18:02:37 #startmeeting uc 18:02:38 Meeting started Mon Jun 5 18:02:37 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is shamail. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:02:39 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 18:02:41 The meeting name has been set to 'uc' 18:03:01 hi, anyone here for the UC meeting? 18:03:16 I am 18:03:26 o/ 18:03:49 hi jamemcc, leong 18:04:05 do we have quorum? 18:04:07 let’s give it a couple more minutes to see if we get quorum from UC members. 18:04:18 Not currently 18:05:17 o/ 18:05:30 hi rockyg 18:05:55 hey. In a f2f meeting, too. 18:06:07 It’s 1805 UTC 18:06:31 I will go ahead and skip the UC member specific agenda items since we don’t have quorum but we can proceed with others 18:06:40 Agenda: 18:06:43 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee#Meeting_Agenda.2FPrevious_Meeting_Logs 18:06:59 #topic update from previous meeting(s) 18:07:26 We had productive sessions in Boston at the Forum (both UC and WG specific ones) and this resulted in several action items for the UC 18:08:13 Yes - I think the first 4 were just leftovers from Boston 18:08:22 The need to make the AUC process simpler and scalable was noted multiple times and the decided path forward was to create a repository file where WG chairs can submit a list of active members 18:09:13 This in conjunction with other automated methods we have for identifying user group organizers, superuser contributions, etc. will hopefully let us get even closer to 100% AUC status for those that are eligible 18:09:39 #action shamail will follow up with other UC members on creating file and process for AUC WG files and extra AUC 18:09:49 shamail: +1 for the repo file 18:09:57 We also decided on a new meeting schedule for the UC 18:10:11 this meeting originally used to be bi-weekly at 1900UTC 18:10:13 is there a "cut-off" date for upcoming cycle to quality as AUC? 18:10:55 leong: there is not a cut-off per se but generally the list if queried about 3-4 weeks prior to the summit 18:11:43 i am more referring to the "start-date".. 18:11:50 the list can be queried real-time for those metrics that we can automate but for the list-based WG membership, we will probably do an ML announce before we collect the names from those files 18:12:01 e.g. if a contributor was active in 2016 Dec but no longer active in 2017? 18:12:07 No start date, generally look at it for the “last 6 months" 18:12:12 revolving 18:12:25 If you updated it once a release then you should be good 18:12:41 6mths based on software release date? 18:13:23 This was mym proposal back in February related to time of the AUC qualification: 18:13:26 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/2017-February/001664.html 18:13:29 it’s 6 months in general from when the script is excuted 18:13:50 example: script runs and looks for eligible activity as within the last 180 days 18:13:59 we generally run the script about3-4 weeks before the summit 18:14:20 gotit 18:14:47 Thanks @jamemcc 18:15:16 We will be sure to specify clearly what the window is for the definition of 18:15:21 “active" 18:15:27 I think tom can autoamte to any date - just needs us to document it 18:15:44 We don’t do it by date but rather number of days 18:15:50 today minus 180 for example 18:16:00 shamail: +1 on the window for definition of active 18:16:24 Okay to move on to the meeting update? 18:16:29 +1 18:16:54 Essentially we are moving from bi-weekly 1900 UTC on Mondays to weekly 1800UTC on Mondays with a change in the agenda process too 18:17:12 The UC meetings will only occur when there are items on the agenda (similar to the TC) 18:17:40 We will send an email out by Wednesdays to ask for agenda items and confirm a meeting by Friday if we have topics submitted 18:17:52 The topics can be from any community members 18:18:10 You would simply need to login to the wiki and edit the page with the items: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee#Meeting_Agenda.2FPrevious_Meeting_Logs 18:18:19 changes? --> 1) biweekly to weekly as long as there are agenda items. 2) from 1900UTC to 1800UTC same day 18:18:44 That sounds good to me and I am finding it useful to be able to add agenda items. 18:18:55 leong: +1, perfectly captured 18:18:59 :) 18:19:24 #info meeting changes --> 1) biweekly to weekly as long as there are agenda items. 2) from 1900UTC to 1800UTC same day (request for agenda items will go out on Wednesdays) 18:19:34 #5 on this weeks agenda was added basd on Operation Telco NFV meeting last week and I promised to bring it here and it seems ralted to the above at least to the timing. 18:19:49 there seems to be discussion in TC to drop irc meeting in favour of ML and Gerrt? 18:20:00 #topic Review and finalize approach proposed for WG Status meetings 18:20:31 Basically we agreed tahat it made sense to have 1 UC meeting month to have WG chairs status on the agenda. 18:20:40 leong: there is indeed leong, however that model may not work as well for us since we are not voting on guidelines via gerrit for most of our meetings 18:20:50 jamemcc: +1 I like the idea a lot 18:21:09 just for infor.. one reason is to encourage "cross-timezone" collaboration 18:21:30 But we had some in that discussion from Asia Pacific and this time of day for meeting won't be very doable. 18:21:58 So we created a doodle Poll to find out when that might be, that is in this link: 18:22:29 #link https://beta.doodle.com/poll/6k36zgre9ttciwqz#table 18:22:50 apologies so late, family stuff 18:22:59 @jamemcc it seems that if we move this meeting 1 hour sooner than that time would work and we could just keep the same meeting every week (with dedicating 1 meeting per month to WG chair updates)? 18:23:05 hi mrhillsman 18:23:08 #chair mrhillsman 18:23:08 Current chairs: mrhillsman shamail 18:23:13 hi mrhillsman 18:23:23 oops, that is Tuesday not Monday 18:23:23 So just to clear the air - what I think this means is that at the week of the monthly meeting for UC status we might be at a different time if UC themselves approve. 18:23:32 We are not ready to propose tht spectici time. 18:23:35 and AM not PM :) 18:24:06 jamemcc/shamail: i am confused on the above doodle link? are we trying to set up a separate meeting for the WG collaboration update? 18:24:35 i thought last time UC is discussing to invite WG to join the UC meeting to provide update? 18:24:41 @jamemcc we don’t have quorum to vote today but it seems that you are still working on identify a proper time too. Please let us know what the results of the poll indicate and we can then determine if a seperate meeting makes sense. 18:24:52 Not a spearate meeting but a different time - as it seems taht some of our more eager to participate can't make this time of day. 18:25:11 We have also talked about having another UC meeting to align with APAC so another option could be 1 week US, 1 week APAC if other UC members agree 18:25:12 @shmail - no - I dont' think just 1 hour earlier will do. 18:25:26 @jamemcc: it won’t.. I misread the results 18:26:13 The UC will probably also need to see which regions are the WG chairs from 18:26:33 and advocate for whichever time is better for the majority 18:26:36 jamemcc: the email is not clear to me: it seems more like a separate meeting. Based on the existing pool in the doodle, most seems to be in US, why do we need a separate time? 18:26:56 We talkd abotu alternating months for a WG Status meeting between Europe and Asia times but seemed it would be better to try for the times when all could attend - just early or late buut not in the mdnight to 5AM timeframe - that's what the doodle poll times are trying for. 18:27:19 @jamemcc see what you find and we’ll do some research on our end too 18:27:34 shamail: +1 on the alternating option: 1 week US, 1 week APAC 18:28:19 #action Jamey will conduct poll to identify a monthly time for WG chair meeting, meanwhile UC will review WG chair locations and advocate for the time easier for the majority… 18:28:35 #action shamail will ask UC about alternating meetings for US and APAC times 18:29:03 Thanks @jamemcc 18:29:11 Okay to move on 18:29:12 ? 18:29:29 #topic PTG space requests 18:29:32 @leong - it's not perfectly clear - if you want to try to sort through the options and what was proposed and debated - read this: 18:29:35 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/operators_telco_nfv/2017/operators_telco_nfv.2017-05-31-15.00.log.html 18:29:54 The second Project Teams Gathering (PTG) will be hosted in Denver, September 11-15, 2017. 18:30:27 There is some space reserved for UC/WG activities but we wanted to know if there is any interest in having space from any of the people here? 18:30:40 We don’t want to block rooms and not leverage them since space will be in high demand 18:30:47 I have not got yay or nay to go, I may be able to convince based on F2F being colocated 18:30:49 Are your WGs planning to meet at the PTG? 18:31:05 mrhillsman: kinda sorta same for me 18:31:22 I'm bakc.... 18:31:30 Not sure I want to fight for that vs Sydney though :) 18:31:32 I don't think so for LCOO - but I will put it on Thursday morning meeting agenda. Is that too late? 18:31:35 shamail: maybe UC should send an email to all WG chair to check with the WG plan? 18:31:43 leong: +1 18:31:55 You can action me shamail 18:32:20 #action Melvin to send message on ML to confirm if any WG needs a room at the PTG 18:32:35 #topic open 18:32:44 That is all for our scheduled agenda 18:32:52 Does anyone have any other topics they would like to discuss? 18:33:11 Going once... 18:33:18 SIGs 18:33:26 Go for it 18:33:42 Is sending an email now sufficient to continue to move forward? 18:34:05 Asking for feedback from like WG chairs for example 18:34:09 What would you cover in the email? The concept and solicit broader feedback? 18:34:11 Not the broader community 18:34:18 Ah okay 18:34:22 Not just yet that is 18:34:28 stakeholders? TC, UC, etc? 18:34:31 Who else? 18:34:38 We still need to hammer out high level, yep 18:34:44 mrhillsman: +1 18:35:01 I think an email to stakeholders > vetting/flushing > ML post > vote 18:35:11 are the steps I see in my mind at least 18:35:17 Sounds good 18:35:34 Any other topics? 18:35:37 I had nothing else 18:35:45 Cool 18:35:45 btw, it is still no clear to me the key differences between SIG and existing WG (if Dev were joining WG discussion) 18:36:21 mrhillsman do you want to address that? 18:36:34 SIG has more weight I believe we determined, shamail can correct me if I am wrong. 18:36:45 Please do shamail 18:36:49 what do you mean by "more weight"? 18:37:19 Both dev/non-dev come together 18:37:38 To work out the what and the how 18:37:48 that is based on the assumption that "dev" will join SIG discussion. 18:38:00 I think that’s right mrhillsman.. SIG was being positioned as a group that would essentially fall under TC/UC charter and therefore have more visibility into both communities (rather than a project trying to attract users or WG trying to attract developers) 18:38:02 It is not an assumption 18:38:35 SIG is not just a thing UC is "pushing" 18:38:50 I personally think there could be a notion of strategy vs execution at play too but my thoughts are well-formed yet on the topic 18:39:13 so why can't UC/TC together encourage dev/non-dev to participate in existing WG? 18:39:28 So we have to figure it out and present right because it is a community strategy shift I would say 18:40:02 with SIG, do we still need existing WG? 18:40:06 Current WGs are upstream or downstream 18:40:27 I think we still do leong 18:40:34 And form based on concern for either 18:40:44 for example, the work done in the EWG doesnt require devs to participate in the WG itself 18:40:50 that means more meeting to attend :) 18:40:59 but the work is important and does great work in educating our potential users 18:41:23 so I can see needs that do not require “SIG" 18:41:42 +1 18:42:06 Topic is still being thought through… We’ll definitely come back to the ML once we have broader agreement on the role, value, and alignment of SIGs as a concept in the community 18:42:37 shamail: +1 ... a better clarification on the differences of SIG would be greatly appreciated! 18:42:55 leong: +1, we’ll make sure that is a core deliverable 18:43:04 Anything else? 18:43:21 Alright 18:43:25 Thanks 18:43:26 thank you everyone! 18:43:30 Please make sure to participate in the discussion as well leong on the doc 18:43:31 have a great day/evening 18:43:39 mrhillsman: +1 18:43:47 Would live to capture any thoughts concerns 18:43:55 #link √ 18:44:00 #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTeN5ZB2AnPPXejXOm08sQ75Fc-cMs-x-dOGwfsyM8w 18:44:10 cya 18:44:13 #endmeeting