18:00:37 <emagana> #startmeeting uc
18:00:38 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Jun 12 18:00:37 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is emagana. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:39 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:00:41 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'uc'
18:00:51 <emagana> Hello UC Folks!
18:00:56 <jproulx> hello
18:01:07 <emagana> hey there jproulx
18:01:11 <jamemcc> Hello Edgar and Jon
18:01:22 <leong> o/
18:01:22 <serverascode> hi
18:01:33 <emagana> Let's give it some time to Shamail and Melvin. It seems that Shilla wont be able to attend.
18:01:48 <shamail> hi everyone.
18:02:05 <emagana> hi shamail
18:02:20 <emagana> 3 out of 5 which means we have quorum!
18:02:54 <shamail> :)
18:03:46 <emagana> #cochair jproulx shamail
18:04:02 <emagana> Oh wait, that is not the command..
18:04:20 * jproulx can never remember that one either
18:04:28 <shamail> its just #chair
18:04:45 <mrhillsman> o/
18:04:49 <emagana> #chair shamail jproulx
18:04:49 <openstack> Current chairs: emagana jproulx shamail
18:04:58 <emagana> Thanks shamail! I just forgot about it.
18:05:08 <shamail> np
18:05:17 <emagana> Ok, I have been almost 10 days out. I need sometime to re-adjust.
18:05:42 <emagana> Let's start with the agenda #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee
18:06:09 <jamemcc> So my main point of business is at it's most direct to asky you to move next weeks meeting to Wednesday 0500 UTC,  This is at request of those WG chairs who filled in the surevey of what times would work for them at #link http://doodle.com/poll/6k36zgre9ttciwqz
18:06:32 <jamemcc> #link http://doodle.com/poll/6k36zgre9ttciwqz
18:06:38 <emagana> #topic Finalize approach proposed for WG Status meetings
18:07:20 <emagana> jamemcc: This is for the monthly meeting with WGs chairs, correct?
18:07:34 <jamemcc> Yes
18:07:56 <shamail> jamemcc: who are the WG chairs that responded to the survey? I see others that are not chairs
18:08:22 <jamemcc> TO sumamrize taht proposed approach it is to have the Status at the UC meeting monthy nd then to take action items for collabortion back to our individual meetings.
18:08:31 <shamail> I recognize 1-2 names as chairs from that doodle poll
18:08:40 <shamail> 3*
18:08:44 <emagana> jamemcc:  very low response rate also, only 9
18:09:15 <jamemcc> Fro my perspective/knowledge it's FEDMDC, OPs Telco NFV, Logging, LCOO, and OPNFV
18:09:48 <jamemcc> Agreed, I think that's kind of our older issue though how can we encourage participation by Chairs
18:10:12 <jproulx> To a certain extent we need to go with those who respond as those who will particiapte, so unless we have a better idea how to get more response...
18:10:27 <jproulx> though not sure I can do a 1am local time meeting
18:10:27 <emagana> should we wait one more week before making a decision and chase the WG chairs directly to have them to fill up the doodle?
18:10:52 <leong> you may include me as from PWG, however my preference is at this hour though :)
18:10:54 <jamemcc> Yeah It's especially rough on Eastern US time
18:11:42 <shamail> jproulx: +1
18:11:47 <jamemcc> I could start the poll over again with more time slots - but I know that this time is not going to work for most Eurpoeans or Asia Pacific
18:11:49 <mrhillsman> +`
18:11:53 <mrhillsman> +1
18:11:58 <jproulx> clearly we need to get some APAC folks on UC, having us all bunched up is not so good
18:12:08 <mrhillsman> agreed
18:12:25 <emagana> I like the idea to push a bit harder on the doodle response time before making a decision
18:12:35 <mrhillsman> i can volunteer until that happens to be available for apac uc meeting
18:12:45 <emagana> jamemcc: Did you email directly the doodle to all WGs chairs?
18:12:53 <jamemcc> No
18:12:56 <leong> those responded to doodle pool, are they from APAC?
18:12:59 <emagana> maybe we should do that
18:13:46 <mrhillsman> +1
18:13:53 <jamemcc> By mo limited knowledge only Shintaro is APAC - rest are mostly in Europe and US
18:13:58 <emagana> If some of the UC members can't make it for the time zone difference, we should be fine anyway because it is mostly a cross collaboration meeting, any needed decision can be taken to the UC IRc meeting on Mondays
18:14:20 <mrhillsman> exactly what i am thinking
18:14:44 <jamemcc> This effort is in fact championed by Shintaro as much as me though so from my perspective he is critical.  He ran the other Forum in Boston on this topic and instrumental in getting this proposal this far.
18:14:44 <jproulx> leong: I don't know but 0500UTC seems more APAC friendly than other areas, that was where I based my assumption
18:14:54 <shamail> emagana: +1
18:15:26 <emagana> I can make it at 0500 UTC. It will be 10PM PST
18:15:45 <mrhillsman> i can be available as a sign of good faith/support as mentioned previously as well
18:15:58 <shamail> thanks mrhillsman
18:16:03 <mrhillsman> and capture any required/desired info
18:16:15 <mrhillsman> etc etc
18:16:27 <emagana> mrhillsman: awesome!
18:16:52 <emagana> ok, we will wait one more week and chase the WG chairs directly. all in agreement?
18:16:59 <mrhillsman> +`
18:17:00 <jproulx> That's excellent we don't  need UC quorum unless a formal decision is being made but we should def have atleast 2
18:17:01 <mrhillsman> meh
18:17:02 <jamemcc> +1
18:17:03 <mrhillsman> +1
18:17:07 <jproulx> +1
18:17:29 <emagana> #action jamemcc emagana forward the doodle directly to all WGs chair and request for their response.
18:17:30 <shamail> +1
18:18:08 <emagana> anything on this topic?
18:18:22 <emagana> ok..
18:18:26 <emagana> #topic Help UC with items from last weeks meeting
18:18:48 <emagana> I will ask shamail to help here because I wasn't around the last week.
18:19:00 <shamail> Sure thing
18:19:56 <shamail> The big item from last week that was left open due to not having quorum is to build an action plan towards enabling self-registration of WGs for AUC by WG chairs
18:20:23 <shamail> We had proposed creating a file in the uc repo and letting WG chairs update it with “active members” and the UC could merge updates
18:20:31 <jproulx> +1
18:20:37 <emagana> that sounds great shamail
18:20:44 <shamail> A) Do we agree with this approach and B) Who wants to lead it?
18:20:53 <emagana> I guess we need to make it formal and we will need to vo te it
18:20:56 <emagana> vote*
18:20:57 <shamail> Yeah
18:21:35 <shamail> The other AUC metrics will continue to leverage the automated scripts created for identifying AUCs
18:21:43 <emagana> Proposal: Creating a file in the uc repo and letting WG chairs update it with “active members”
18:21:47 <emagana> #startvote
18:21:48 <openstack> Unable to parse vote topic and options.
18:22:42 <shamail> #startvote  Do we create a file in the uc repo and letting WG chairs update it with active members? yes, no
18:22:43 <openstack> Begin voting on: Do we create a file in the uc repo and letting WG chairs update it with active members? Valid vote options are yes, no.
18:22:45 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
18:22:51 <shamail> #vote yes
18:22:55 <jproulx> #vote yes
18:23:14 <emagana> Thanks @shamail
18:23:18 <shamail> np
18:23:21 <emagana> #vote yes
18:23:31 <shamail> mrhillsman?
18:23:44 <mrhillsman> #vote yes
18:23:46 <mrhillsman> sorry
18:23:50 <shamail> #endvote
18:23:51 <openstack> Voted on "Do we create a file in the uc repo and letting WG chairs update it with active members?" Results are
18:23:52 <openstack> yes (4): shamail, mrhillsman, jproulx, emagana
18:23:59 <jamemcc> If helpful I can do the Creation of a file and initial submission for Gerrit Review.
18:24:13 <emagana> Awesome! Now, who will take the action item of creating the initial commit?
18:24:22 <mrhillsman> do we need a specific format of that file?
18:24:31 <shamail> mrhillsman: Yes, we will
18:24:43 <shamail> I generally prefer a format similar to projects file (finding link)
18:24:52 <mrhillsman> i.e. yaml ini etc so that it works with additional stuff
18:25:18 <shamail> #link https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/projects.yaml
18:25:26 <jamemcc> I think the people generating the AUC will tell us the format - will need to be the same as the current automation.
18:25:28 <shamail> ours would be “WG name:”
18:25:33 <shamail> “chairs"
18:25:40 <emagana> +1
18:25:52 <shamail> and the extra-atc section becomes the “active-members” section
18:26:21 <shamail> I think we should also create another file for extra-AUC in general (to let other eligble AUC groups self-register if they feel they were omitted)
18:26:32 <jproulx> We should ask Tom Fifield about format since he's done the automation scripts that would need to process it
18:26:48 <shamail> jproulx: +1
18:27:04 <jproulx> but that proposal seems a good start
18:27:09 <emagana> jproulx: +1 and shamail +1
18:27:25 <shamail> I have another question related to this...
18:27:26 <jproulx> Tom was looking for a project :)
18:27:41 <emagana> jproulx: LOL
18:27:56 <shamail> If we are going to let WG chairs self-register their teams then do we disable the IRC meeting script that detects WG participation based on 4 meetings & 100 lines of chat?
18:28:15 <shamail> We can keep the other automation scripts (for other AUC groups) online but I think this one should be disabled
18:28:36 <jproulx> I'm not sure
18:28:40 <mrhillsman> ^
18:28:50 <shamail> We also have to define a “backup plan” (e.g. the WG chair does not update the file X weeks before summit… what do we do?)
18:28:56 <jproulx> do we want to "allow" chairs to specify members, ro "require" chairs to specify members?
18:29:14 <jproulx> I'd rather "allow" which means leaving the script I think
18:29:16 <mrhillsman> i think the goal of this file was to "allow"
18:29:18 <shamail> jproulx: I would prefer to make it “require” to have uniform guidance
18:29:23 <shamail> fair
18:29:25 <emagana> we should send direct request. If they do not respond we should question their availability for keep leading the WG
18:30:01 <shamail> No strong opinion was just trying to make it so we can offer clear guidance (but we can definitely achieve that via documentation as well)
18:30:12 <mrhillsman> yeah, i think the base of our discussion was around when the script or automation is not sufficient
18:30:21 <shamail> mrhillsman: +1
18:30:33 <mrhillsman> but i do not think improving the process should ever be off the table
18:30:47 <shamail> #info The new WG registration process will augment the automated script for WG membership collection (and not replace it)
18:30:48 <jamemcc> @shmail -  I think the current method of automatically generating AUC should be reviewed as well.  Could we consult with Tom or others to see if there is room for improvement.
18:30:54 <jproulx> Seems like putting administrative burden on chairs for not much gain to me, but if chairs had different feed back I'd take it
18:31:12 <shamail> @jamemcc that would be a discussion to have with UC instead of Tom
18:31:23 <jamemcc> I see
18:31:28 <shamail> happy to hear your thoughts on the deficiencies in a future meeting
18:31:34 <jamemcc> Will do
18:31:37 <mrhillsman> ^
18:32:23 <shamail> Who wants to take the action item for populating the first file based on the https://github.com/openstack/governance/blob/master/reference/projects.yaml format?
18:32:34 <jproulx> agree reviewing AUC now we've had a run through would be appropriate near future topic
18:32:35 <shamail> I could do it but it will probably be a week before I can get to it.
18:32:56 <mrhillsman> i can
18:33:08 <shamail> thanks mrhillsman
18:33:13 <emagana> we can ask  Tom F to do it as well
18:33:27 <emagana> He knows the structure properly
18:33:36 <shamail> emagana: I would rather that we attempt it and use him as a subject matter expert
18:33:46 <emagana> shamail: sounds good!
18:33:54 <mrhillsman> cool
18:33:56 <shamail> There is no uniform structure, we just extract from unstructured files and document name, irc, email
18:34:25 <shamail> emagana: I mean that we can create the file (based on the format) and ask for Tom’s help with script/automation changes based on it
18:34:46 <jproulx> shamail +1
18:35:04 <mrhillsman> i have on my todo list to look/understand the scripts/automation stuff too so this will be good first step along the way
18:35:28 <jproulx> send up a review and tag Tom would be my suggestion as well
18:35:45 <mrhillsman> ok
18:35:53 <emagana> +1
18:36:38 <mrhillsman> #action mrhillsman create first pass for wg "extra-auc" yml file
18:36:47 <shamail> I had another idea as well…
18:36:48 <emagana> #action mrhillsman to create the initial file in the uc repo
18:37:02 <mrhillsman> cool, not sure if i could action that or not
18:37:03 <shamail> should we take the etherpad documentation from the AUC WG (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/AUCRecognition#Milestones) and plan to move it into our governance page?
18:37:07 <emagana> sorry, we double posted
18:37:11 <mrhillsman> all good
18:37:21 <shamail> That way the details of the AUC eligibility criteria is available from our page
18:37:26 <emagana> I am a slow typer
18:37:31 <emagana> LOL!
18:37:36 <mrhillsman> hehe
18:37:48 <mrhillsman> shamail: totally makes sense
18:38:24 <mrhillsman> we have some old patches we need to revisit too btw
18:38:42 <emagana> mrhillsman: Could you add the links here?
18:38:43 <mrhillsman> saw those working on some other stuff this morning
18:38:44 <shamail> And for those of you interested in the automation scripts for AUC
18:38:45 <shamail> #link https://github.com/openstack/uc-recognition/
18:38:58 <mrhillsman> sure, sec
18:39:51 <mrhillsman> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/436752/
18:40:13 <mrhillsman> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/436757/
18:40:37 <emagana> Cheers!
18:40:52 <mrhillsman> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/437748/ - this one we said to wait until after next round of elections
18:41:08 <mrhillsman> but i think we can look revisit the other two
18:41:15 <mrhillsman> even if not in this meeting necessarily
18:41:18 <leong> Btw, App Dev Enablement Working Group:   chairs: Patricia Montenegro, Christopher Aedo. This no longer exist.
18:41:22 <mrhillsman> i can put on agenda for next week
18:41:54 <mrhillsman> or anyone else can :)
18:42:33 <shamail> Lets put it on the agenda
18:42:38 <mrhillsman> ok
18:42:55 <mrhillsman> another agreement to make it official?
18:43:04 <shamail> but reading the comments, I think we have to approve the process to becoming a WG first
18:43:26 <mrhillsman> ah, right
18:43:55 <emagana> #action shamail mrhillsman adding the topic of reviewing WGs in the next UC meeting
18:44:10 <emagana> So, are we good with the currect topic?
18:44:14 <emagana> current*
18:44:18 <mrhillsman> +1
18:45:32 <emagana> I do not see any other topic in the agenda
18:45:43 <emagana> should we move to open discussion?
18:45:51 <jproulx> +1
18:46:20 <emagana> #topic Open Discussion
18:46:23 <emagana> Anyone?
18:46:48 <mrhillsman> just want to toss out there again folks take a look at and comment/add to SIGs proposal
18:47:09 <mrhillsman> #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTeN5ZB2AnPPXejXOm08sQ75Fc-cMs-x-dOGwfsyM8w
18:48:02 <emagana> yes, we all should do
18:48:25 <mrhillsman> ideally i think the hope is a couple things - asynchronously get it to the point of a meeting between those who agreed to participate from the joint meeting, and then in those meetings get to the point of sending to larger community
18:48:29 <mrhillsman> nothing more from me
18:48:48 <leong> mrhillsman: i have posted my comment on the doc
18:50:16 <emagana> If we do not have other topics, we could adjourn
18:50:50 <jproulx> 2nd motion to adjourn ...
18:51:01 <emagana> Ok, just as a reminder we should have any conversation in our #openstack-uc channel
18:51:14 <emagana> Thank you all!
18:51:15 <emagana> #endmeeting