18:03:30 <VW> #startmeeting uc
18:03:30 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Mar  5 18:03:30 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is VW. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:03:31 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:03:33 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'uc'
18:03:41 <leong> hello all...
18:03:45 <aprice> o/
18:03:45 <VW> looks like we have most of the crew
18:03:52 <VW> #topic Roll Call
18:04:14 <mrhillsman> o/
18:04:15 <VW> #chair leong spotz mrhillsman zioproto
18:04:16 <openstack> Current chairs: VW leong mrhillsman spotz zioproto
18:04:32 <leong> o
18:04:34 <leong> o/
18:04:44 <spotz> o/
18:04:56 <VW> reminder that the agenda is here
18:04:59 <VW> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee
18:05:03 <jamesmcarthur> o/
18:05:49 <VW> cool, we have a lot to cover and I'd like to give aprice a good chunk of time, so let's keep rolling
18:05:54 <VW> #topic Election Results and welcome new members
18:05:55 <mrhillsman> ++
18:06:07 <mrhillsman> welcome spotz and leong !
18:06:16 <VW> so, some of this we covered because everyone was able to hop in the impromptu
18:06:21 <spotz> Thanks!:)
18:06:35 <leong> thanks!
18:06:43 <mrhillsman> election results #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee/UC-Election-Feb18
18:06:47 <leong> looking forward for another great year :)
18:06:59 <VW> congrats to you both - and to you for re-electon mrhillsman - looking forward to working with this team
18:07:06 <mrhillsman> thx
18:07:46 <VW> but, with Edgar stepping down, we do need to elect a chair (and a vice chair it turns out - according to the documentation we reviewed last week)
18:08:14 <leong> VW ++
18:08:22 <spotz> ++
18:08:38 <mrhillsman> ++
18:08:47 <spotz> Looking at the wiki it doesn't list our Vice Chair, did we not have one?
18:08:57 <mrhillsman> we did not have one unfortunately
18:09:05 <VW> don't think we realized we were supposed to do that until just recently
18:09:17 <VW> but it makes sense
18:09:31 <spotz> Yeah as they would have moved up in this case
18:10:10 <VW> maybe - that's actually one thing that we need to probably define.  I don't know that there are terms assigned to the role
18:10:30 <VW> so, in theory, we could do this process every 6 months - even if all the players stay the same
18:10:55 <mrhillsman> we did this the election last feb
18:11:08 <VW> we did it again in August though
18:11:18 <VW> when zioproto and i joined
18:11:21 <mrhillsman> yes, then too
18:11:46 <leong> should we mandate that process every cycle? if we do that, will be great to document it :-)
18:11:53 <spotz> Ok so I'll propose based on that everyy 6 months with the co stepping up if the chair has to drop out before the next vote?
18:11:57 <mrhillsman> chair is basically the same as members
18:12:03 <VW> yeah
18:12:06 <mrhillsman> except voted in
18:12:29 <VW> we'll put some future agenda items to refine all that spotz/leong
18:12:33 <mrhillsman> we definitely need to ^
18:12:42 <jamesmcarthur> VW: not to get into the weeds too much, but is there a definition behind hte duties of teh chair and vice chair?
18:12:42 <VW> have it nailed down before the next election
18:13:18 <mrhillsman> 12 minutes pass so we should probably vote on both and then we can fill gaps
18:13:29 <VW> agreed
18:13:41 <leong> ++
18:13:42 <VW> was going to see if zioproto might appear before we did
18:13:47 <VW> but we should keep moving
18:13:58 <mrhillsman> jamesmcarthur: yes #link https://governance.openstack.org/uc/reference/charter.html
18:14:19 <mrhillsman> sorry #link https://governance.openstack.org/uc/reference/charter.html#uc-chair-and-membership
18:14:34 <leong> for references. this is a role define for TC #link TC Chair https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/charter.html#tc-chair
18:15:00 <mrhillsman> however i do think we need to at some point before the next election ensure we pin down better details for both chair and vice-chair
18:15:07 <jamesmcarthur> ++
18:15:11 <spotz> ++
18:15:18 <VW> yeah - because the public doc doesn't even bring up the vice
18:15:23 <mrhillsman> ++
18:15:27 <VW> that must have been in the working docs we found
18:15:29 <aprice> ++
18:15:30 <VW> Ok lots to do
18:15:31 <leong> both looks about the same.... haha
18:15:32 <VW> but...
18:15:41 <mrhillsman> which we mentioned in aug but never resolved
18:15:45 <VW> #topic Election of UC chair
18:16:26 <spotz> Nominations/VOlunteers?:)
18:16:52 <leong> any volunteers first?
18:16:59 <mrhillsman> well, based on discussion i had with VW, i will volunteer
18:17:01 <leong> for chair?
18:17:11 <VW> I am more than happy to, but personally thought that mrhillsman has the most tenure and made sense
18:17:26 <leong> mrhillsman: i second that  :)
18:17:32 <spotz> ++ I'll thirs:)
18:17:38 <spotz> third even
18:17:48 <leong> any competing ?
18:17:51 <mrhillsman> so we need vote :)
18:18:21 <spotz> Unless zioproto comes or mrhillsman nominates someone I think it's unanimous
18:18:25 <leong> looks like no competition for mrhillsman as chair?
18:18:34 <VW> we still need to record it
18:18:40 <mrhillsman> ++
18:18:45 <VW> let me recall how do do that real quick
18:18:56 <spotz> vw I think it's #poll
18:18:56 <leong> i have the cheatsheet :)
18:19:38 <mrhillsman> #link https://docs.openstack.org/infra/system-config/irc.html#voting
18:19:38 <leong> i think is #  startvote <voting question>? <voting options>
18:19:45 <mrhillsman> lost dang connection for a moment
18:20:12 <VW> Ok - standby
18:20:18 <emagana> HI.
18:20:21 <leong> hi emagana
18:20:21 <emagana> Sorry I am super late!
18:20:28 <spotz> emagana: Hey!
18:20:44 <mrhillsman> ugh, i think i am still showing away
18:21:05 <leong> #link irc cheatsheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7UxXerDtbk2EXkppTVTqe3dMou_4T8PTDkFjB01YQk/edit#heading=h.ab86je9hzzzi
18:21:24 <spotz> mrhillsman: I think you're ok unless the bot is showing you not here
18:21:27 <emagana> Congratulations! leong spotz mrhillsman
18:21:32 <leong> thanks emagana
18:21:37 <spotz> thanks emagana
18:21:42 <VW> #startvote All in favor of mrhillsman as UC chair for at least the next 6 monhts Yes, No, Abstain
18:21:43 <openstack> Unable to parse vote topic and options.
18:22:04 <VW> #startvote All in favor of mrhillsman as UC chair for at least the next 6 months? Yes, No, Abstain
18:22:05 <openstack> Begin voting on: All in favor of mrhillsman as UC chair for at least the next 6 months? Valid vote options are Yes, No, Abstain.
18:22:06 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
18:22:13 <spotz> #vote yes
18:22:14 <leong> #vote Yes
18:22:16 <VW> #vote yes
18:22:18 <mrhillsman> #vote Yes
18:22:32 <VW> well then...
18:22:42 <leong> you need to endvote to show result :-)
18:22:43 <VW> #endvote
18:22:44 <openstack> Voted on "All in favor of mrhillsman as UC chair for at least the next 6 months?" Results are
18:22:45 <openstack> Yes (4): mrhillsman, VW, leong, spotz
18:22:51 <mrhillsman> i nominate VW as vice-chair :)
18:23:12 <spotz> ++
18:23:16 <spotz> :)
18:23:17 <leong> +1
18:23:44 <mrhillsman> #startvote All in favor of VW as UC vice-chair for at least the next 6 months? Yes, No, Abstain
18:23:45 <openstack> Begin voting on: All in favor of VW as UC vice-chair for at least the next 6 months? Valid vote options are Yes, No, Abstain.
18:23:46 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
18:23:49 <mrhillsman> #vote Yes
18:23:51 <leong> #vote Yes
18:23:51 <VW> #vote yes
18:23:58 <spotz> #vote yes
18:24:01 <mrhillsman> #endvote
18:24:01 <openstack> Voted on "All in favor of VW as UC vice-chair for at least the next 6 months?" Results are
18:24:02 <openstack> Yes (4): spotz, VW, leong, mrhillsman
18:24:04 <mrhillsman> :)
18:24:06 <mrhillsman> done hehe
18:24:10 <VW> lol
18:24:11 <spotz> Easy Peasy!
18:24:12 <leong> that was quick..
18:24:27 <VW> #action mrhillsman VW add details to UC charter for vice chair
18:24:50 <VW> cool - housekeeping out of the way let's get some updates on the user survey
18:24:52 <mrhillsman> #action mrhillsman report result of UC chair/vice-chair voting to board
18:24:55 <leong> btw mrhillsman , can we remove "undefined" and just leave blank for the rest? :)
18:24:56 <mrhillsman> ++
18:25:07 <leong> i mean on the goverannce page
18:25:09 <mrhillsman> sure thing
18:25:11 <mrhillsman> got you
18:25:13 <VW> #topic User Survey
18:25:36 <aprice> hi everyone - I wanted to provide updates and gather input on the 2018 direction.
18:25:43 <VW> we will now turn floor over to the fabulous, but jet lagged aprice :)
18:26:57 <aprice> in Sydney, we introduced the idea of moving to an annual report for several reasons. We were not seeing much change in the 6 month versions, and it was also a large lift both from the Foundation staff as well as the UC. Now that we have the dashboard at openstack.org/analytics, we proposed moving to a single report a year.
18:27:42 <aprice> The timeline we have discussed is a 12 month timeframe of mid August through mid August the following year (365 days). The report will then come out 6-8 weeks later, in September / October with help from the UC as well as a Survey team.
18:27:46 <leong> #link OpenStack Survey Report https://www.openstack.org/analytics
18:28:31 <aprice> So, when we publish a report in September of 2018 it will cover data collected mid August 2017 to mid August 2018. We would then do heavy promotion at the end of the cycle, which in this case will be early April through mid August like we have done in previous years. This would allow us to leverage the OpenStack Summit (April or May) as well as June & July OpenStack Days as promotion opportunities while promoting
18:28:31 <aprice> it year round at other events.
18:29:11 <aprice> is there any feedback around the move to go to an annual report or the proposed timeline?
18:29:31 <leong> aprice: is the "data collection" a year-round?
18:29:38 <aprice> leong: yes
18:29:43 <leong> got it
18:29:54 <spotz> aprice I think it sounds like a good plan, with the reminders/touchpoints to get folks to submit
18:29:58 <aprice> and the dashboard at https://www.openstack.org/analytics will update throughout the year
18:30:22 <aprice> yeah and I really want to work closer with the UC and Board on communicating the importance of the survey as a feedback channel.
18:30:38 <aprice> We share a lot of the project specific feedback and adoption metrics with PTLs
18:30:40 <VW> so, in theory one operator could update the survey multiple times if upgardes are done, new services leveraged, large growth, etc
18:31:01 <jamesmcarthur> VW: correct
18:31:05 <aprice> correct
18:31:21 <aprice> and we would communicate the cut off date for a particular period
18:32:13 <VW> I could also see a point where - if we get really good at all the other stuff we talked about last week - we might even keep space for specific feedback on key themes the UC is driving towards forum sessions/software changes
18:32:27 <spotz> If I rmember in Barcelona there was someone near registration encouraging/bribing folks to do the survey which is probably something tht should continue to be utilized
18:32:29 <VW> but that's just me thinking ahead a bit
18:32:44 <mrhillsman> i was thinking the same
18:32:48 <aprice> VW: ++
18:32:50 <jamesmcarthur> VW: that's a good thought
18:33:09 <mrhillsman> in general with it being open for such an extended period of time, it does not feel like such a task twice a year
18:33:10 <aprice> spotz: we have done that in previous years and I think that's something we can definitely revisit
18:33:38 <mrhillsman> and the additional communication/touch points can help drive home the benefit; along with the other stuff as VW mentioned
18:33:41 <aprice> mrhillsman: exactly. we received a lot of feedback last year from very engaged users that they felt like they just took the survey and then we were asking them to take it again
18:33:45 <VW> yeah - since Vacouver will be in that "hard push" window you talked about
18:34:20 <aprice> and I think that if we communicate the benefit of taking it and making it an annual process, it will be easier to show them the value of taking it.
18:34:28 <mrhillsman> ++
18:34:29 <jamesmcarthur> ++
18:34:33 <VW> agreed
18:34:43 <spotz> ++
18:34:46 <leong> aprice: instead of asking the question "do a survey again", we should as "what the differences compare to previous deployment last year"
18:34:52 <VW> aprice - what makes more sense to you.  The communication of all this from yourself for via the UC?
18:35:36 <aprice> leong: we typically segment the communication and if someone has an existing deployment, we just ask that they update it.
18:35:51 <aprice> but that is often seem as time consuming and repetitive.
18:36:20 <aprice> VW: we typically have the communication come from the Foundation, but I love the idea of having it come from you. We would still manage teh communications / promotion
18:36:21 <spotz> aprice - is it possible for someone to bring up their last responses? I can't remember
18:36:39 <VW> should be
18:36:45 <aprice> but I think that getting all of your names in front of the members - especially around this - would be a big win.
18:36:48 <jamesmcarthur> spotz: yes, we pull in certain pieces of data from the previous survey and pre-populate
18:36:50 <VW> you should have a deployment/deployments assigned to you
18:36:59 <leong> spotz: i remember it does
18:37:05 <jamesmcarthur> deployments are one of those things
18:37:22 <jamesmcarthur> However, there is a tradeoff b/c people tend to not update if they don't have to
18:37:26 <VW> agreed aprice - some sort of joint statement with the change in tempo, the reasoning and the dashboard makes sense
18:37:34 <mrhillsman> ++
18:37:36 <aprice> The Foundation will continue to promote it, but I think that we could put the comms coming from you and ideally have the UC doing a joint session in Berlin around the results
18:37:37 <jamesmcarthur> So sometimes for critical pieces, we don't pre-populate it so they will fill it out with new data
18:37:38 <spotz> ok so cool, so  we just make it clear if you've done it before you can whip through and just update any changes
18:37:54 <spotz> except critical:)
18:37:59 <mrhillsman> i like the joint/UC comms because of the discussion around visibility and getting more involved
18:38:03 <aprice> ++
18:38:05 <leong> i agree to aprice that UC can help to communicate with operators
18:38:08 <VW> what's the target for getting an announcement out
18:38:40 <aprice> so we are working through some proposed changes, but ideally, we would be opening it in early April, so in a month or so
18:39:01 <VW> cool
18:39:11 <leong> is there anything that we can do for this week Ops midcycle at Tokyo wrt to user survey?
18:39:18 <VW> so, we probably need to keep this on the agenda the rest of the month
18:39:20 <aprice> I can help draft a note, because I also think that some of the other changes are based on operator feedback / usage
18:39:37 <aprice> leong: Anne Bertucio from the Foundation is doing a Foundation / UC update
18:39:45 <mrhillsman> leong i think we are ok since Anne ^
18:39:56 <leong> great
18:40:04 <aprice> and she has included a slide about the proposed survey changes. p
18:40:12 <spotz> aprice Did Anne make it?:)
18:40:17 <mrhillsman> ^
18:40:24 <aprice> spotz: she is en route now
18:40:25 <jamesmcarthur> leong: one message we're trying to convey to operators: get involved, sign up for mailing lists, take the user survey :)
18:40:32 <spotz> aprice: Nice!
18:40:36 <aprice> she will land on the first day of the event, but it looks like she will make it :)
18:40:49 <aprice> jamesmcarthur: ++
18:40:50 <jamesmcarthur> operators and end-users
18:40:57 <mrhillsman> ++ :)
18:41:01 <VW> which reminds me
18:41:08 <leong> jamesmcarthur: let me know if you need helps to convey the message to regional areas especially PRC...
18:41:22 <spotz> I'm hoping to make the meetup in Austin this week if anything needs to be communicated
18:41:23 <jamesmcarthur> leong: thank you! we absolutely will
18:41:23 <VW> #action VW email Tokyo organizers that Anne was delayed and they might want to have a plan B schedule
18:41:35 <leong> jamesmcarthur: even you need translation :)
18:41:38 <aprice> leong: that would be great
18:41:51 <jamesmcarthur> thanks!
18:41:53 <mrhillsman> lol
18:42:05 <jamesmcarthur> spotz: let me know when the Austin meetup is. I might be able to make it as well.
18:42:14 <aprice> leong: we can move this offline, but one of the pieces we want to make sure we get right is the Net Promoter Score question for the PRC
18:42:29 <leong> aprice: ok.. ping me offline
18:42:30 <aprice> We heard that there was confusion last time and want to make sure it is communicated correctly.
18:42:33 <aprice> perfect
18:42:37 <spotz> jamesmcarthur: I'll forward you the email, but Thursday night at Rackspace
18:42:47 <aprice> as for the other changes in the survey
18:43:06 <aprice> we are trying to make as small of changes as possible so that we can continue to do YoY analysis
18:43:20 <spotz> Good plan
18:43:25 <mrhillsman> yeah
18:43:49 <aprice> one of the things we are adding this year  is edge computing & CI/CD as they are gaining momentum as well as reflect the focus from the openstack foundation
18:44:25 <leong> time check 15 mins left
18:44:43 <aprice> The Foundation staff is reviewing some of the proposed changes but once I get signoff from them, I will circulate with you all.
18:44:48 <leong> aprice: +++ for the addition of Edge and CI/CD
18:44:54 <aprice> My last point for the survey
18:45:14 <aprice> I want to make sure that you all have the opportunity to weigh in along the way as we make progress with this cycle.
18:45:25 <aprice> I like the idea of keeping it on the meeting agenda for the next few weeks.
18:45:31 <mrhillsman> ++
18:45:41 <aprice> the next big piece will be getting everyone's eyes on the survey ahead of launch
18:45:49 <spotz> ++
18:46:08 <aprice> we will have a survey volunteer team again - spotz & mrhillsman are veterans :)
18:46:19 <spotz> hehe
18:46:28 <mrhillsman> 0.0
18:46:30 <aprice> and then through the analysis as well. with it being only an annual report, we hope that it's easier on you all as well :)
18:46:37 <VW> Ok - making real time edits to the wiki
18:46:50 <VW> user survey is on the agenda for the next two weeks
18:47:06 <aprice> VW: thanks!
18:47:09 <aprice> that's all from me
18:47:33 <VW> cool
18:47:49 <VW> #topic Homework for PTG output
18:47:59 <VW> mrhillsman: you want to drive this one?
18:48:04 <mrhillsman> sure
18:48:18 <mrhillsman> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/UC-Rocky-PTG
18:48:31 <mrhillsman> this is the etherpad for ptg - surely you all have seen
18:48:35 <mrhillsman> since we are short on time
18:48:42 <mrhillsman> i think it best we basically review the items there
18:48:52 <mrhillsman> and discuss the first next week
18:49:13 <mrhillsman> and start discussion next week in terms of voting
18:49:19 <mrhillsman> if anything needs to be voted on
18:49:26 <mrhillsman> but we should start taking actions asap
18:49:35 <VW> agreed
18:49:35 <leong> mrhillsman: i have provided a few comments over there... i agree to let team review and discuss further next weke
18:50:52 <VW> do we want to be realistic and try and have discussion and voting (if necessary) around official positions/actions each week for one of the major topics?
18:51:06 <VW> versus trying to rush through the whole doc next week?
18:51:19 <jamesmcarthur> that seems sensible. If you can knock out more than one, great...
18:51:20 <VW> if so, I can tweak the agendas
18:51:21 <mrhillsman> yep, i think that is good approach
18:51:35 <VW> let's see how long the first one takes
18:51:43 <VW> if we get good, we can always increase the pace
18:52:23 <jamesmcarthur> I do wonder if some of these topics wouldn't be better discussed on a recorded Zoom.
18:52:42 <mrhillsman> I also wondered if some face time would help
18:53:37 <mrhillsman> So how about we start with - which one do we want to discuss next week
18:53:51 <mrhillsman> We can start there and then maybe understand our pace and adjust accordingly?
18:54:03 <jamesmcarthur> ++
18:54:24 <spotz> Yeah I think we can just comment on the ether and then in the meetings go as far as we can get
18:54:44 <mrhillsman> Also we do not have to be limited to meetings; i think this will ultimately slow us down
18:54:55 <mrhillsman> I probably have more time than most since all I do is OpenStack all day
18:55:03 <mrhillsman> But we should take advantage of this irc and email :)
18:55:10 <spotz> mrhillsman: **PHHBBTTSS**
18:55:22 <mrhillsman> did you just cuss me
18:55:23 <mrhillsman> lol
18:55:37 <spotz> I'm usually about though you might have to ping to get me to look
18:56:03 <spotz> pphhbtts are not cussing:)
18:56:13 <mrhillsman> So we have 5 minutes, is one of those more pressing to anyone than the others?
18:56:17 <mrhillsman> they are in no specific order
18:56:19 <VW> Ok - see if these changes account for all of the above - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/UserCommittee#Meeting_Agenda.2FPrevious_Meeting_Logs
18:56:53 <mrhillsman> ++ since ops midcycle is this week
18:57:12 <VW> yeah - we are actually piloting some of the stuff we are intending to formalize next week
18:57:16 <VW> but that's OK
18:57:29 <mrhillsman> and ties into our "be more aggressive about feedback" theme
18:57:31 <VW> real-time feedback and all...
18:58:19 <spotz> I think we definitely need to see where SIGs belong before we discuss AUC statuses
18:58:52 <mrhillsman> bah, we should have probably voted on the governance suggestion
18:59:11 <mrhillsman> can we discuss shortly after time up here in a second?
18:59:20 <spotz> yeah
18:59:26 * leong_ was kicked out by ric
18:59:30 <jamesmcarthur> sure
18:59:44 <VW> yeah - and then if we need a formal vote, we'll add it to next week
18:59:48 <mrhillsman> ok cool
18:59:49 <mrhillsman> ++
18:59:51 <VW> although it's crowded
19:00:06 <VW> ok - sounds like we are about out of time for this rodeo
19:00:10 <leong_> or should we look at the Committee Doc and Goal first?
19:00:19 <VW> #endmeeting