17:00:12 <thomasem> #startmeeting craton
17:00:13 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Mar  9 17:00:12 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is thomasem. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:14 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:16 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'craton'
17:00:33 <thomasem> #chair sigmavirus sulo jimbaker thomasem
17:00:33 <openstack> Current chairs: jimbaker sigmavirus sulo thomasem
17:00:33 <thomasem> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/craton-meetings
17:00:33 <thomasem> #topic Roll Call
17:00:37 <jimbaker> o/
17:00:38 <fsaad> o/
17:00:41 <thomasem> o/
17:00:43 <antonym> o/
17:00:54 <sulo> o/
17:00:58 <git-harry> hi
17:01:13 <tojuvone> hi
17:01:18 <jovon> o/
17:02:00 <thomasem> #topic Roadmap planning - email to openstack-dev [craton]
17:02:47 <jimbaker> should we start with that?
17:02:54 <thomasem> It's on the list
17:03:23 <jimbaker> i understand, but maybe consume our standing agenda first - namely standup/reviews
17:03:30 <jimbaker> but it's ok, we can start here
17:03:39 <thomasem> Nah, i'm cool w/ that. The template needs to be updated
17:03:44 <thomasem> if we're wanting to do something different for this meeting.
17:03:49 <thomasem> #undo
17:03:50 <openstack> Removing item from minutes: #topic Roadmap planning - email to openstack-dev [craton]
17:03:53 <thomasem> #topic Stand Up
17:04:26 <thomasem> #info each team member briefly describes what they are working on this week, and describes blockers (if there are any)
17:04:36 <thomasem> #topic Stand Up :: jimbaker
17:05:22 <jimbaker> i have two changes to fix up, namely var search respecting resolution (will block thomasem's work since dependency); alembic schema
17:05:37 <jimbaker> also some outstanding discussion re bootstrap
17:06:07 <jimbaker> look forward to today's road map discussion, because we need to get that onto openstack-dev
17:06:18 <thomasem> +1
17:06:40 <jimbaker> and we also have a forthcoming meeting by the openstack-operators in milan, which tojuvone needs our help prepping him for
17:06:50 <jimbaker> (it's a team effort!)
17:06:53 <jimbaker> dome
17:06:54 <jimbaker> done
17:07:01 <thomasem> #topic Stand Up :: fsaad
17:08:25 <fsaad> think I'll pass, other than a constructive meeting yesterday to get the loading script approved for demo by sulo/tim, and get the ball rolling for the roadmap meeting tuesday
17:08:27 <fsaad> done
17:09:09 <thomasem> #topic Stand Up :: thomasem
17:10:12 <thomasem> Overcoming the nuances I run into as I'm continuing to work on JSON path-like variables querying and made a fair amount of progress, found there are some existing sqlalchemy functions that may help with this, namedly func.json_contains and func.json_extract; plugging away at code reviews, too;
17:10:42 <thomasem> done
17:10:47 <thomasem> #topic Stand Up :: antonym
17:11:53 <antonym> sure, i've been poking around on craton a bit, mainly testing a use case for provisioning servers.  been taking some stuff we did internal at rax for public cloud and porting it over to craton
17:12:26 <antonym> https://github.com/antonym/plip <- takes variables from craton given an id and converts them into variables that can be populated into iPXE for scripting server boot
17:12:55 <antonym> done
17:13:02 <jimbaker> antonym, like to hear that experience report
17:13:09 <thomasem> +1
17:13:10 <jimbaker> topic after standup?
17:13:22 <thomasem> #topic Stand Up :: sulo
17:13:23 <antonym> sure we can catch up after
17:13:52 <sulo> i am finishing up the patch adding bootstrap command to dbsync
17:14:09 <sulo> will pick up something else from the milestone list after
17:14:10 <sulo> done
17:14:19 <thomasem> #topic Stand Up :: git-harry
17:15:03 <git-harry> Patches are up for https://bugs.launchpad.net/craton/+bug/1666536
17:15:03 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1666536 in craton "Cyclical hierarchies using parent_id" [Critical,In progress] - Assigned to git-harry (git-harry)
17:15:15 <git-harry> Now working on https://bugs.launchpad.net/craton/+bug/1665015
17:15:15 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1665015 in craton "All text errors reported by the Craton REST API should be JSON encoded" [High,New] - Assigned to git-harry (git-harry)
17:15:15 <git-harry> done
17:15:39 <thomasem> #topic Stand Up :: tojuvone
17:15:59 <tojuvone> Well I just worked the docker doc
17:16:15 <tojuvone> and now would be interested to have the milan etherpad in shape
17:16:26 <jimbaker> so that's a blocker for you
17:16:30 <tojuvone> docker install
17:17:13 <thomasem> Wait, which is a blocker?
17:17:24 <jimbaker> thomasem, milan etherpad
17:17:27 <thomasem> Gotcha
17:17:28 <thomasem> Okay, cool
17:17:41 <jimbaker> but will be discussed momentarily as a separate topic...
17:17:42 <tojuvone> Yes, to know what we like to shere there about Craton
17:17:47 <tojuvone> yep
17:17:53 <thomasem> Sound good!
17:18:10 <tojuvone> done
17:18:22 <thomasem> #topic Stand Up :: jovon
17:19:54 <jovon> while I have investigated and experimented with several tools (beyond RAML)  for simplified doc generation, most existing methods are not as comprehensive as manual generation especially for API documented in .rst format, which was a requirement of this study
17:21:06 <jimbaker> jovon, cool, maybe we can explore in a forthcoming meeting?
17:21:22 <jovon> sounds good
17:21:22 <jimbaker> i suggest you put this on the agenda
17:21:39 <jovon> +1
17:21:44 <jovon> done
17:22:17 <thomasem> Cool. Ready to go into topics now?
17:22:24 <jimbaker> yes
17:22:34 <thomasem> #topic Roadmap planning - email to openstack-dev [craton]
17:23:16 <jimbaker> fsaad, git-harry, sulo - probably want to start with you on this
17:23:26 <thomasem> fsaad: I know we discussed this at length yesterday. Sounds like we're basically wanting to bring the idea to the group that we turn the Tuesday meeting into an alternation between retrospective and planning...
17:23:55 <thomasem> And start thinking about what we want to be when we grow up
17:24:04 <fsaad> that sounds good to me, with an additional 30 mins per email suggestion
17:24:18 <jimbaker> 30 min earlier sounds good
17:24:25 <jimbaker> to better accommodate UK
17:24:30 <thomasem> +1
17:24:34 <fsaad> +1
17:24:37 <jimbaker> and finland for that matter :)
17:24:51 <tojuvone> +1 :)
17:25:12 <thomasem> I updated the etherpad accordingly
17:25:59 <thomasem> Not sure where else that needs to be updated?
17:26:00 <jimbaker> the net of it seems: 1) figure out our high level goals. so cmdb for sure. but do need to integrate with workflows? (i believe we do...)
17:26:20 <thomasem> The question wasn't about integration, it was about whether they both belong in the same project.
17:26:31 <thomasem> s/project/repository/
17:26:38 <jimbaker> thomasem, ok. fair enough
17:27:13 <jimbaker> so one possibility that i think may make sense is that the db aspects of workflows should be in the same project
17:27:34 <jimbaker> but the specific worker implementation - celery? taskflow? - is pluggable
17:27:41 <jimbaker> just throwing it out there
17:27:54 <thomasem> Lemme scare up some stuff here
17:27:55 <jimbaker> fwiw - when we first started the project, we had it more decoupled than it is now
17:28:10 <jimbaker> so just want to say there is some history here
17:28:10 <thomasem> What was the original reason for including workflows in the same repository as the craton API?
17:28:41 <jimbaker> mostly because craton is not so big
17:28:52 <thomasem> Is there any technical reason?
17:28:52 <jimbaker> and it's not clear to me we need to make this distinction
17:29:05 <jimbaker> clearly we can always link
17:29:19 <jimbaker> the major technical reason however
17:29:25 <thomasem> What I mean is, can the workflow engine utilize the Craton API?
17:29:26 <jimbaker> is that we want our models to be shared
17:29:30 <thomasem> Ah
17:29:37 <thomasem> So, why's that necessary?
17:29:53 <jimbaker> because simplicity. not necessity
17:29:54 <thomasem> What if the workflow engine was a client of the Craton API?
17:30:17 <jimbaker> thomasem, so the engine itself, yes
17:30:38 <git-harry> We seem to be discussing specific roadmap items, was that the purpose of this topic?
17:30:55 <fsaad> think that's what the tue meeting is for :)
17:30:57 <thomasem> git-harry: you're correct, we can punt this discussion to that.
17:30:59 <jimbaker> the question is, are there supporting model aspects, such as how rbac works, where it would be simpler to have a workflow model in the same model as users, the things that the workflow is for
17:31:14 <jimbaker> i certainly agree here!
17:31:19 <jimbaker> with git-harry and fsaad
17:31:26 <git-harry> So I still believe that we (Rackspace employees) need to be pushing for a roadmap that advances Rackspace goals. Until we have that internal discussion, I don't believe we can effectively (from the perspective of Rackspace) guide the direction of the project.
17:31:33 <thomasem> Okay. Let's table this for a more involved discussion of roadmap items.
17:31:58 <jimbaker> git-harry, well sulo and i are technically part of OSIC
17:32:07 <thomasem> (I am, too)
17:32:11 <jimbaker> and tojuvone is at nokia
17:32:13 <fsaad> works. Like I mentioned my intent is to gather consensus on the end goal so that we can break apart in pieces needed to get us there
17:32:13 <thomasem> (I found out)
17:32:20 <jimbaker> cool
17:32:28 <jimbaker> so we have to put on our upstream hats :)
17:32:46 <jimbaker> that rackspace is the first customer, this is awesome
17:33:10 <jimbaker> of course we are going to work very closely with our customers. everyone should expect that
17:34:01 <jimbaker> and i think the biggest prioritization we see is cmdb
17:34:10 <jimbaker> guess what, this is the most important thing for nokia too. win win!
17:34:29 <fsaad> o/
17:34:31 <tojuvone> I just spoke today with Vitrage, and they should be happy to have notifications from Craton.
17:34:45 <jimbaker> and notifications are essential for rackspace too
17:34:50 <tojuvone> Also putting up feature where Craton coudl update something on Nova
17:35:11 <jimbaker> and webhooks on the rackspace side, which is we can implement
17:35:18 <jimbaker> *how we can*
17:35:27 <thomasem> ^^ fits under workflow engine umbrella, btw.
17:35:35 <thomasem> at least that's my opinion :)
17:35:38 <tojuvone> yes, workflow + notif
17:35:39 <openstackgerrit> Sulochan Acharya proposed openstack/craton master: Adds project/user bootstrap command to dbsync  https://review.openstack.org/443170
17:36:10 <tojuvone> and namespace
17:36:11 <jimbaker> thomasem, fwiw not as we originally envisioned. but highly open to other ways to get there
17:36:22 <antonym> sulo: yay
17:36:46 <thomasem> Alright, so these are things that we need to collect and get into, say, Story Board.
17:37:02 <sulo> antonym: heh, hopefully that will help a bit :)
17:37:03 <jimbaker> thomasem, everything here is in a blueprint or bug
17:37:09 <thomasem> Okay, good.
17:37:18 <jimbaker> but yes, moving to storyboard will help highlight it much better
17:37:23 <jimbaker> and needs to be done regardless
17:38:06 <thomasem> Alright. So, what did we want to get out of discussing this topic today?
17:38:09 <jimbaker> and especially capture details like, yes we need notifications. but let's link to a specific way to implement
17:38:45 <fsaad> I think a 10k foot view of the goal was a good start but I learned that's going to be more involved than I thought.
17:38:57 <jimbaker> thomasem, i think the key thing for us is to bring this up so we can start thinking about 1) that email to openstack-dev; 2) corresponding planning during tues meeting
17:39:03 <jimbaker> fsaad, hah, yes
17:39:11 <fsaad> so, seems like we at least got the time and recurrency of it mostly OK'd, every tuesday, half hour earlier
17:39:19 <thomasem> Yep
17:39:21 <fsaad> and do sprint plan one week and retrospective the next ?
17:39:24 <jimbaker> fsaad, not every tues
17:39:30 <jimbaker> just next week's meeting
17:39:53 <jimbaker> i think we are good with the slot time for now, until we find otherwise
17:40:02 <thomasem> jimbaker: Ah... so the proposal was for changing the purpose of that meeting, since it's really become more of an extension of Monday's meeting, really.
17:40:14 <fsaad> same
17:40:19 <jimbaker> thomasem, it has become an extension of monday's meeting
17:40:27 <jimbaker> so backing up
17:40:56 <jimbaker> originally we had tues & thurs meetings that were dev focused; monday was to be focused on the wider community
17:41:07 <jimbaker> communicate with them, here's what we are doing
17:41:24 <jimbaker> except it turned out that only the devs were showing up for monday's meeting. so we repurposed accordingly
17:41:38 <pwnall1337> hosts/id/variables doesn't do pagination right?
17:41:45 <pwnall1337> just giant wall of text
17:41:54 <jimbaker> pwnall1337, no pagination, correct
17:41:58 <pwnall1337> thanks
17:42:25 <thomasem> jimbaker: Okay, so, are you against us changing the purpose to planning/retro alternating?
17:42:29 <jimbaker> to be honest, i think the monday meeting works well
17:42:47 <jimbaker> thomasem, for tues, i think it works to look at planning/retrospective
17:43:01 <jimbaker> i just don't expect it to take 90 minutes every single tues that's all
17:43:19 <thomasem> We could just keep it at an hour and increase if we find it's not enough?
17:43:24 <fsaad> cool we can kick jokes and drink coffee for the remaining for team bonding
17:43:27 <jimbaker> but we have built up quite a backlog
17:43:32 <fsaad> I mean, cut it short and get back to work
17:43:35 <fsaad> :P
17:43:49 <thomasem> lol fsaad
17:44:10 <sulo> start early, add that 30 min and end early if needed
17:44:22 <sulo> it does not work well for UK folks to extend
17:44:30 <jimbaker> sulo, correct
17:44:31 <sulo> if we ever have to do that
17:44:45 <jimbaker> so i don't think we need to do extend. except next tues
17:45:06 <jimbaker> and we are extending early of course :)
17:45:24 <sulo> yeah, i agree .. i dont think it will take that long every tues
17:45:50 <jimbaker> so let's see. we can always revisit. but next tues starts 30 min early
17:46:01 <thomasem> I'm personally fine with either. I imagine we'll adjust as needed.
17:46:26 <sulo> is this open discussion
17:46:28 <fsaad> also lemme know if I need to do anything with the storyboard, I hopped on yesterday and seems I can create a new board but I'm not sure that's what we need
17:46:41 <jimbaker> sulo, we somehow drifted here
17:46:47 <thomasem> But, there is a need for planning/retro on a regular basis since we're getting into a more formal process for developing according to a roadmap.
17:46:52 <jimbaker> we were discussing openstack-dev email
17:46:58 <thomasem> And this allows us to not add on additional meetings
17:46:59 <sulo> thomasem: agreed
17:47:00 <jimbaker> re roadmap
17:47:12 <jimbaker> and i think the point is: that's tuesday
17:47:16 <thomasem> yep
17:47:17 <sulo> did we decide to sprint or is that up for discussion next meeting
17:47:31 <thomasem> It'll resemble sprints, sans story points (I hope).
17:47:35 <jimbaker> sulo, so we were discussing yesterday
17:47:45 <jimbaker> yeah, no need for story points
17:48:00 <jimbaker> but the net of it was, two week iterations
17:48:25 <jimbaker> we will see if that's workable or not for this project. but it's more of a question of 2 weeks, or longer; not shorter
17:48:44 <jimbaker> i don't think any of our tasks are adjust the web interface type of stuff
17:49:03 <git-harry> I'd vote for more of a kanban based approach, I don't know if storyboard supports it.
17:49:32 <jimbaker> well it is a board...
17:49:43 <thomasem> git-harry: +1, I am hoping the planning is simply for us to prioritize things regularly.
17:50:02 <jimbaker> interestingly it's possible to support multiple board views, which hopefully can help us look at stuff from a customer perspective
17:50:24 <jimbaker> not to mention integration with say what rackspace is doing via supposedly an easy to use API
17:50:34 <thomasem> so, how about we go the Kanban route and use planning/retro just as regular checkpoints to be sure things are prioritized and we're continuously improving our process
17:50:34 <jimbaker> (but has to be better than the LP API)
17:50:51 <sulo> so thomasem git-harry jimbaker fsaad do we need to decide on kanban sprint somethingelse ?
17:51:15 <sulo> combo of
17:51:16 <fsaad> not right now, I'll get my learn on kanban cause I've only done pseudo sprints (no points)
17:51:21 <jimbaker> thomasem, yeah, i think that's the combo approach right
17:51:28 <fsaad> then can probably have more educated conversation
17:51:38 <thomasem> jimbaker: I guess? Agile's pretty bastardized these days.
17:51:40 <jimbaker> true sprints have everything aligned on two week iterations
17:51:47 <jimbaker> or something. i don't know
17:52:10 <thomasem> I think we'll just start with the raw clay and mold what we want as we go
17:52:15 <thomasem> This sounds like a good starting point.
17:52:19 <jimbaker> whereas we will likely do the bastardized approach. the raw clay in other words
17:52:40 <thomasem> As long as the process works for us and not the other way around, we should be okay.
17:53:01 <jimbaker> personally i think what we have been doing is pretty good. we just need more roadmap clarity. and more roadmap adjustment. hence the two week retro/planning
17:53:04 <thomasem> Who will draft up the e-mail to openstack-dev?
17:53:07 <sulo> right, so are we doign to discuss that tues too ?
17:53:33 <jimbaker> thomasem, i suggest we start with fsaad's email thread, and edit accordingly. most important
17:53:43 <jimbaker> it must link against our corresponding blueprints
17:53:56 <jimbaker> even better: what if it did this against storyboard? ...
17:53:58 <jimbaker> win!
17:54:17 <jimbaker> from a public relations perspective
17:54:18 <thomasem> We only have 6 minutes for remaining topics. :\
17:54:19 <sulo> are we discussing what our process is next tuesday too ??
17:54:21 <sulo> fsaad: ^^
17:54:27 <jimbaker> sulo, absolutely
17:54:30 <jimbaker> hence extra time
17:54:40 <sulo> lets make sure we have enough time for that + discussing priority work
17:54:43 <jimbaker> but we should be prepped to do so
17:55:00 <fsaad> well, collation of items from thread is a starting point
17:55:02 <jimbaker> again tues is better. mon morning is rough to have a planned agenda
17:55:20 <jimbaker> so this repurposing is much more realistic
17:55:25 <fsaad> discussion of them I mean, and write up a draft of what we want to see as end game
17:55:37 <fsaad> I agree we should have an agenda to keep focus
17:56:06 <thomasem> Sounds good. Can we take the rest of this into #craton after this meeting so we can get to tojuvone's topic?
17:56:08 <jimbaker> so basically this meeting, plus the current emai threadl - should be a good start
17:56:17 <jimbaker> thomasem, +1
17:56:31 <thomasem> #topic Upcoming meeting in Milan (March 15/16) - need to craft agenda/talking points for  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/MIL-ops-inventory-and-fleet-management
17:56:32 <fsaad> cool, need to step away but will catch up in a bit, thanks guys
17:56:34 <thomasem> tojuvone: take it away
17:56:38 <thomasem> fsaad: cheers!
17:57:26 <jimbaker> i can also discuss - this is effectively the same thing as the email, plus what we have done so far (which would be a great thing to include in that email)
17:57:49 <jimbaker> but in the context of engaging with our previous meeting at the op summit in nyc
17:57:55 <jimbaker> + barcelona
17:58:10 <jimbaker> we need to take concrete use cases
17:58:30 <jimbaker> such as maintenance mgmt, and describe mapping to craton
17:58:47 <jimbaker> another good example: antonym's work on plip
17:59:01 <jimbaker> and of course the use cases we have been recently working through, and corresponding demo
17:59:12 <tojuvone> I will have the maintenance MIL-ops-telco-nfv
17:59:55 <jimbaker> tojuvone volunteered to lead this session on behalf of craton, since he will be in milan. but we need to fully support him
18:00:56 <jimbaker> thomasem, we are over our time limit...
18:01:19 <thomasem> Yep
18:01:27 <tojuvone> so what we want to share there. Some current status, roadmap
18:01:27 <jimbaker> anyway, let me conclude: let's just all look at the etherpad
18:01:35 <thomasem> Lol yeah
18:01:39 <thomasem> #endmeeting