16:03:31 <adrian_otto> #startmeeting containers
16:03:32 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Feb  7 16:03:31 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is adrian_otto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:03:33 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:03:36 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'containers'
16:03:37 <adrian_otto> #topic Roll Call
16:03:42 <adrian_otto> Adrian Otto
16:03:44 <Drago1> o/
16:03:44 <hieulq_> o/
16:03:47 <strigazi> o/
16:03:47 <jvgrant> Jaycen Grant
16:03:47 <vijendar_> o/
16:03:49 <coreyob> o/
16:03:55 <krtaylor> o/
16:04:00 <randallburt> o/
16:04:09 <tonanhngo> Ton Ngo
16:04:22 <jasond> o/
16:04:38 <adrian_otto> hello Drago1, hieulq_, strigazi, jvgrant, vijendar_, coreyob, krtaylor, randallburt, tonanhngo, and jasond
16:06:28 <adrian_otto> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Containers#Agenda_for_2017-02-07_1600_UTC Our Agenda
16:06:37 <adrian_otto> #topic Announcements
16:06:53 <adrian_otto> 1) We will not have an IRC team meeting on 2017-02-21 because of the Atlanta PTG event.
16:07:01 <adrian_otto> any other announcements from team members?
16:07:49 <adrian_otto> #topic Review Action Items
16:08:05 <adrian_otto> there was actually one action item, but I don't have it recorded. One moment.
16:08:51 <adrian_otto> 1) ACTION: Community to brainstorm and vote on etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/magnum-pike-ptg-sessions
16:08:55 <adrian_otto> Status: in progress
16:08:59 <adrian_otto> we can revisit this today.
16:09:13 <adrian_otto> 2) ACTION: adrian_otto Confirm/triage potential bug 1659431
16:09:13 <openstack> bug 1659431 in Magnum "Unexpected response from microversioned API" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1659431 - Assigned to Jason Dunsmore (jasondunsmore)
16:09:24 <adrian_otto> Status: Complete. jasond was working on it
16:09:52 <adrian_otto> any discussion on the action items?
16:10:22 <adrian_otto> #topic Blueprints/Bugs/Reviews/Ideas
16:10:36 <adrian_otto> Essential Blueprints
16:10:38 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/flatten-attributes Flatten Attributes [strigazi]
16:11:40 <strigazi> I have done progress but I still miss the transactional reads and writes, I work exclusively on that
16:12:05 <adrian_otto> ok
16:12:08 <strigazi> I'll write some tests
16:12:13 <adrian_otto> thanks strigazi
16:12:25 <strigazi> to use swatson's db tests
16:12:53 <adrian_otto> do you and swatson need to plan any coordination, or do you have what you need?
16:13:14 <strigazi> I'm good
16:13:19 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/nodegroups Nodegroups [Drago]
16:13:38 <jvgrant> new reviews up.
16:13:41 <Drago1> No update from me. There are specs that have been split up and ready for review
16:14:03 <jvgrant> got some feedback waiting for a little more before next revision
16:14:06 <jvgrant> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/425422/
16:14:17 <jvgrant> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/425431/
16:14:27 <jvgrant> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427060/
16:15:12 <strigazi> jvgrant Is there a dependency  betweem them?
16:15:15 <adrian_otto> ok, I'll plan to review those and relay input. Others, please do as well.
16:15:41 <Drago1> 427060 is relatively independent
16:15:51 <jvgrant> strigazi: a little but they are divided to be mostly single topic so we can review easier
16:16:01 <strigazi> how is it  related to NGs?
16:16:17 <strigazi> I mean 427060
16:16:21 <jvgrant> for example we should be able to approve the overview of general nodegroups separately from CLI details
16:16:29 <strigazi> jvgrant ok
16:16:35 <Drago1> 425422 is the nodegroup overview, which we're hoping can be merged before getting into smaller details in other specs
16:17:00 <adrian_otto> good
16:17:17 <jvgrant> 427060 was something that was proposed as part of the v2 CLI, we separated it out so make it clearer
16:17:21 <Drago1> strigazi: 427060 is a change that we lumped into the original nodegroup spec, but we can vote on it on its own
16:17:29 <Drago1> jvgrant: Uh, jinx
16:17:37 <jvgrant> Drago1: :)
16:17:43 <strigazi> on it's own is better
16:18:04 <Drago1> Please review it!
16:18:13 <adrian_otto> ok
16:18:16 <strigazi> ok
16:18:21 <adrian_otto> any further discussion on Node Groups?
16:18:59 <adrian_otto> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/cluster-upgrades Cluster Upgrades [strigazi]
16:19:30 <adrian_otto> hello swatson
16:19:32 <swatson> o/
16:19:46 <strigazi> I'm preparing a revision for phase 1, I don't have something now
16:22:02 <adrian_otto> ok
16:22:16 <adrian_otto> Other Work Items
16:22:35 <adrian_otto> #link https://review.openstack.org/430071 Adding Magnum Governance
16:23:29 <adrian_otto> in continuation of our discussion yesterday, I have written down guidance for how the Magnum project is run and what the leading philosophy currently is.
16:23:58 <adrian_otto> I'd like to refine this to accurately capture the intent of our team.
16:24:53 * krtaylor looks
16:24:59 <adrian_otto> correction: this is a continuation of our discussion last week in our PTG planning etherpad at: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/magnum-pike-ptg-sessions
16:25:32 <juggler> o/
16:26:04 <adrian_otto> hello juggler
16:26:32 <juggler> hello adrian_otto
16:27:14 <Drago1> Will review, adrian_otto
16:27:22 <adrian_otto> thanks Drago1
16:27:49 <jasond> adrian_otto: reviewing
16:28:03 <adrian_otto> if you have any concerns about any of the contents, let's discuss them and get something we like.
16:29:31 <adrian_otto> Would any other team members like to raise other work items for discussion now?
16:32:05 <adrian_otto> okay, then I'd like to spend a few minutes to let you review the governance review, and then we can revisit https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/magnum-pike-ptg-sessions together
16:33:48 <jvgrant> ok, reading it now
16:34:37 * juggler is reading it too
16:38:26 <jvgrant> I think the calling out the importance of iterative improvements is good
16:39:45 <adrian_otto> yes, that's a key issue that I think has slowed our team progress through the Ocata cycle.
16:40:24 <swatson> I like it overall
16:40:32 <tonanhngo> It's a good start, it seems to apply in general to any project, not just Magnum
16:41:08 <adrian_otto> tonanhngo: I have tried to model this based on my understanding of how other projects are run, and what's worked best for my teams in the past
16:41:34 <tonanhngo> It may be good to cover a bit more on handling disagreement
16:41:35 <strigazi> You can link http://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/ptl.html and http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html#code-review I think
16:41:53 <adrian_otto> it should not be Magnum specific, but each project may adopt a slightly different philosophy (say with respect to quality) depending on it's journey though a maturity cycle
16:42:06 <adrian_otto> strigazi: good suggestions. I'll add those.
16:43:30 <Drago1> adrian_otto: What about finding team consensus when most of the team hasn't weighed in? In what cases should we wait, and in what cases should an absence of input be taken as silent acceptance?
16:43:51 <swatson> Drago1 +1
16:44:03 <adrian_otto> Drago1: I tried to express that we must not intentionally exclude any stakeholders
16:44:21 <adrian_otto> but we can't possibly know every potential stakeholder either in order to invite them
16:44:38 <adrian_otto> so Team Consensus should be defined based on who is participating
16:44:38 <randallburt> Drago1:  good question, but I'd hate to see this document get *too* proscriptive. At some point, PTL best judgement should just kick in IMO.
16:44:41 <jasond> Drago1: i was just adding a comment about that
16:44:57 <strigazi> We also need to maintain corporate diversity
16:45:02 <jasond> randallburt: that argument has held up a lot of patches
16:45:03 <jvgrant> randallburt: +1
16:45:03 <adrian_otto> and we should consider invoting those who who we think may be stakeholders to participate
16:45:42 <adrian_otto> so the PTL is the decider if Team Consensus is not clear
16:46:13 <randallburt> jasond:  true, and I certainly wouldn't -1 over adding detail around it, but I still caution getting too in-the-weeds here
16:46:18 <adrian_otto> this approach relies on the team's trust for that individual to make well reasoned decisions and consult key stakeholders before deciding
16:46:59 <jasond> randallburt: good point
16:47:02 <adrian_otto> strigazi: I acknowledge the interest in having affiliation diversity, but that is a two sided coin
16:47:21 <Drago1> I would like stakeholders to +1 (possibly +2) even if there's disagreement. Otherwise, patches can sit with one -1 and no one gives further input, including that they're totally fine with the patch as it is.
16:47:21 <adrian_otto> sometimes the only stakeholders for a particular pursuit are largely from a single affiliation
16:47:23 <randallburt> I'd hate to see us try and put in things like detailed time boxing review processes and quorum numbers and whatnot. In the end, "we're all adults here" IMO.
16:47:46 <Drago1> *including -> even if
16:48:29 <randallburt> a -1 or two shouldn't mean the patch is held up indefinitely. this is a problem IMO with lots of OpenStack projects
16:48:30 <adrian_otto> Drago1: If reviewers become reluctant to voice their opinions, that's a symptom of a malfunctioning team
16:48:43 <adrian_otto> it means that as reviewers, we are not setting a welcoming and positive tone.
16:49:11 <adrian_otto> and that's something that should be solved with involvement from our team's leaders
16:49:12 <jasond> randallburt: especially if the -1 has been replied to (in a comment) by the author
16:49:17 <jvgrant> adrian_otto, strigazi: I think when concerns of that kind of diversity are there we need to ask: 1) does this make magnum better? 2) Does this cause a block to others needs?
16:49:27 <randallburt> jasond:  exactly
16:49:33 <adrian_otto> that's one of the two quesitons
16:49:35 <Drago1> adrian_otto: ^ like what randallburt said, I don't think it's necessarily a problem with the team, more like setting of expectations around when to vote and when to wait
16:49:37 <adrian_otto> does this do any harm
16:49:39 <randallburt> jvgrant:  agreed
16:50:01 <adrian_otto> perhaps we can add language to expand on that idea
16:50:16 <adrian_otto> Drago1: acknowledged.
16:50:30 <jvgrant> as long as it doesn't then I don't have an issue of a use case or feature coming from just one company
16:50:59 <adrian_otto> jvgrant: right
16:51:22 <adrian_otto> ok, I wanted to get a little more input on this etherpad:
16:51:23 <jvgrant> that is going to happen as one group might need a feature well before others.  strigazi, you know this well from the usages you have done that are ahead of many others
16:51:43 <adrian_otto> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/magnum-pike-ptg-sessions PTG Session Planning
16:52:19 <adrian_otto> and some time for open discussion
16:52:31 <adrian_otto> #topic Open Discussion
16:52:39 <vijendar> I am looking for feedback on one of my in review patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/427507/
16:52:39 <juggler> are +1s being accepted for the PTG etherpad?
16:52:41 <adrian_otto> feel free to continue feedback on any of the above
16:52:42 <strigazi> About the ptg do we have a number of rooms and timeslots?
16:53:15 <adrian_otto> strigazi: We should expect to have 1 room for the last 3 days
16:53:16 <randallburt> should be 1 room and all day erryday
16:53:29 <adrian_otto> so we can slice up the time as needed
16:53:32 <strigazi> how many days?
16:53:34 <strigazi> 3?
16:53:35 <randallburt> 3
16:53:44 <strigazi> 9 to 5?
16:53:48 <randallburt> yup
16:53:53 <randallburt> PTG is like mid-cycles
16:53:56 <adrian_otto> It's 3, but we may end early on the last day depending on what travel constraints we all have
16:54:07 <strigazi> ok
16:54:43 <adrian_otto> so plan for at least 2.5 days, and we might go a bit longer if we need more time, and we can stay
16:55:14 <randallburt> and some of us may have to bounce around a little
16:56:19 <adrian_otto> yes, if you do have times you know you'll be out, please let me know, and I'll see what shuffling we can do to accommodate you.
16:56:35 <randallburt> will do
16:57:44 <adrian_otto> juggler: yes, if there are sessions you think we should discuss in the PTG, feel free to put +1 comments in the etherpad to express that interest
16:58:04 <juggler> adrian_otto awesome. already done :)
16:58:31 <adrian_otto> tx
16:58:55 <juggler> adrian_otto ty!
16:59:04 <adrian_otto> Thanks for attending today. Our next team meeting is 2017-02-14 at 1600 UTC. See you then!
16:59:23 <adrian_otto> #endmeeting