16:00:01 <markvoelker> #startmeeting defcore
16:00:02 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Sep 21 16:00:01 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is markvoelker. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:03 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:06 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'defcore'
16:00:20 <eglute> o/
16:00:22 <markvoelker> #chair eglute
16:00:26 <openstack> Current chairs: eglute markvoelker
16:00:32 <markvoelker> #chair hogepodge
16:00:33 <openstack> Current chairs: eglute hogepodge markvoelker
16:00:43 <markvoelker> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCoreLunar.18 Today's agenda
16:01:08 * markvoelker pauses a moment to see who else is around today
16:01:23 <gema> o/
16:01:32 <markvoelker> hi gema
16:01:37 <gema> hello
16:02:06 <markvoelker> Ok, not a huge agenda today so let's see what we can get done...
16:02:10 <eglute> Catherine will not attend today
16:02:15 <markvoelker> #topic Summit
16:02:22 <markvoelker> hogepodge: around?
16:02:49 <gema> not sure, I am at the airport already
16:03:10 * shamail sneaks in
16:03:12 <eglute> gema, was there some openstack event?
16:03:12 <markvoelker> Ok, we'll skip this topic for the moment as I have no updates and hogepodge doesn't seem to be on
16:03:20 <shamail> Which topic?
16:03:40 <markvoelker> shamail: meeting times for summit
16:03:42 <shamail> Just making sure it’s not the rename
16:03:43 <shamail> ah ok
16:04:05 <gema> eglute: the infra/qa sprint in germany
16:04:06 <markvoelker> eglute: QA/infra sprint is this week in Germany IIRC
16:04:13 <gema> markvoelker: https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/events/16798/interop-defcore-working-group-work-session
16:04:17 * markvoelker shouts "jinx"
16:04:19 <gema> he told us this earlier in the channel
16:04:22 <eglute> heheh
16:04:28 <eglute> oh i missed it
16:04:46 <luzC> o/
16:04:47 <markvoelker> Me too...stormy weather in RTP knocked me offline for a bit.  Thanks gema.
16:05:15 <eglute> thanks!
16:05:18 * markvoelker notes it in the etherpad
16:05:22 <markvoelker> Ok, next topic.
16:05:28 <markvoelker> #topic 2017.01 Guideline
16:05:44 <markvoelker> Thanks for those of you that stepped forward to play point on identifying new capabilities
16:06:09 <markvoelker> It's importatnt that we start getting patches submitted for new capabilities ASAP so we can start iterating and considering
16:06:15 <eglute> for swift, i contacted notmyname waiting to hear back
16:06:30 <markvoelker> Also, if you haven't talked to the PTL for your project(s) yet, please reach out.
16:07:07 <markvoelker> It looks like we have one or two projects currently without volunteers: Glance and Ceilometer
16:07:09 <shamail> For Cinder and Nova, I have not spoken on this topic with the PTLs but have reached out to both of them and have something scheduled (basically contacting them to let them know I will be contacting them)
16:07:19 <markvoelker> I'll take Glance if nobody else is on it already
16:07:39 <gema> markvoelker: I would take it but I am quite swamped until two weeks from now
16:07:47 <gema> and cannot touch it till then
16:07:57 <shamail> I have to finish compiling the community-generated roadmap this week but this is on my backlog for next week.
16:08:10 <markvoelker> Can someone pick up Ceilometer, or do I need to work on that too?  Sorta suspect it might be a little less time consuming than others...
16:08:14 <gema> oh, and I have feedback from QA on the spec, need to send another commit
16:08:30 <eglute> i can take ceilometer
16:08:35 <markvoelker> eglute: thanks!
16:09:04 <eglute> np. i will need to borrow a time machine anyways, might as well fit in ceilometer
16:09:41 <markvoelker> Ok, any questions on what folks need to do, mechanically?  I'll probably post a patch for some neutron stuff this week if folks just need an example to follow...or you can look at previous patches from last cycle
16:10:08 <markvoelker> There's also a recorded training, but I know some folks just like to see an actual commit they use as a guide.
16:10:27 * markvoelker hears no questions
16:10:46 <eglute> thanks markvoelker! examples are good!
16:10:50 <markvoelker> Great.  If you do need any help, please feel free to drop a note to the ML or grab me on IRC.
16:11:24 <markvoelker> There is one mechanical thing we need to get done before we can start making changes to next.json though
16:11:36 <eglute> which is?
16:11:48 <markvoelker> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/367066/ prep next.json for next guideline
16:11:55 <markvoelker> eglute: hogepodge: can we get that merged?
16:12:09 <eglute> I reviewed it this morning, missing a thing
16:12:13 <eglute> if you patch it, i will merge it!
16:12:23 <markvoelker> Yeah, just saw catherine's comment from a few minutes ago
16:12:30 <markvoelker> No biggee, I'll take care of that after the meeting today
16:12:44 <eglute> that was me i think!
16:12:53 <markvoelker> oops, yeah
16:13:13 <eglute> but yes, i will merge it today, just let me know
16:13:17 <markvoelker> oh, actually that's legit
16:13:28 <eglute> it is?
16:13:32 <markvoelker> It was marked as removed in 2016.08 so I didn't include it here
16:13:38 <markvoelker> https://github.com/openstack/defcore/blob/master/2016.08.json#L86
16:13:55 <markvoelker> Or do we want to just keep those forever?
16:14:10 <eglute> Oh!
16:14:11 <eglute> ok then
16:14:23 <markvoelker> (probably should have dropped identity-v2-tokens-create as well for consistency; don't know why I didn't)
16:15:01 <eglute> merged! you can update it later if you wish with the identity-v2-tokens-create
16:15:09 <markvoelker> Sure thing.  THanks!
16:15:17 <eglute> thank you :)
16:15:28 <markvoelker> Ok, anything else on scoring today?
16:15:59 <markvoelker> #topic TC Discussions to be aware of
16:16:36 <markvoelker> For those that might have missed it, there was a patch submitted to the governance repo recently that asked to change some language in the tc-apporoved-release tag
16:16:58 <markvoelker> #link https://review.openstack.org/368240 patch to change language in tc-approved-release
16:17:21 <markvoelker> The TC ultimately decided against the change, but did recognize that they should clarify the langauge in the tag a bit.
16:17:26 <markvoelker> A new change does that:
16:17:35 <markvoelker> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/374027/  new patch
16:18:28 <markvoelker> Basically this means projects that want to be added to tc-approved-release are going to be coming to us and asking us to propose them for inclusion in the tag
16:18:31 <eglute> markvoelker in the original patch designate is mentioned
16:18:39 <eglute> do we need to consider scoring it?
16:19:31 <markvoelker> eglute: yes, the original patch was from the Designate PTL.  We can consider scoring it if anyone's willing to take that on this cycle.  I note the adoption rate is pretty low in the last user survey though.
16:20:09 <eglute> hm, if adoption is low then it is not worth looking
16:20:19 <markvoelker> See page 31: https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April-2016-User-Survey-Report.pdf
16:20:30 <markvoelker> Anyway, I'm happy to entertain the notion if someone wants to make a case for it.
16:20:46 * shamail looked it up: 17%
16:20:53 <markvoelker> I think it might be useful if we wrote up a lightweight process for this sort of thing so projects know how to ask us for consideration
16:21:10 <shamail> markvoelker and egle, I would like to suggest a new source for “adoption data"
16:21:11 <markvoelker> shamail: yes, and only 5% in production
16:21:18 <shamail> yes
16:21:19 <eglute> oh yeah, definitely too early
16:21:44 <eglute> markvoelker agree, a doc would be good
16:21:50 <markvoelker> shamail: sure, what source?
16:21:55 <shamail> https://github.com/openstack/ops-tags-team/blob/master/mitaka/ops-production-use.json
16:22:01 <shamail> Although it combines production + testing
16:22:35 <shamail> The data here comes from the same source (user survey) but it probably is in a more consumable format for scoring
16:22:50 <shamail> There is a new production-use tag every release
16:23:18 <markvoelker> Ok.  If it's the same data then I suppose it's not really "new", just perhaps an easily-consumable format.  Worth noting.
16:23:31 <markvoelker> thanks for that
16:23:34 <eglute> thanks shamail. though personally i like graphs :)
16:23:55 <shamail> Agreed eglute :)
16:24:23 <markvoelker> Back to the guidance writeup for a moment: I don't mind taking a first cut and drafting a process for this.
16:24:33 <markvoelker> Though I'll probably let scoring take priority for obvious reasons. =)
16:25:02 <eglute> thanks markvoelker!
16:25:09 <markvoelker> #action markvoelker Begin drafting up docs for projects that want to be proposed for tc-approved-release
16:25:50 <markvoelker> One other TC conversation folks may want to be aware of this week and next
16:26:18 <markvoelker> As I got started on scoring Neutron this past week I also started looking at Designated Sections
16:26:43 <markvoelker> And that lead me to realize that we couldn't currently designate neutron-lib (which is common code split out of the main repo into it's own library in late 2015)
16:26:53 <markvoelker> So I proposed a patch to governance to add it.
16:27:03 <markvoelker> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/371777/ Patch to make neutron-lib tc-approved-release
16:27:34 <markvoelker> Most of the TC folks I've spoken to seem receptive, and it'll be on the agenda for the next TC meeting
16:27:51 <markvoelker> You may want to watch for similar code refactoring in the projects you're scoring this time around.
16:28:09 <eglute> thanks markvoelker for bringing it up
16:28:23 <markvoelker> (since I'm scoring glance, I'll be having a look at glance_store for example)
16:28:56 <markvoelker> Anyway, just one more thing to consider.  Adding code to tc-approved-release doesn't automatically make it designated, but it does allow us to consider designating it.
16:29:16 <eglute> :)
16:29:22 <markvoelker> Ok, anything else on TC topics?
16:29:27 <eglute> nope
16:29:35 <markvoelker> #topic Open Reviews
16:30:00 <markvoelker> We have a few in the queue (one less now thanks to eglute merging that next.json patch)
16:30:30 <markvoelker> Add aliases for test_list_servers_filter_by_server_status
16:30:44 <markvoelker> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/373987  Add aliases for test_list_servers_filter_by_server_status
16:31:04 <markvoelker> This seems pretty straightforward and should be a quick review
16:31:33 <markvoelker> I haven't looked at the latest patchset yet, but Ken'ichi iterated on some initial feedback earlier
16:32:04 <markvoelker> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/371180/ Change compute-servers-delete test
16:32:16 <markvoelker> This one proposes a new test to add for an existing capability.
16:32:31 <markvoelker> I need to go read the code for that test a bit (see my comments in the patch)
16:32:50 <markvoelker> Seems like I remember us adding a test like this before, but we struck it because of implicit requirements....I may be mistaken though
16:33:39 <markvoelker> Anyway, it would be useful if a few folks could take a look at the test that's being proposed thre
16:33:55 <shamail> For 371180, don’t we need to update it to reflect the new next.json (post 367066 merge)?
16:34:57 <markvoelker> shamail: if it needs to be rebased jenkins will probably tell us shortly
16:35:18 <markvoelker> It onyl changes one small section of the doc which likely doesn't conflict with 367066
16:35:29 <shamail> Okay :)
16:36:05 <markvoelker> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/366360/ Add aliases for test_snapshots_list_* test.
16:36:22 <markvoelker> THis one is also relatively simple, but it's WIP because the tempest change it reflects hasn't landed yet.
16:36:44 <markvoelker> So, no action necessary here until catherine un-WIP's it
16:37:13 <markvoelker> Anything else on open reviews today?
16:37:49 <markvoelker> #topic Renames
16:38:02 <markvoelker> shamail: you have the floor sir
16:38:12 <eglute> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCore_Rename_Task_List
16:38:12 <shamail> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCore_Rename_Task_List
16:38:14 <shamail> :)
16:38:16 <eglute> :)
16:38:42 <shamail> hogepodge and I met last week to brainstorm on activities needed based on the rename to Interop WG
16:39:19 <shamail> The etherpad contains our running list of tasks/artifacts and we added our name to a few of them but would be happy if others volunteered to complete certain aspects of the rename as well.
16:39:40 <shamail> If you are interested/able to help with the rename, please add your name under the artifact you can help with.
16:39:53 <markvoelker> Thanks.  I've got a patch up for some of the git repo stuff already, so I'll sign up for that bit.
16:40:10 <shamail> I think the Git repo and Project info in projects.yaml is a related change
16:40:24 <markvoelker> Sure, I can handle both
16:40:34 <shamail> Thanks!
16:41:08 <shamail> I would’ve done that but I had suggested it be an existing core member since you’ll have to recreate (or rename?) the gerrit groups as well and the creator would be given core automatically.
16:41:11 <eglute> luzC just volunteered for RefStack bit. Thanks luzC!
16:41:18 <markvoelker> Is the question for the later wether we should be in projects.yaml at all?  Or just if we should change RefStack's description there?
16:41:43 <markvoelker> * for the projects.yaml change that is
16:42:00 <markvoelker> We aren't currently in projects.yaml IIRC.
16:42:13 <markvoelker> (since we're a Board entity and not a "project")
16:42:26 <shamail> markvoelker: fair point, I had added that item and then realized that our repo is elsewhere (under board repos)
16:42:50 <shamail> so that line probably needs to be updated to reflect governance entry rather than projects.yaml explicitly (since it doesn’t apply to us)
16:43:00 <markvoelker> shamail: Oh, actually....there's two projects.yamls and we *are* in one of them. =)
16:43:23 <markvoelker> The governance one is the one I was thinking of, but there's also one in infra for jenkins jobs
16:43:48 <shamail> I added a link to the right one in the etherpad
16:44:01 <shamail> ah yes, that one needs to be updated too
16:44:11 <markvoelker> Ok, I'll work on those then
16:44:11 <shamail> Can you please add the link in the etherpad for tracking?
16:44:14 <shamail> Thanks
16:44:19 <markvoelker> done
16:44:26 <shamail> I have to speak with infra on the ML rename
16:44:41 <shamail> It’s easy to create a new list but I am worried about how we will keep our archives accessible
16:44:57 <markvoelker> Yep.  We also need to think about not just the list of tasks, but coordinating them
16:45:16 <shamail> Yeah
16:45:19 <eglute> shamail is it possible to copy over the people who have subscibed to the list?
16:45:33 <shamail> I can ask that as well
16:45:35 <markvoelker> I'd really rather not have a situation where the repo is changed but the ML and website aren't for a few weeks, for example.
16:46:34 <shamail> True markvoelker
16:47:23 <shamail> That’s all on this topic
16:47:26 <shamail> Please volunteer
16:47:40 <shamail> and I think also announce on either ML or IRC (or both?) when a rename task has been completed?
16:47:54 <shamail> It will help serve as a reminder to people that the rename is happening and will help us stay coordinated too
16:48:43 <gema> not just on our ML, on the dev mailing also, for all
16:49:23 <eglute> yes, and ops list
16:49:30 <shamail> gema, eglute: +1
16:50:22 <markvoelker> Yeah, here again: I'd like to see us figure out the timing a bit.  E.g. if you're submitting a patch to infra to rename the ML, mark it WIP until we're coordinated and communicated.
16:51:28 <markvoelker> Ok, anything further on renaming today?
16:51:56 <markvoelker> #topic Refstack specs(pending)
16:52:09 <eglute> i am good
16:52:22 <markvoelker> luzc: gema: I think this topic came from one of you?
16:52:33 <gema> not me
16:52:47 <luzC> yes, Catherine ask me to remained the group to review this spec
16:53:04 <luzC> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/343954/
16:53:33 <markvoelker> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/343954/ Specification to mark a test result as "used for verification".
16:53:40 <luzC> it is from refstack: "mark a test result as "used for verification."
16:53:55 <luzC> thanks Mark :)
16:54:26 <markvoelker> ok, thanks luzC.  Anything else?
16:54:41 <luzC> not on my end :)
16:54:48 <markvoelker> cool
16:54:55 <markvoelker> Ok, that's the end of the formal agenda today
16:54:58 <markvoelker> #topic open discussion
16:55:01 <hogepodge> The working group session at the summit is on Tuesday afternoon. I don't have a link but details are in the schedule. It's listed as a panel, maybe there's a better classification. Afk so that's all from me
16:55:09 <eglute> thanks hogepodge!
16:55:17 <markvoelker> hogepodge: thanks, we found the link and put it in the pad
16:55:19 <eglute> only one time slot?
16:55:35 <hogepodge> Only one, time and space constrained
16:55:46 <eglute> thanks!
16:55:51 <gema> we'll make the most of it x)
16:56:09 <eglute> :)
16:56:36 <shamail> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/events/16798/interop-defcore-working-group-work-session
16:57:19 * shamail is presenting at this time, I will miss you guys. :[
16:57:33 <markvoelker> bummer
16:57:40 <eglute> #action eglute send out calendar invite to ML to this session
16:57:46 <markvoelker> Anything else today folks?  3 minute warning. =)
16:58:20 <eglute> we can finish early!
16:58:21 <eglute> :D
16:58:34 <markvoelker> #endmeeting