out transient part in a revision comment 20:33:01 fungi : we could have a bot automatically comment on patches when a repo has this tag 20:33:11 and I think it's fine to suggest that more contributors could move things out of there, it's definitely a case by case basis 20:33:15 sdague: that's my point, but the tag is clearly written with a very specific case 20:33:20 amrith : if we're going to apply this to projects that we want to stay in maintenance mode, then we don't want to say the tag is always transient 20:33:20 dhellmann: yep, or a gerrit hook 20:33:29 fungi : tomato, tomato :-) 20:34:22 amrith: I'm fine with it the way it stands 20:34:34 waiting for alternate proposals 20:34:50 there is plenty of negative sentiment expressed when we have automation reply to patches contributed on github saying nobody's going to look at them, but not getting any feedback at all is definitely worse 20:35:13 yeh, I feel like this is fine as is, I think the coming out of it is more implied, and I think this is better than just silently dropping things 20:35:32 yeah, let's move ahead with this and we can propose updates to address the issues we've raised here 20:35:49 ++ 20:35:55 yes, nobody said a lowered-expectations tag was a bad idea. Just details on how to phrase it 20:35:57 to a point raised in an earlier discussion, do we want to give the new TC a voice here? 20:35:59 * flaper87 already voted on the tag 20:36:12 I'm fine waiting for one more week 20:36:24 If we want the new TC to handle things today, we should have just deferred them 20:36:30 but at this point, simpler to amend it after it landed 20:36:32 the new tc always has a voice. they (well, we for those not up for reelection) can always modify this 20:36:32 amrith: I can propose that as a follow on 20:36:44 I think postponing sets a bad precedent 20:36:44 fungi: exactly 20:36:52 You guys are the TC today 20:37:00 ok, I'll approve it now 20:37:01 edleafe: yup 20:37:23 edleafe: I feel like that's a t-shirt 20:37:25 we've postponed approvals in the past but for some specific cases 20:37:29 "TC (today)" 20:37:34 deferring a decision to the next leadership can be an attractive means of avoiding making decisions 20:37:35 ok, thx sdague fungi ttx dhellmann dtroyer_zz mtreinish flaper87 smcginnis ... 20:37:37 and done 20:37:56 heads-up folks, trove gets this tag (patch being proposed) 20:38:01 #topic Remove App Catalog from official projects (final discussion) 20:38:02 sdague: I'm working on a follow-up right now with some of the things we said 20:38:11 flaper87: sure, but there should be specific reasons, and not just as a matter of informal policy 20:38:13 dhellmann: ok 20:38:16 We got the comment from olaph 20:38:22 dhellmann: heh, I'll close my editor then :) 20:38:27 yep, i've recorded my abstention 20:38:32 so i'm ready to approve https://review.openstack.org/#/c/452086/ 20:38:48 dhellmann: the tc with commit is maybe specific enough to want to debate that on it's own, your call 20:38:52 since You guys are the TC today 20:38:55 ttx: go 20:39:04 and done 20:39:08 sdague: maybe you want to add that one? 20:39:27 dhellmann: yeh, I'll do it as a dedicated add on patch, we'll see how it goes 20:39:34 thanks olaph! 20:39:42 olaph: thanks 20:39:49 #topic Stalled reviews 20:40:01 OK, stalled reviews... We had a few more on the agenda, but those were unblocked and merged since then 20:40:05 * Add monitorstack to OpenStack-Ansible (https://review.openstack.org/444325) 20:40:16 This one is blocked waiting for clarification on what monitorstack is (as it sounds a bit orthogonal to OSA's goals) 20:40:26 I'm concerned about scope creep here, I like teams dedicated to one specific goal/scope 20:40:36 If the same group of people wants to tackle another goal, that's fine, they can just create another team with roughly the same people in it 20:40:44 But maybe I don't understand what monitorstack is 20:40:50 can even have the same ptl if they want ;) 20:40:52 (which is why I left an open question there) 20:41:14 seems a good question to ask 20:41:19 Next step there is to chase down the PTL for an answer 20:41:24 * Add tag assert:never-breaks-compat (https://review.openstack.org/446561) 20:41:27 mordred: what's the next step here ? 20:41:45 ttx: I should probably make a new version at some point 20:42:04 ok :) 20:42:11 ttx: otoh - in general people seemed fairly skeptical about it - so I'll likely wait until after the summit at the very earliest 20:42:14 I'll keep it in the pressure cooker until then 20:42:28 #topic Open discussion 20:42:36 that'll maybe give some facetime to socialize the thoughleader synergy 20:42:36 A few things I wanted to cover... and rosmaita posted one to the -tc list recently 20:42:44 First quick reminder that the TC election is going on, last days to vote 20:42:55 #info TC election is going on, last days to vote 20:42:55 (also the release naming election for r) 20:43:05 yes, some people were still complaining of not having received the R naming poll stuff 20:43:13 * smcginnis waves 20:43:13 mordred: you on those ^ 20:43:16 oh - awesome. well, they've all gone out as far as I'm concerned 20:43:23 ttx: and one person that I know of about the TC election email 20:43:30 mordred: see complaints on the ml 20:43:33 oh - neat 20:43:38 not sure if that was a corner case but diablo_rojo_phon was on it 20:43:42 flaper87: ask them to contact election officials 20:43:47 ttx: I did :) 20:43:54 Second, due to unfortunate timing I'm on family vacation next week 20:44:01 mordred: it's probably time we start working on deploying are own civs... 20:44:02 So if I end up being elected I'll very likely miss the first meeting on the new membership 20:44:08 s/are/our/ 20:44:12 I'll push all the regular administrative stuff to be ready for review, and prepare the usual welcome package content 20:44:17 Anyone up for chairing that meeting ? 20:44:23 mtreinish: yes. I believe we do want to discuss that 20:44:23 ttx: I can help 20:44:24 * rockyg waves too 20:44:26 ttx: happened to me last election. i was on a boat in the middle of the atlantic with no internet access when the election concluded 20:44:26 (someone not standing for reelection ideally) 20:44:27 mordred : I have not received any email about that poll 20:44:29 oh wait 20:44:32 I'm up for election 20:44:35 ROFL 20:44:40 anybody know what the subject is on the list? 20:44:49 if I'm elected, I can help, I guess. 20:44:56 well, I could help even if not but 20:44:59 * flaper87 stfu 20:45:08 mordred: it's your thread 20:45:10 ttx: I should be able to do it 20:45:15 "Emails for OpenStack R Release Name voting going out - please be patient" 20:45:27 mordred: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115077.html 20:45:30 and follows 20:45:31 thanks 20:45:33 dhellmann: OK, you're around on Friday ? I'll pass the package to you then 20:45:37 thanks dhellmann! (you saved me from having to volunteer to chair two meetings back-to-back next tuesday) 20:45:48 dhellmann: thanks 20:45:50 ttx: yeah, we can talk friday 20:45:51 sdague: wanted to discuss TC vision feedback & next steps ? 20:46:00 then rosmaita wanted to talk glance 20:46:22 right, the vision has been out for 2 weeks now, we've definitely been getting some feedback via various channels 20:46:38 ttx: I don't see rosmaita around 20:46:43 :( 20:46:46 I feel like a lot of it were complaints around the format 20:46:55 one thing I noticed was there was definitely some confusion on framing of it, I've had a few conversations with folks where until I explained the process it didn't click 20:46:57 flaper87: I can parrot the email he just sent, once we are done with vision 20:47:09 maybe we should amend with a preamble explaining the format 20:47:19 i was thinking about the framing... if it just started out with a "picture this, if you will..." 20:47:21 dhellmann: yeh, or a blog post on the TC blog around it 20:47:26 yeah, seems we need a preamble 20:47:32 sdague: maybe both? 20:47:38 sdague : if we're going to send people to this document, it probably makes sense to do it inline where they'll see it 20:47:40 johnthetubaguy: ++ to both 20:48:03 dhellmann: maybe, I found the explaination that I gave was nearly as long as the vision itself 20:48:29 so there is a summit presentation with ttx gothicmindfood and I think me, I guess that needs to cover that explaination 20:48:31 sdague : ok. maybe something in the repo we can link to from this page, then? I just don't like the context being hosted separately. 20:49:04 agree with dhellmann 20:49:19 i think we could probably find ways to make the intent of the choice of format more explicit without adding too much prose to the start of the existing narrative 20:50:04 doesn't have to be a painfully verbose description of the reasons and process for it (which i agree is also necessary but can be somewhere separate/parallel) 20:50:12 ok, anything else on the feedback, beyond format confusion ? 20:50:30 well, I think there is the more general next steps question 20:50:41 we're collecting various feedback now 20:50:45 the "after it's approved, what now?" 20:50:46 we're going to get some in Boston 20:51:02 sdague: next step after Boston is formal approval 20:51:19 somewhere in there we should look at the feedback and decide if we want to make changes based on it :-) 20:51:26 dhellmann: yeh ++ 20:51:29 then starting to do things, yes 20:51:44 ah, yes :) 20:52:15 I included that in formal approval. Obviously iterate on the review and contact back people that had given specific feedback 20:52:27 so maybe that's the next step, after the forum, to have all of the feedback gathered in one place to make reviewing it easier? 20:52:32 I think there are some interesting bits that have popped up that demonstrate need for clarity. I guess I wonder if it makes sense to try to gather in some way in boston to discuss that feedback that we've gotten thus far to figure out if there are any major things we need to move forward 20:52:44 or at least have a subteam assessing that 20:52:48 I'll be around 20:53:06 We could do a late Thursday Forum discussion on the rev2 20:53:10 sure, at the forum makes sense, too 20:53:20 * flaper87 will be there 20:53:27 will we have the feedback collected in one place by then? 20:53:28 mostly meant as a workgroup thing but fine if people join too 20:53:33 * mtreinish has both his talks thurs. afternoon :( 20:53:43 mtreinish: what time ? 20:53:49 err, one sec 20:54:06 mtreinish: our firehose talk is 4:10pm-4:50pm 20:54:12 * ttx doesn't have anythign yet on Thu afternoon 20:54:28 it's a weird feeling 20:54:40 my laundrycloud talk is at 2:20-3:00p 20:54:59 ok, so the 5:00pm slot is available 20:55:02 when is the feedback seesion? 20:55:18 general feedback ? Thursday noon 20:55:43 Would like to go through rosmaita's email before we close 20:55:44 ttx: heh, last session of the week :) 20:56:03 ttx: ok, I ceed the floor 20:56:06 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/2017-April/001362.html 20:56:36 Basically most of the remaining Glance contributors were wiped out by the recent events 20:56:40 including the PTL 20:57:11 We might need to put it in status:maintenance-mode and appoint a PTL 20:57:20 to cover the basic stuff 20:57:37 ouch 20:58:00