14:01:25 <sgordon> #startmeeting telcowg
14:01:26 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Nov 18 14:01:25 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is sgordon. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:01:28 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:01:31 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'telcowg'
14:01:38 <sgordon> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nfv-meeting-agenda
14:01:42 <sgordon> #topic roll call
14:01:46 <sgordon> \o/
14:01:55 <cloudon> aren't we in the other room?
14:02:00 <sgordon> negative
14:02:35 <sgordon> when we aligned on one time we ended up with #openstack-meeting-alt for both: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Telco_Working_Group_meeting
14:02:51 <cloudon> ah, my bad
14:03:01 <cloudon> could never remember so always checked out both
14:03:49 <sgordon> aight
14:03:55 <sgordon> #topic future of wg
14:03:56 <gjayavelu> Hi
14:03:59 <sgordon> so diving right in....
14:04:26 <sgordon> im not sure if you had seen it but i made a post to the lists y'day
14:04:36 <sgordon> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2015-November/008842.html
14:05:15 <sgordon> #info proposal is to submit the existing telcowg-usecases to the openstack-user-stories repository, engage within the product working group as owners of these user stories
14:05:25 <sgordon> and implicitly, at least for me, focus more directly on OPNFV
14:05:53 <sgordon> shamail__, is attempting to join us from the product wg
14:06:16 <shamail__> trying :)
14:06:19 <shamail__> connection is unstable
14:06:31 <sgordon> but anyway that is what i am proposing, based on the evolution of the product wg in particular and the fact that we have lost a number of participants for various reasons
14:06:43 <sgordon> we dont really have a core group of people to review/vet the use cases any more
14:07:19 <sgordon> the templates are very similar so i am not anticipating it will require significant "new" work to submit them to the other repository (i may be able to handle this myself)
14:07:21 <sgordon> cloudon, ^
14:08:02 <cloudon> can you give a quick summary of remit and process of product wg e.g. is it similar process for submitting and agreeing; once approved what happens next etc?
14:08:39 <sgordon> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam
14:08:43 <shamail> We actually based the product WG user story template on the telcowg template.
14:08:45 <sgordon> #link
14:08:45 <sgordon> <cloudon> can you give a quick summary of remit and process of product wg e.g. is it similar pro
14:08:47 <sgordon> whoops
14:08:49 <sgordon> #undo
14:08:50 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Link object at 0xb033a90>
14:09:01 <sgordon> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam/User_Stories
14:09:20 <sgordon> and specifically:
14:09:22 <sgordon> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ProductTeam/User_Stories#User_Story_Workflow
14:09:32 <sgordon> cloudon, if you go to the above link there is a workflow diagram
14:09:53 <cloudon> ta, just looking - looks v similar to TelcoWG, yes?
14:09:54 <sgordon> cloudon, it is somewhat similar except process wise they will merge something into draft/proposed folders
14:10:06 <sgordon> cloudon, the last box is to do with implementation
14:10:26 <sgordon> cloudon, so it only moves to tracked if there is an owner creating the workitems etc
14:10:35 <shamail> @sgordon: There will need to be a subtle change in the PWG process though.. currently the user stories in flight are planning to work on cross-project specs, specs, and blueprints.  I think we will need to add notion that a bug can be tracked/resolved through the workflow as well.
14:10:59 <sgordon> shamail, right - i think we are going to hit that anyway
14:11:19 <shamail> agreed... it was never out of scope but never explicitly called out either
14:11:20 <sgordon> shamail, having tried to expand the capacity management use case based on what deepak had sent through
14:11:32 <sgordon> shamail, it is primarily nova focused - not really cross project
14:11:40 <sgordon> or at least a subset of the use cases are anyway
14:11:43 <shamail> true
14:12:41 <cloudon> only issue I have is whether the PWG is intended for "big picture" user stories rather than relatively focussed ones intended to highlight some narrow omissions
14:12:58 <sgordon> cloudon, right - that is what we were touching on above
14:13:17 <cloudon> e.g. NFV very broad area, but things like the SBC case have fpcussed on fast data planes
14:13:23 <sgordon> cloudon, it is not really clear today - but in the same breath as much as we enjoy each other's company we have lost critical mass here :)
14:13:43 <cloudon> not arguing :)
14:13:44 <shamail> It should be able to handle both scenarios cloudon, the driver being whether the change will impact adoption for a market (e.g. the impact rather than effort)...
14:14:16 <cloudon> think move to PWG is correct, really just a qyuestion about how to adapt use cases to best match expectations
14:14:24 <shamail> so if there is a focused issue, but it is considered a significant barrier than it should be in play.
14:14:41 <shamail> then*
14:15:14 <sgordon> yeah, there is also a concept of grouping related user stories
14:15:24 <cloudon> shamail: makes sense, but what about stuff that doesn't prevent adoption but makes thingfs a bit better?  Is PWG appropriate forum for that?
14:15:40 <sgordon> so while they might be small/narrow alone if we can identify some groupings it might make sense
14:16:05 <sgordon> (in a way i would say we already have them, as each of the current submissions typically involves a number of things)
14:16:34 <cloudon> so to take an example, the vIMS one talked about anti-affinity for N+k pools which applies way beyond NFV
14:17:03 <shamail> cloudon: I think for those efforts it would depend on whether the item is cross-project in nature or can fall into grouping with other user stories.
14:18:04 <cloudon> sgordon: so wold you suggest amending current use cases (e..g to tie them to areas outside NFV) before submitting to PWG?
14:18:38 <sgordon> i think it will be case by case
14:18:44 <shamail> Maybe the way to proceed is to work with UC and PWG, but at the same time continue to feed items into projects as time/resources permit for telco-wg... so the group stays in tact (you might eventually get new cores as well) and can focus on delivering requirements through PWG (when it makes sense) and directly through the projects bugs/RFE process (for when it doesn't)
14:18:52 <sgordon> i think the vIMS requirements can easily be applied to many other traditional apps
14:19:36 <shamail> This will allow the team to leverage PWG for grouping on use-cases that have multi-market applications or address significant barriers even for a single market (e.g. telco/NFV)
14:19:53 <shamail> but it will also allow telco-wg to continue forward as the representation of the market.
14:20:20 <shamail> This leads to your second point though sgordon, not sure personally of overlap between UC, telcowg, and OPNFV
14:20:52 <sgordon> i think there is too much overlap at this point for the telcowg to really continue to exist
14:21:00 <shamail> Affinity/Anti-Affinity and NUMA can probably be tied to multi-market user stories
14:21:17 <sgordon> that said there has been some feedback from service providers that do not want to engage with OPNFV, but they dont engage here either ;)
14:21:55 <sgordon> i think it is better for us to focus on the product wg and opnfv
14:22:25 <sgordon> there may be some value still in a semi-regular meeting of minds specific to telco but i think opnfv is the right place for that
14:22:38 <sgordon> for the service providers i mention perhaps the user committee is the right place
14:23:08 * shamail sighs
14:23:52 <sgordon> shamail, i attempted to send you the buffer ;p
14:24:01 <shamail> Got it :)
14:24:12 <cloudon> sgordon: what do you have in mind when you say "focus on opnfv"?
14:24:22 <sgordon> im really meaning my own time
14:24:31 <sgordon> others may allocate differently of course
14:24:32 <shamail> That plan makes sense... my only concern is that if there is no telcowg (officially) then how will we expand/attract others that are interested?
14:24:42 <cloudon> ok, understand
14:25:03 <shamail> they might not know to engage with PWG for telco or if they work with OPNFV, they still don't have a direct conduit/representation inside the OpenStack community
14:25:35 <sgordon> shamail, opnfv projects are primarily going direct to openstack projects
14:25:42 <sgordon> shamail, via member contributors
14:25:44 <shamail> yep
14:25:45 <cloudon> shamail: agree, especially as OPNFV seems focussed on building OTT solns to OpenStack where there's a bunch of stuff NFV needs squarely within core OpenStack projects
14:26:15 <shamail> true, i've noticed that similar companies participating in both OpenStack and OPNFV but usually have different contributors working in those teams
14:26:16 <sgordon> shamail, there is no value statement for them here as they already document their user stories in the opnfv requirements projects
14:26:28 <shamail> as long as companies can pass information back and forth between the right people then it's a non-issue
14:27:00 <shamail> sgordon: true
14:27:06 <adrian-hoban> Before the summit when this topic last came up I thought we were leaning towards moving the Telco WG under the Product WG as the Product WG has more attention from PTLs, core devs, community members...
14:27:33 <shamail> cloudon: agreed, that's why I think the passing of information between the teams working on OPNFV projects to teams working on OpenStack services is really important.
14:27:55 <sgordon> adrian-hoban, there has to be something to actually move for that to happen - a number of core folks have moved to other roles so atm it's been cloudon and myself for a number of weeks
14:28:09 <sgordon> adrian-hoban, so atm the proposal is more "moving into" i guess
14:28:52 <shamail> sgordon: how many telcowg user-stories are there?  I'll be glad to help with moving some of them (if additional help is needed)
14:29:25 <adrian-hoban> sgordon: understood, and I've been one of those that haven't been able to attend the last few weeks. I think any move that also takes the use cases we worked on is positive
14:30:04 <sgordon> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/telcowg-usecases,n,z
14:30:07 <sgordon> #link http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/telcowg-usecases/tree/usecases
14:30:26 <sgordon> shamail, so there are two merged and 5 submitted
14:30:42 <shamail> sgordon: will you be merging the 5 submitted before moving them?
14:30:48 <sgordon> whether or not we would bring all of the submitted ones is tbd
14:30:51 <shamail> got it
14:31:06 <sgordon> some yes some no, i think mostly they are good enough to go into the drafts area
14:31:20 <sgordon> but service chaining has it's own project and discussions elsewhere
14:31:23 <shamail> Any of them being actively worked on (e.g. implementation phase)?
14:31:28 <sgordon> so not sure what is here is representative anymore
14:31:44 <sgordon> i had raised a backlog spec for the vIMS affinity requirements
14:31:58 <sgordon> and i believe cloudon had raised a neutron rfe for SBC
14:32:09 <cloudon> +1
14:32:12 <sgordon> but as it turns out backlog specs may not actually be a thing ;)
14:32:22 <sgordon> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-November/079340.html
14:33:43 <sgordon> tl;dr no actual implementation
14:33:56 <shamail> but things that are close to that phase...
14:34:11 <shamail> so we might have to see how to get some in draft and some into "proposed"
14:34:16 <adrian-hoban> Is it clear what the path is from a requirement identified in the Product WG to get into one of the projects?
14:34:59 <shamail> Currently being worked on... normally most items in PWG are cross-project so we are working with Mike Perez to identify the right timeframe for submitting cross-project specs and how to break those into individual project specs/blueprints
14:35:27 <shamail> We are planning to use rolling upgrades as our pilot to work on these types of details through a pratical example
14:36:05 <adrian-hoban> shamail: Thanks for the info!
14:36:08 <shamail> The high-level flow is PWG user story -> cross-project spec -> specs/blueprints in multiple projects over multiple releases
14:36:11 <shamail> adrian-hoban, np!
14:37:14 <shamail> sgordon: so happy to help with the user story moves as you see fit.
14:37:39 <sgordon> ok
14:37:46 <shamail> sgordon: we probably need to raise an agenda item on the PWG weekly meeting to discuss how to pursue multiple user stories in parallel during the pilot if there are resources available to work on them
14:37:56 <sgordon> i think it makes sense to start with the two merged as they are in the best shape
14:37:57 <sgordon> right
14:38:20 <sgordon> there is also the matter of which actually make sense to include in that timeframe from a project planning pov
14:38:26 <shamail> yep!
14:38:48 <sgordon> i know the affinity gaps for example may be dependent on a complete rewrite of how server groups work... :P
14:39:38 <shamail> absolutely. (good times)
14:40:00 <sgordon> alright
14:40:19 <sgordon> #action sgordon to attempt proposing merged user stories to product wg repository
14:40:43 <sgordon> i would propose we still keep the telco wg meeting for now so we can track how that is going over the next few weeks
14:40:48 <shamail> +1
14:41:13 <cloudon> +1
14:41:20 <adrian-hoban> sgordon: +1
14:41:46 <sgordon> #topic other discussion
14:41:54 <sgordon> did anyone have anything else they wanted to raise?
14:42:35 <gjayavelu> Hi, I'm new to this group. What is the plan to translate requirements from OPNFV to product WG?
14:43:18 <sgordon> gjayavelu, great question - not sure ;-D
14:43:50 <sgordon> as i alluded to above currently OPNFV requirements projects record their user stories and requirements on wiki.opnfv.org
14:44:15 <sgordon> and then, at least where member companies have folks working on openstack, endeavor to implement them directly
14:44:23 <gjayavelu> ok
14:44:33 <sgordon> so there hasn't been much OPNFV <-> Product WG (or Telco WG) translation as yet
14:44:54 <sgordon> it may become more important as OPNFV starts looking at broader cross-project requirements
14:45:46 <gjayavelu> good to know. I guess I'll continue to attend Telco WG meeting to understand the decisions/workflow better :)
14:46:42 <sgordon> np
14:46:44 <sgordon> alright
14:46:48 <sgordon> thanks all for the discussion
14:46:51 <sgordon> #endmeeting