14:01:04 <dhellmann> #startmeeting tc
14:01:04 <dhellmann> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-October/136146.html agenda for this meeting
14:01:06 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Nov  1 14:01:04 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is dhellmann. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:07 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:10 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
14:01:12 <ttx> oh, it's happening on this channel
14:01:13 <lbragstad> o/
14:01:15 <smcginnis> o/
14:01:18 <dhellmann> #topic roll call
14:01:18 <ttx> o/
14:01:18 <dhellmann> tc-members, please indicate if you are present for the logs
14:01:24 <dims_> o/
14:01:26 <mnaser> o/
14:01:27 <gmann> o/
14:01:31 <fungi> present and accounted for
14:01:33 <zaneb> o/
14:01:47 <TheJulia> o/
14:02:13 <dhellmann> o/
14:02:29 <dhellmann> I count 9, so we have quorum
14:02:39 <dhellmann> #topic meeting procedures
14:03:17 <dhellmann> as many of you have expressed concern that we not spend a lot of time talking about issues that should be saved for the mailing list, I've tried to set up the agenda with some internal things that we need to move to the next step on, and status updates
14:03:46 <TheJulia> That seems reasonable
14:04:01 <dhellmann> this is our first meeting, so I expect we'll adjust as we go along
14:04:02 <ttx> yes lovnig the agenda
14:04:15 <zaneb> yeah, let's see how this goes and adjust course if necessary
14:04:27 <dhellmann> in the future I hope to be able to send out the agenda on the monday of the week we meet
14:04:27 <gmann> +1
14:04:43 <dhellmann> I wasn't quite fast enough to catch up after my time off last week, so that slipped this time
14:05:21 <dhellmann> I intend to use the wiki for collecting agenda suggestions, but the email is the official agenda notice. I do reserve the right to add topics, but I'll try not to abuse that.
14:05:43 <dhellmann> I  mostly see that as useful for announcements, especially since we're not going to be having long discussions
14:06:09 <dhellmann> does anyone have concerns with that plan?
14:06:13 <ttx> nope
14:06:19 <smcginnis> Works for me.
14:06:20 <fungi> fine by me
14:06:28 <TheJulia> I am good with that
14:07:11 <dhellmann> right then, moving on to some of those things we do need to have a bit of discussion about
14:07:12 <gmann> looks good to me
14:07:21 <dhellmann> #topic joint leadership meeting at Summit in Berlin
14:07:21 <dhellmann> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/12Nov2018BoardMeeting
14:07:31 <dhellmann> #info Alan mentioned that the meeting is open but the room may be a bit crowded, so observers may prefer to dial in to the webex presentation.
14:07:46 <dhellmann> We need to discuss the topics that we want to include in our presentation.
14:07:47 <dhellmann> We have about 30 minutes, and I think we probably want to save some time for questions or discussion, so I wouldn't want to talk for more than 25 minutes.
14:07:55 <dhellmann> I have started an etherpad with a list of potential topics, including input from PTLs about their main initiatives for this cycle.
14:07:55 <dhellmann> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tc-topics-jlm-stein-berlin
14:08:21 <ttx> hmm according to that page we have ~60min ?
14:08:26 <dhellmann> there's a lot of good content there already, and I will start making slides on friday afternoon or monday
14:08:28 * dhellmann looks again
14:08:48 <dhellmann> perhaps I misread that
14:08:51 <ttx> 13:15-14:15 OpenStack TC
14:09:11 <dhellmann> well, good, we can expand the discussion
14:09:27 <dhellmann> I think that means we definitely have some time for zaneb to talk about the technical vision details, for example
14:09:43 <dhellmann> what other topics do folks think we should prioritize?
14:09:52 <TheJulia> I think we should be cautious about expecting that discussion will be limited to five minutes
14:09:55 <ttx> I mean probably good to only plan for 45min of content to leave time for Board questions
14:10:13 <dhellmann> ttx, yeah, I agree
14:10:18 <TheJulia> ++
14:10:33 <dims_> ++
14:10:42 <ttx> that said, they never really had general questions in the past, which I regret
14:10:44 <mnaser> also: while I think the technical vision is interesting, i feel lke it might be diving too deep in technicalities for a board meeting?
14:10:55 <ttx> more reactions to our scheduled topics than open questions
14:11:14 <dhellmann> mnaser : I think the idea was to describe the fact that we're doing it, what aspects it covers generally, and explain why it's important
14:11:16 <ttx> mnaser: I think we should stick to describing the process
14:11:18 <mnaser> i noticed that there was interest in the last call about "What does the TC do" "how often they meet" etc
14:11:26 <mnaser> but yes, okay, I agree on describing the process
14:11:31 <fungi> i guess our session will be after the board members vote for/against the proposed bylaws changes? so no real point in bringing that up i guess
14:11:35 <mnaser> that might probe them to ask "why?" and get some discussion going
14:11:47 <ttx> ack
14:12:03 <dhellmann> fungi : yeah, I assume we'll have some opportunity to talk about that prior to the vote
14:12:14 <ttx> I think it's an important work and the Board needs to know it's hapening
14:12:20 <zaneb> I assume most folks here are planning on showing up at 9 and not waiting until the joint meeting starts at 1?
14:12:31 <ttx> not necessarily deep dive into the details
14:12:42 <lbragstad> zaneb yeah - that's what i was going to do
14:12:46 <smcginnis> There isn't a closed portion to this board meeting, right?
14:12:48 <dhellmann> zaneb : I will be
14:12:49 <fungi> i generally get there in the morning before the board meeting starts
14:12:51 <ttx> I fear I have to be there at 9
14:12:51 <TheJulia> zaneb: That is my plan
14:12:58 <smcginnis> I plan on being there the whole time.
14:13:30 <lbragstad> don't threaten me with a good time ;)
14:13:34 <dhellmann> smcginnis : I don't see one on the agenda, but that's still in flux. Usually they only do that when they need to talk about new member companies or other sensitive topics
14:13:52 <mnaser> ttx: can probably get us a quick foundation answer on that
14:13:54 <dhellmann> so, what topics should we be talking about
14:13:58 <mnaser> or fungi
14:14:12 <dhellmann> we have time outside of the meeting to coordinate this other stuff, let's try to stick to the agenda
14:14:22 <smcginnis> ++
14:14:27 <dhellmann> please :-)
14:14:27 <ttx> I don't see mention of an executive session -- although it's within Alan's prerogatives to call one
14:14:48 <fungi> AlanClark can likely tell us if that's expected, when he's around
14:15:13 <mnaser> anyways: things to talk about (throwing ideas) -- new release, progress of some projects that we gathered, tc changes in governance since last board meeting
14:15:26 <dhellmann> zaneb : how long do you think you would need to explain the vision process and its status?
14:15:30 <ttx> new faces
14:15:45 <dhellmann> yes, there's a separate section of the meeting to introduce new members
14:16:02 <ttx> ah right
14:16:11 <dhellmann> frame this as the TC reporting to the board about the openstack project. What do they need to know?
14:16:16 <zaneb> dhellmann: I can make it as long or as quick as you want :) 10 mins should be sufficient I think?
14:16:28 <dhellmann> zaneb : is that including time for questions?
14:16:57 <ttx> dhellmann: from that framing, I think some numbers of contributions / size of community should be communicated
14:17:19 <dhellmann> ttx: that's usually something the foundation staff does, isn't it? do you have that sort of info at hand?
14:17:27 <ttx> I can help compiling some data and we can see how to communicate them
14:17:29 <gmann> yeah that is important and specially projects are in risk due to non-active contributors
14:18:07 <ttx> dhellmann: I feel like it should be communicated by the TC -- in the past I've been doing it with mt TC hat on rather than staff hat
14:18:25 <dhellmann> I'm going to reiterate that, based on the feedback from Alan in Denver, I'm going to be focusing on positive messages for this presentation. I think we have plenty of good stuff to talk about to fill the time we have.
14:18:37 <ttx> ++
14:18:39 <TheJulia> ++
14:18:40 <mnaser> i agree
14:18:51 <dhellmann> ttx: ok, how much time should we carve out for that?
14:19:13 <fungi> yes, let's not heap concerns and fears over dwindling contributor activity on the board members. it's up to us to solve those problems (if they're actually problems and not opportunities)
14:19:16 <ttx> "70,000 commits over the past year... you know... like that little project called the Linux kernel"
14:19:38 <zaneb> dhellmann: hmm, hard to estimate how much time we'll need for questions :/
14:20:04 <ttx> dhellmann: can go fast as part of the intro presentation / Rocky update slides
14:20:05 <dhellmann> zaneb : yeah, I agree
14:20:23 <mnaser> i dont think the board needs more than 3-5 minute of information about the vision thing
14:20:30 <mnaser> because honestly: we haven't even nailed it down yet
14:20:32 <fungi> we likely need to be flexible with the list of things we want to present, front-load with the items of greatest importance/impact and expect to take questions throughout
14:20:35 <ttx> I would give stats as part of a presentation, not as the start of a discussion
14:20:40 <dhellmann> fungi : ++
14:20:57 <dhellmann> I'm starting to order the presentations on line 13 of the etherpad
14:21:08 <ttx> The pilot projects that go after us will be very much in presentation format
14:21:17 <dhellmann> do we need to do a "rocky" update?
14:21:39 <ttx> I think we need to give some amount of "state of the union" information
14:21:52 <TheJulia> it would be good to highlight, kind of like ttx is suggesting
14:21:57 <ttx> not sure that is a "Rocky" update
14:21:58 <zaneb> mnaser: it seems to be getting close in terms of what we're going to get out of the technical community, so we do need to open it up to other stakeholders like the board ~now
14:22:04 <ttx> More of a Nov 2018 state of the union
14:22:17 <TheJulia> agreed
14:22:19 <mnaser> zaneb: i think we can discuss the details of that outside the meeting
14:22:53 <mnaser> but we have only a single TC +1 on it so IMHO.. early
14:22:53 <zaneb> mnaser: yeah, but we need to get it on their radar
14:23:18 <dhellmann> who wants to give the rocky update presentation?
14:23:22 <mnaser> can we maybe come up with a list of highlights of things merged in governance repo?
14:23:41 <zaneb> mnaser: well I wouldn't expect a TC vote on it until after we've talked to people outside the technical community to make sure we're on the right track
14:23:59 <ttx> More of "this is what's happening in the TC and OpenStack", and less of "Oh, here is the bunch of issues we are facing, in case you can help"
14:24:00 <TheJulia> I want to caution us against information overload.
14:24:19 <TheJulia> We need clear, concise, easy to gain context of items
14:24:20 <mnaser> let's just stick to one subject: dhellmann asked first, rocky update presentation
14:24:25 <mnaser> any volunteers?
14:24:26 <ttx> yes, keep it VERY simple and high level
14:24:47 <ttx> and under slide format
14:24:50 <dhellmann> yeah, I had a lot of feedback from several of you that having multiple conversations during meetings was hard to follow and distracting
14:25:00 <fungi> i agree it doesn't need to be a rocky-specific update, but mentioning things which happened during the rocky dev cycle or appeared in the rocky release could still be topical
14:25:03 <dhellmann> so let's try to be more formal here, and stick to 1 thing at a time
14:25:40 <dhellmann> right now I have it set up with a rocky update, stein update, and tc update
14:25:51 <TheJulia> I think this needs to be more state of the union as well, Which plays into the project health tracking as well, so we need to likely condense that information down, and make that conveyable clearly and concisely along with things like contriutor counts, etc.
14:26:10 <smcginnis> I can collect some things for a Rocky update unless someone else wants to do it.
14:26:13 <dhellmann> who want to do the rocky update?
14:26:16 <dhellmann> ok, thanks smcginnis
14:26:22 <mnaser> maybe we should pair people up on that too dhellmann
14:26:28 <smcginnis> Input on content definitely welcome.
14:26:32 <mnaser> maybe one person can present but the other can help gathering and building slides
14:26:38 <dhellmann> I'll leave it up to each presenter to pick a pair
14:26:39 <ttx> For the "look at the past" segment I can help with stats
14:26:50 <dhellmann> thanks, ttx
14:26:50 <ttx> (a.k.a Rocky)
14:27:25 <fungi> aside from stats and mentioning that the release was on-time and under-budget, what else are we wanting to mention? feature highlights or something?
14:27:26 <dhellmann> ok, I was going to talk about the stein stuff and the tc structural changes. zane is signed up for the vision
14:27:36 <ttx> "look at the future" (a.k.a. Stein) should include mention of work on TC vision
14:27:37 <dhellmann> do we need to cover anything else as a TC initiative?
14:27:50 <ttx> Goals?
14:27:57 <dhellmann> fungi : at this point I think the feature highlights for rocky are old news, aren't they?
14:28:04 <ttx> (part of "the future" as well)
14:28:12 <dhellmann> ttx: line 20 of the etherpad
14:28:14 <mnaser> the board probably heard it a few times now in their callls i guess
14:28:14 <fungi> this is why i'm curious why we want to give a rocky update
14:28:19 <mnaser> regarding rocky update
14:28:41 <dhellmann> fungi : I'm thinking a very very short "everything went great" update
14:28:56 <smcginnis> fungi: I was thinking more along the lines of covering the overall state, not necessarily development highlight.
14:28:57 <fungi> ahh, okay. let's say that. we can move on
14:29:00 <dhellmann> setting the pattern for these presentations for the future
14:29:12 <dhellmann> past release, current plans, tc-specific stuff
14:29:17 <smcginnis> dhellmann: ++
14:29:28 <ttx> yes
14:29:38 <TheJulia> I would like to point out that we are approaching the bottom of the hour
14:29:43 <dhellmann> thanks, TheJulia
14:29:44 <fungi> so less of a rocky update and more of a look back at rocky
14:29:56 <dhellmann> yes, let's keep working on this out of the meeting, but I think we have a good structure and we have speakers assigned
14:30:19 <ttx> On "current plans..." shoudl we cover the PTL election & project status ? Or should that be our internal sausage factory ?
14:30:25 <zaneb> TheJulia: is it worth talking about your code review culture initiative as something the TC has done since the last summit?
14:30:41 <ttx> zaneb: I like that
14:30:53 <dhellmann> ttx: do you mean the fact that we had to appoint some PTLs?
14:30:54 <gmann> ttx may be just changes in leadership etc
14:30:57 <dhellmann> zaneb , TheJulia : ++
14:30:59 * smcginnis notes we are half way through the meeting and we're not too far in the agenda
14:31:06 <TheJulia> zaneb: I think we're starting to get off topic, I think we have some evidence if we look at specific projects. The trend seems to be less revisions are occuring, at least at the projects I've looked at
14:31:06 <ttx> dhellmann: yes, as mentioned on the pad
14:31:29 <TheJulia> I'm unsure of how I would do aggregate number collection, ttx likely has some scripts that could help?
14:31:58 <ttx> TheJulia: hmm... not so much... I can see if I find anything
14:32:00 <dhellmann> TheJulia : I think it's sufficient for you to say "we're working on making this change, for this reason. It seems to be working but it's early."
14:32:16 <TheJulia> That is also a very true statement dhellmann
14:32:16 <ttx> yeah, maybe not make it a KPI
14:32:16 <zaneb> TheJulia: just telling them that we did it is a useful thing, even if we don't have numbers to back it up
14:32:30 <TheJulia> ++
14:32:36 <dhellmann> remember, in the future we're going to be giving these presentations right at the start of the cycle, so almost nothing new will be done enough to measure yet
14:32:38 <smcginnis> I think we're getting into details we don't need to sort out in the meeting.
14:32:42 <dhellmann> ++
14:32:44 <dhellmann> moving on
14:32:44 <dhellmann> #topic completing TC liaison assignments
14:32:45 <dhellmann> Has everyone had a chance to sign up for liaisons?
14:32:45 <dhellmann> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_health_tracker#Project_Teams
14:32:57 <gmann> we are not going to talk about "Current Challenges" which i feel important to highlight(not asking for solution though)
14:32:58 <TheJulia> I thought we were going to do random programatic assignments?
14:33:00 <dhellmann> I haven't done that yet, but was waiting to go last
14:33:08 <gmann> ok, let's move to next
14:33:09 <dhellmann> gmann : right, we're going to pass on that this time around
14:33:17 <gmann> k
14:33:24 <dhellmann> TheJulia : some folks wanted a chance to sign up, so I was leaving some time for that.
14:33:28 <TheJulia> gah
14:33:30 <smcginnis> I've done a few updates. I need to ping Freezer again.
14:33:32 <dhellmann> if we're ready, I will do the random assignments
14:33:41 <dhellmann> this is me asking if we're ready :-)
14:33:52 <ttx> do it
14:33:57 <lbragstad> ++
14:34:00 <dims_> ++
14:34:05 <TheJulia> dhellmann: please do random assignments. I for one have too much on my plate to have even picked up on doing assignments the same was as last time
14:34:24 <dhellmann> #action dhellmann complete liaison assignments using the random generator
14:34:41 <dhellmann> ok, now we're moving into the status update portion of the meeting
14:34:43 <dhellmann> #topic documenting chair responsibilities
14:34:43 <dhellmann> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tc-chair-responsibilities
14:34:52 <TheJulia> As a side note, I did put one in for ironic, since I'm in a position to do so... Please feel free to sanity check.
14:34:52 <dhellmann> I am working on writing down the things I'm having to do as chair.
14:35:11 <dhellmann> I don't know yet where that will live when it's closer to complete
14:35:25 <dhellmann> perhaps just a text file in the governance repo
14:35:31 <dhellmann> suggestions welcome on that, after the meeting
14:35:40 <smcginnis> Looks like a great start.
14:35:41 <dhellmann> and of course comments on the content are also welcome
14:35:54 <TheJulia> Seems like it is a living document, but maybe one not needing a full committee approval to update
14:36:14 <dhellmann> yeah, approval would probably fall under the "documentation change" rules
14:36:16 <zaneb> traditionally that kind of thing was on the wiki, but I guess we're moving away from that
14:36:21 <dhellmann> that's juust 2 reviewers
14:36:51 <dhellmann> any questions about that before we move on?
14:37:10 <mnaser> okay by me :)
14:37:35 <dhellmann> moving on then
14:37:37 <dhellmann> #topic reviewing the health-check check list
14:37:38 <dhellmann> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_health_tracker#Health_check_list
14:37:39 <ttx> I'll review it
14:37:44 <dhellmann> ttx: thanks
14:38:01 <dhellmann> we don't need to go into detail on this now, but please spend some time looking over that list and thinking about the contents
14:38:13 <ttx> re: health check we should focus on teams that did not have any update yet
14:38:13 <smcginnis> We might want to think about how we process all this data we are collecting.
14:38:43 <dhellmann> both of those are good thoughts
14:38:51 <ttx> on the check list itself, some said it was a bit overwhelming
14:39:06 <ttx> so maybe it should be split between must do and can do
14:39:12 <fungi> i saw it as less of a checklist and more of a set of possible conversation starters
14:39:12 <dhellmann> maybe we can get 2 volunteers to work on a minimalist version of that?
14:39:36 <ttx> I'm fine with considering it all a can do
14:39:39 <TheJulia> I don't think we need write details about everything, but I think we need to aggregate that down into a few sentences
14:39:47 <TheJulia> That way we're not creating information overload
14:40:04 <mnaser> keep in mind: i've had some projects be concerned about what was written there
14:40:08 <dhellmann> #action tc-members review the chair duties document
14:40:13 <mnaser> they felt that was what the TC thought of them officially.
14:40:16 <dhellmann> #action tc-members review the health check-list items
14:40:48 <gmann> mnaser: this is very imp point. any data or statement should not go in negative direction for projects
14:40:57 <TheJulia> mnaser: True, that is a risk, but I think we need to make sure that if there is a perception disconnect that we talk it out
14:41:09 <dhellmann> let's save that discussion for outside of the meeting
14:41:12 <ttx> mnaser: so... an alternative way of doing it (now that we have meetings) is to have a section at the meeting where health checkers report on their findings
14:41:14 <TheJulia> ++
14:41:25 <mnaser> yep. i just wanted to make sure that we keep that in mind, not discuss it now :)
14:41:32 <ttx> although monthly meeting might quickly get overloaded
14:41:37 * dhellmann checks the clock
14:41:41 <dhellmann> moving on
14:41:44 <dhellmann> #topic deciding next steps on technical vision statement
14:41:44 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/592205
14:42:01 <dhellmann> zaneb : what do we need to do next with the vision work? what is the next step?
14:42:04 <ttx> TC vision is currently getting confronted with current reality
14:42:17 <smcginnis> We have a Forum session that should be useful.
14:42:20 <ttx> i.e. do our current projects actually fit
14:42:25 <zaneb> I think the next step is to talk to the UC and the board
14:42:32 <ttx> which I think is a very interesting exercise
14:42:39 <mnaser> as a PTL of deployment project, I've voiced my concern many times with no answer
14:42:46 <ttx> zaneb: ++
14:42:51 <mnaser> it has zero representation care and pretty much says you have no place here in openstack
14:42:53 * mnaser shrugs
14:43:12 <zaneb> mnaser: and I've repeatedly explained that it says no such thing
14:43:13 <dhellmann> I do  not want to argue about the content of the vision right now.
14:43:14 <ttx> An openstack deployment project deploys openstack... this defines what is being deployed
14:43:21 <smcginnis> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/berlin-2018/summit-schedule/events/22818/vision-for-openstack-clouds-discussion
14:43:39 <ttx> both are opart of openstack, just at different layers/boxes
14:43:39 <dhellmann> This is a "project management" update to determine next steps.
14:43:40 <TheJulia> I think we would have better luck discussing this at the forum
14:43:46 <ttx> ++
14:43:48 <mnaser> dhellmann: fair, we can save that discussion for later.  okay, makes sense
14:43:57 <mnaser> well i guess let's wait till the forum session then, i agree on that
14:44:05 <dhellmann> it sounds like the 2 discussions at the forum (in the joint leadership meeting and the general forum session) are next
14:44:19 <dhellmann> zaneb : will those set the next-next steps, or do you have something in mind already?
14:44:45 <ttx> next-next should be approval, imho
14:44:54 <ttx> and then iterate from there
14:46:09 <dhellmann> that makes sense, I guess
14:46:10 <lbragstad> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/berlin-2018/summit-schedule/events/22818/vision-for-openstack-clouds-discussion
14:46:12 <dhellmann> does anyone have anything else to say about the *process* for that?
14:46:48 <smcginnis> Guess we can move on.
14:46:49 * dhellmann is not enjoying the new role of "focus police"
14:46:55 <smcginnis> ;)
14:46:58 <dhellmann> ok, next up
14:47:00 <TheJulia> dhellmann: perhaps someone else in the meeting can play that role?
14:47:03 <dhellmann> #topic deciding next steps on python 3 and distro versions for PTI
14:47:03 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/610708 Add optional python3.7 unit test enablement to python3-first
14:47:03 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/611010 Make Python 3 testing requirement less specific
14:47:03 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/611080 Explicitly declare Stein supported runtimes
14:47:03 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/613145 Resolution on keeping up with Python 3 releases
14:47:06 <ttx> dhellmann: add it to the chair responsibilities etherpad
14:47:18 <dhellmann> we clearly have several parts of this in progress right now
14:47:22 * ttx remembers it not being funny too
14:47:27 <dhellmann> it looks like zaneb and smcginnis are driving it?
14:47:38 <dhellmann> again, project management hats on everyone
14:47:44 <dhellmann> what do we need to do next to move this forward?
14:47:48 <smcginnis> I like zaneb's approach of defining how we want to handle this, then retroactively apply that.
14:48:06 <dhellmann> so that's focusing on the resolution? the last link?
14:48:37 <dhellmann> that makes sense to me, do we have agreement there?
14:48:49 <smcginnis> Yep. Mine can also proceed in parallel and adjust depending on how that goes.
14:48:51 <dhellmann> #action tc-members review https://review.openstack.org/613145
14:49:03 <zaneb> sorry, had to step away for a sec, reading scrollback
14:49:09 <fungi> as long as we manage to agree on _something_ i've really lost interest in what we agree on there at this point
14:49:24 <ttx> +1
14:49:28 <dims_> :)
14:49:42 <mnaser> as long as this stuff runs on distros people run openstack on
14:49:48 <mnaser> we should just move forward without sinking on too many details
14:49:48 <smcginnis> I just think it's important to have infra input on it too as far as what's feasible for gate testing.
14:49:49 <fungi> there are clearly people with some very strong opinions on this matter, and i just want to make sure we decide so we can take action
14:50:04 <dhellmann> yes, I would like us to set a clear process down
14:50:14 <zaneb> the four reviews up there are all kind of overlapping
14:50:17 <smcginnis> Explicit is better than implicit.
14:50:45 <zaneb> as I said yesterday, I think the best way forward is to decide on the process in general, and *then* go back and apply it to Stein
14:50:46 <dhellmann> zaneb : yeah, do you think we can focus on working out details in your resolution, and then as you say apply that retroactively (including updating the other changes if needed)?
14:50:50 <dhellmann> yeah
14:50:58 <dhellmann> ok, so focus on that resolution and get the details straight there
14:51:07 <dhellmann> are there objections to that plan?
14:51:14 <TheJulia> none here
14:51:14 <zaneb> +1. I'm happy to make adjustments based on comments
14:51:38 <fungi> the thrust of 611010 was to just rip out the conflicting/redundant information so we can move forward following what we already assert that we do, but people seem to want to debate it ad nauseum that we don't really mean that and we should redefine it first before we act
14:51:44 <zaneb> dhellmann has suggested some stuff, so it would be good to hear from other people whether they want those changes or other changes
14:52:27 <smcginnis> Next step is to review https://review.openstack.org/613145 and go from there I think.
14:52:53 <dhellmann> fungi : I'll take another look at that change, maybe we can go ahead with that, too
14:53:12 <dhellmann> ok, up  next
14:53:17 <dhellmann> #topic reviews needing attention
14:53:31 <dhellmann> we have a couple of things that need reviews
14:53:35 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/613268 Indicate relmgt style for each deliverable
14:53:39 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/613856 Remove Dragonflow from the official projects list
14:53:42 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/614597 series to create library for governance data
14:53:50 <dhellmann> in addition to the items mentioned earlier, of course
14:53:54 <dhellmann> please add those to your queue
14:54:00 <dhellmann> did I miss anything?
14:54:43 <dhellmann> hearing no response...
14:54:45 <dhellmann> #topic next meeting
14:54:45 <dhellmann> #info the next TC meeting will be 6 December 1400 UTC in #openstack-tc
14:54:45 <dhellmann> If you have suggestions for topics for the next meeting, please add them to the wiki at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda_Suggestions
14:55:16 <dhellmann> and that is the end of the agenda
14:55:26 <dhellmann> I will save open discussion for outside of the formal meeting
14:55:42 <dhellmann> Thank you, everyone!
14:55:45 <smcginnis> Thanks
14:55:47 <lbragstad> thanks
14:55:47 <gmann> thanks
14:55:51 <TheJulia> thanks
14:56:01 <dims_> Thanks!
14:56:19 <dhellmann> #endmeeting