17:00:35 <jroll> #startmeeting ironic
17:00:36 <openstack> Meeting started Mon May  9 17:00:35 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jroll. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:37 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:00:39 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'ironic'
17:00:42 <davidlenwell> o/
17:00:43 <mariojv> \o
17:00:45 <NobodyCam> o/
17:00:45 <jlvillal> o/
17:00:50 <krtaylor> o/
17:00:50 <lucasagomes> :-)
17:00:51 <mat128> o/
17:00:54 <devananda> o/
17:00:54 <rama_y> o/
17:00:56 <jroll> as always, agenda is here:
17:00:58 <jroll> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Ironic#Agenda_for_next_meeting
17:01:04 <jroll> let's jump in
17:01:06 <mjturek1> o/
17:01:11 <jroll> #topic announcements and reminders
17:01:15 <stendulker> o/
17:01:18 <mgould> o/
17:01:20 <jroll> so uh, welcome back from the summit everyone :)
17:01:53 <jroll> gate was broken this morning
17:02:00 <jroll> revert just merged in, should be better now
17:02:02 <jroll> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/314024/
17:02:11 <jlvillal> Thanks dtantsur for troubleshooting it :)
17:02:17 <dtantsur> o/
17:02:17 <jroll> +1
17:02:20 <NobodyCam> Thank you dtantsur
17:02:31 <rloo> o/ +1
17:02:44 <jroll> other than that, most of the team is working hard on upgrade testing, which is our #1 priority right now
17:03:05 <jroll> I have summit summary coming out soon, only a couple more sessions to write about
17:03:30 <jroll> and midcycle things - there's a topic on today's agenda for that
17:03:32 <jroll> any other announcements / reminders?
17:04:00 <rloo> reminder to update subteam reports :)
17:04:22 <rloo> and newton priorities were set
17:04:58 <jroll> ah, yes. newton priorities are here: http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/priorities/newton-priorities.html
17:05:00 <jroll> #link http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/priorities/newton-priorities.html
17:05:38 <jroll> nothing else?
17:05:50 <jroll> #topic subteam status reports
17:05:54 <jroll> as always, those are on the whiteboard
17:05:59 <jroll> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IronicWhiteBoard
17:06:02 <jroll> starts at line 85
17:06:14 <jroll> I'll give folks a minute to review, and then I think we want to get meta about this for a moment
17:07:13 <sambetts> o/
17:08:03 <NobodyCam> jroll: I wonder if we should have said something about your patch to switch to tinyIPA for gate jobs
17:09:07 <jroll> NobodyCam: maybe, thank you
17:09:11 <dtantsur> I'll repeat what I wrote there: I suggest we switch -2 from the portgroups API patch to the network drivers one
17:09:15 <jroll> NobodyCam: (mine just switched grenade jobs)
17:09:23 <Pramod> Hi
17:09:27 <dtantsur> I understand it's nice to land them together, but these are huge patches which are not easy to review
17:09:27 <jroll> dtantsur: possibly, though it would be nice to land the api changes somewhat together. devananda had a similar opinion
17:09:34 <dtantsur> see above :)
17:09:34 <devananda> dtantsur: I'm curious as to why. the API changes are the hardest to back out after we land
17:09:36 <jroll> right, so
17:09:48 <dtantsur> devananda, do we expect any changes there? it's essentially CRUD
17:10:03 <jroll> we suggested in this morning's meeting that folks split those patches up
17:10:08 <dtantsur> we're artificially delaying landing of the whole thing, hence my concern.. people have to rebase so much code
17:10:16 <lucasagomes> splitting would be nice yeah
17:10:24 <rloo> jroll: split up which patches?
17:10:35 <dtantsur> no use in splitting if we're going to block the whole chain in the same manner
17:10:36 <jroll> rloo: networks work
17:10:41 <devananda> it's basically two 2500 line patches right now
17:10:43 <dtantsur> they'll still have to rebase the whole thing every time
17:10:45 <devananda> pretty hard to review IMO
17:10:54 <dtantsur> +1 to "hard to review" though
17:10:57 <sambetts> +1
17:11:00 <rloo> I've already reviewed the API patch so don't want to split that up.
17:11:01 <devananda> the other, what, ten patches after that are small enough and easy to review
17:11:12 <rloo> i've reviewed the network patch and agree, would have been nice to split that up.
17:11:31 <jroll> I guess I don't have a strong opinion either way on landing the portgroups patch
17:11:33 <Pramod> I am Pramod. i work for opendaylight SDN controller team! i have a question about the bandwidth limit field! Would like to know the maximum and minimum limit which is supported by QOS now
17:11:59 <jroll> Pramod: this is an ironic project meeting, I think you want #openstack-neutron channel
17:12:05 <devananda> rloo: when did you review it? I don't see a +2 from you in the last couple months
17:12:08 <lucasagomes> Pramod, I think you are on the wrong channel, check neutron
17:12:27 <rloo> devananda: wrt the API? I reviewed it months ago. did it change since then? I assuemd they were all rebases after that.
17:12:46 <dtantsur> with or without splitting, I think we can start merging patches not touching drivers
17:13:06 <dtantsur> rloo raises a good point: it's hard to track out reviews after rebases...
17:13:15 <devananda> rloo: I don' tknow if they were all rebases since then or not. it's hard for me to keep track ...
17:13:17 <dtantsur> especially on something THAT huge
17:13:34 <lucasagomes> maybe we should have this discussion later on in the meeting?
17:13:42 <jroll> lucasagomes: +1
17:13:45 <rloo> fwiw, i didn't re-review the api changes cuz i assumed they had all been rebases. i was only going to do it ONE LAST TIME...
17:13:46 <jroll> or in channel
17:13:48 <dtantsur> ok fine :)
17:13:52 <lucasagomes> yeah, sounds off-topic
17:14:03 <NobodyCam> +1 to in channel
17:14:19 <jroll> so rloo had some meta-discussion things on this topic
17:14:31 <jroll> rloo: want to talk about those now?
17:14:44 <rloo> sure. so i added new subteams to reflect newton priorities.
17:14:53 <rloo> and live upgrades is no longer a priority. should i remove it.
17:15:01 <jroll> I think so
17:15:17 <rloo> ok, #something to removing live upgrades
17:15:17 <dtantsur> I guess it's kind of merged into Grenade work
17:15:19 <jlvillal> live upgrades is not a priority?
17:15:20 <lucasagomes> if it's not a priority I think it would be fine to remove
17:15:31 <rloo> dtantsur: not true. there is code needed for live upgrades
17:15:42 <jroll> jlvillal: it is not on our list of high priority items
17:15:49 <cdearborn> o/
17:15:49 <jlvillal> Ah, okay.
17:15:50 <jroll> it is a priority, but not a top priority
17:15:56 <rloo> jlvillal: i believe it was on the secondary list of priorities
17:15:56 <dtantsur> got it. then yeah, getting just upgrade tested is a bigger thing to have
17:16:19 <rloo> so agreed, good to remove live upgrades? any nays?
17:16:50 * jroll pauses
17:17:16 <jroll> okay, let's do it
17:17:39 <jroll> done
17:17:51 <rloo> my next question. i notice that we have some subteams wrt cross project initiatives, oslo & nova.
17:18:08 <rloo> there are lots of other cross projects  https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons
17:18:24 <rloo> do people think it worthwhile to list those other ones as subteams too?
17:18:38 <jroll> I personally don't find the existing ones terribly useful, they usually don't have much info
17:18:44 <jroll> or rather much to report
17:18:58 <rloo> so do they not have much info cuz people aren't reporting, or cuz nothing to report?
17:19:10 <jroll> I tend to think the latter
17:19:29 <rloo> so would a 'cross-project liaisons' be sufficient? (or something like that)
17:19:30 <lucasagomes> maybe we can make it optional? If there's something to be reported we can freely add to the etherpad for that week
17:19:37 <jroll> partially because if there's something major, we raise it outside of the meeting
17:19:52 <rloo> well 'outside the meeting' == ?? irc??
17:19:54 <jroll> e.g. api-ref thing, if there was something horribly broken in nova irc pings and emails would happen, etc
17:19:54 <NobodyCam> maybe a "Other" section where liaisons could put inserting bit should they have any?
17:19:59 <lucasagomes> rloo, yeah maybe a topic for all seems a good spot
17:20:01 <dtantsur> ++ to just "Cross-Project" section
17:20:12 <rloo> seems like we want to know what might be coming up, not what landed/decided?
17:20:41 <jroll> sure
17:20:49 <rloo> eg, i had no idea there was an api-ref for ironic.
17:20:50 <NobodyCam> dtantsur: ++
17:21:10 <jroll> I guess what I'm saying is I haven't personally found valuable info from that section, ever
17:21:27 <rloo> true. sort of. the oslo ones were informative.
17:21:27 <jroll> rloo: well, there was an email thread that said "projects should move to this model"
17:21:54 <rloo> jroll: what i mean was, you moved api-ref to our tree. i didn't even know there was api-ref outside our tree.
17:22:28 <devananda> rloo: that was a repo the docs team managed for the last several years
17:22:28 <jroll> rloo: oh, that's because only docs people worked on that. nobody in our project really knew or cared about it. same for most projects
17:22:32 <dtantsur> I had no idea either
17:22:33 <rloo> jroll: even with a doc liaison, we might not have known about the api-ref outside our tree so it might be moot.
17:22:33 <devananda> it just became cross-project
17:22:38 <jroll> because the format was super exclusive, etc
17:23:03 <jroll> anyway, I think a general "cross-project" section is a good middle ground
17:23:24 <rloo> i'm good with cross-project. anyone against it?
17:23:33 * lucasagomes is fine with it
17:23:51 <devananda> ++. I think it's very useful for folks who are doing cross-project tracking to raise any upcoming (or recently decided) things to the broader ironic team
17:24:48 <rloo> that's all I had on this topic, for the time being :)
17:24:56 <jroll> cool, thanks ruby
17:25:15 <jroll> anything else from anyone here or can we move on?
17:25:38 <jroll> #topic proliantutils in our governance
17:25:43 <jroll> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/313667/
17:25:48 <jroll> this was brought to my attention today
17:26:11 <jroll> and I think I'm okay with it, but wanted to see what folks thing
17:26:21 <stendulker> This is wrt vendor CI discussion we had at summit, that CI information is fetched from stackalytics. Using python-dracclient as reference raised two patches for review.
17:26:22 <rloo> would it be in scope for me to ask what does it mean to be an ironic project and what does it mean wrt responsibilites for ...
17:26:25 <jroll> stendulker later pointed out that they were just copying what dracclient did
17:26:31 <stendulker> driverlog - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/311277/ and in governance - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/313667/
17:26:31 <lucasagomes> does being in our governance means that the core team has to guarantee some quality of that code and things like that?
17:26:39 <lucasagomes> cause I have no means to test that project
17:26:47 <devananda> lucasagomes: no, it doesn't
17:26:59 <jroll> it means the PTL is responsible for the project and its governance, releases, etc
17:27:09 <stendulker> Not sure on the impact of being into governance...
17:27:13 <jroll> and, as with all things, that can be delegated
17:27:16 <devananda> it's akin to neutron's "stadium" -- we acknowledge that contributions to that repo are contributions to Ironic
17:27:26 <dtantsur> the same model is applied to dracclient, wsmanclient and pyghmi, right? and to some extent to inspector stuff?
17:27:42 <lucasagomes> yeah seems fine then
17:27:47 <devananda> so, eg, someone who contributes to proliantutils would be considered an ATC on theIironic project, get to vote on PTL election, etc
17:27:52 <devananda> dtantsur: yep
17:28:01 <lucasagomes> dracclient is already in part of the governance so, it makes sense to have the iLO one as well
17:28:04 <jroll> dtantsur: well, pyghmi isn't in our governance, but otherwise yes
17:28:10 <lucasagomes> (and potentially others)
17:28:34 <dtantsur> jroll, aha. though if we start using vbmc in gate we might want to get more involved in pyghmi
17:28:44 <NobodyCam> I believe there are other repos like this already under our governance like the Drac
17:28:46 <jroll> this is the current list of projects we "own" right now: http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/ironic.html
17:28:53 <jroll> dtantsur: yes, I agree :)
17:28:54 <krtaylor> not sure I understand the reference to CI and stackalytics, driverlog add isn't an infra requirement
17:29:10 <lucasagomes> dtantsur, yeah, I've been trying to help with with
17:29:14 <sambetts> I'm really interested on how this is going to work in the grand scheme of things after neutron just kicked all vendor specifc things out of their governance :/
17:29:23 <devananda> sambetts: ohh?
17:29:26 <rloo> so we should be consistent. if dracclient is there, so should proliantutils.
17:29:27 <devananda> maybe I missed that
17:29:32 <jroll> krtaylor: right, separate topic, but we did say they should do that
17:29:37 <jroll> devananda: heh. yeah, it's a thing.
17:29:53 <rloo> oh. let's follow neutron then.
17:29:55 <jroll> sambetts: devananda: the krux there was that they were approaching hundreds of projects, afaik, with more coming.
17:30:13 <rloo> i hope ironic will have hundreds of projects one day too :)
17:30:16 <jroll> no, let's not blindly follow neutron. but we should consider their reasoning etc
17:30:23 * jlvillal feels like they shouldn't be there. Mostly gut feeling
17:30:46 <jroll> I think my proposal for now is that we should accept proliantutils for consistency, and if we feel like this is all unmanageable, talk about that at another time
17:30:46 <krtaylor> jroll, should we require test teams to add their test system to driverlog?
17:30:57 <devananda> sambetts: ooh. I see! No vendor drivers here: http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/neutron.html
17:31:04 <rloo> i personally am not comfortable with the hw-specific ones being there. and/or is there a tag we can use to differentiate those.
17:31:14 * sambetts is trying to find their spec for it
17:31:20 <jroll> krtaylor: well, we wanted to keep marketplace up to date, which is fed by driverlog yes?
17:31:40 <krtaylor> jroll, right, good point, then yes
17:31:46 <jroll> so, I don't want to take the whole meeting on this
17:31:54 <jroll> but I see there are concerns with too many vendor things
17:32:03 <dtantsur> rloo, I suspect there might be limitations like "non-official projects can't do XXX" like with stackforge...
17:32:16 <dtantsur> thus people try to get into an official project tent
17:32:21 <sambetts> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-neutron-community-stadium-evolution
17:32:21 <devananda> krtaylor: governance inclusion in Ironic shouldn't affect driverlog or third-party CI, AIUI. but it does affect ATC status and contribution metrics on stackalytics
17:32:26 <rloo> dtantsur: oh. hmm.
17:32:39 <rloo> i would like someone to talk to neutron folks, think about this, and report back next meeting.
17:32:59 <rloo> pros/cons. if what dtantur said is true. what are neutron vendors going to do.
17:33:07 <rloo> can we at least tag them?
17:33:07 <jroll> sure
17:33:07 <devananda> yea. to be clear -- if we include the hw driver projects in ironic's governance, then folks who contribute ONLY to those projects (and not to openstack/ironic, our client, etc) will get ATC status and vote in Ironic's PTL election
17:33:12 <jroll> and that's a long conversation to have
17:33:16 <jroll> and lots of things to think about
17:33:22 <devananda> ++ to thinking about this more
17:33:26 <jroll> and is on the order of months/years, not a week
17:33:42 <jroll> so yes, we should continue this conversation
17:33:44 <rloo> so we shouldn't have let any in, in the first place. sigh.
17:34:04 <rloo> if this is going to take more than a week, then we should let proliant in.
17:34:08 <jroll> for NOW... I do not want to wait to decide on proliantutils
17:34:15 <jroll> right, should we let them in or not, today
17:34:17 <dtantsur> well, cheating in a PTL election is not hard
17:34:20 <jroll> I vote yes for consistency sake
17:34:34 <dtantsur> ++ for yes
17:34:42 <rloo> yes (unfortunately)
17:34:44 <lucasagomes> +1 for in, since we already have other vendors
17:34:45 <NobodyCam> We have already let some in
17:34:50 <NobodyCam> so Yes
17:34:51 <jroll> does anyone vehemently disagree?
17:35:02 <sambetts> For more context on the neutron stuff https://review.openstack.org/#/c/312199/9/specs/newton/neutron-stadium.rst
17:35:10 <devananda> +1 for consistency today, and +1 for continuing the discussion more broadly
17:35:15 <jroll> (counting 6 yes 0 no so far)
17:35:20 <rloo> i assume the caveat would be if that vendor doesn't have CI, their packages are OUT
17:35:44 <jroll> rloo: another interesting debate to have there :)
17:35:53 <dtantsur> this is a possibility
17:36:06 <krtaylor> +1, we agreed, maybe informally, that new driver additions would require CI
17:36:29 <jroll> it was pretty formal :)
17:36:51 <jroll> okay, I'm going to ack that patch then. thanks y'all.
17:36:53 <devananda> yea, we have a pretty clear agreement at this point: for a driver to be in ironic's tree, it needs CI
17:36:59 * krtaylor need to make sure that was in the spec
17:37:00 <jroll> looking forward to someone raising the larger discussion
17:37:17 <devananda> but that didn't discuss the inclusion of hw-specific libraries in our project governance
17:37:23 <jroll> yep.
17:38:25 <jroll> ok, moving on for now
17:38:28 * sambetts has been through this nightmare with networking-cisco (our neutron drivers) and can say its not very fun
17:38:44 <sambetts> hence I've left cisco-ironic-contrib out of the goverence
17:38:58 <jroll> #topic midcycle!
17:39:08 <jroll> so I've spoken privately with a few people on this
17:39:29 <jroll> I think our virtual midcycle went very well last round
17:39:44 <jroll> but we need to decide whether that should be virtual or physical this year
17:39:53 <jroll> some folks have offered space if we do a physical midcycle
17:40:23 <jroll> the pros of a physical midcycle are higher-bandwidth comms, more networking opportunities, we get to see each other's beautiful faces
17:40:50 <NobodyCam> I would like to have a physical midcycle for all the reasons jroll just listed
17:40:52 <jroll> pros of a virtual midcycle are that generally more folks can attend (though some may be left out of virtual due to time zones)
17:40:55 <rloo> if physical, is it in the US?
17:41:15 <NobodyCam> can we look at a hybrid type midcycle?
17:41:17 <jroll> rloo: likely
17:41:29 <mariojv> +1 hybrid
17:41:29 * mgould thought the virtual midcycle went very well
17:41:32 * dtantsur as usual votes for a virtual one
17:41:39 <sambetts> +1 to virtual
17:41:48 <mgould> also I'd be unlikely to be able to attend a physical one in the US
17:41:52 <jroll> IME a room full of people talking over voice to a single person is terrible experience for the single person
17:41:56 <rloo> does time frame matter?
17:41:57 <jroll> so -1 to hybrid
17:41:59 <davidlenwell> -1000 to virtual
17:41:59 <mgould> +2 to virtual, +1 to hybrid :-)
17:42:02 * sambetts would also like to see multiple intercycle virtual meetings
17:42:03 <devananda> I would like to have a f2f midcycle this time, as well as regular virtual meetings (eg monthly, or something)
17:42:10 * jlvillal personally likes physical ones. But he likely can't attend this time as he has vacation plans :(
17:42:13 <devananda> -1 to hybrid, for the reason jroll mentioned
17:42:20 <jlvillal> +1 for regular virtual meetings
17:42:30 <mgould> jroll, by "hybrid" I was thinking "some sessions are physical, others are virtual"
17:42:30 <jroll> rloo: elaborate?
17:42:34 <krtaylor> +1 virtual, frees up travel budget for summit
17:42:37 <rloo> the cinder midcycle was hybrid, wasn't it
17:42:40 <mgould> I don't know if that could be made to work
17:42:43 <lucasagomes> it's depends on the location for me (and most ppl I guess)
17:42:44 <davidlenwell> +1 virtual meetings -1 virtual mid-cycles
17:42:51 <devananda> jroll: have you talked with the Nova team about colocating?
17:42:54 <jroll> rloo: the cinder midcycle was physical, virtual was read only
17:42:57 <rloo> jroll: I mean, folks prefer virtual/physical regardless of when it might be held?
17:42:58 <lucasagomes> +1 virtual
17:43:04 <mariojv> perhaps there should be a vote on the ML about this
17:43:07 <jroll> devananda: I have not
17:43:11 <rloo> jroll: there was utube video of cinder midcycle
17:43:24 <jroll> rloo: right, but folks not in the room could not participate
17:43:26 <rloo> jroll: the one that TheJulia was in.
17:43:32 * mgould is wondering if the voting is breaking down purely on geographical lines
17:43:34 <mariojv> many who would be affected by a TZ difference with a virtual midcycle or who may be traveling internationally might not be in this meeting
17:43:35 <rloo> jroll: OH.
17:43:37 <jroll> to be clear I'm taking this to the mailing list after the meeting
17:43:50 <mgould> NAians want physical, rest-of-worldians want virtual...
17:43:56 <jroll> but wanted to get initial feedback
17:44:08 <rloo> +1 for virtual just to wreck mgould's stats.
17:44:12 <devananda> mgould: in my experience, it was never perfectly along those lines
17:44:17 <mgould> rloo, hah :-)
17:44:17 <devananda> :)
17:44:52 <mat128> +1 physical midcycle, +1 virtual meetings on a regular basis
17:44:54 <mat128> oops late :P
17:44:56 <jroll> my personal vote is also for virtual, because there are people that I really wish were present, that won't or can't attend a physical midcycle
17:44:58 <cinerama> having been NA and !NA, i would still vote for physical midcycle even if i had to travel (pending funding)
17:45:39 <krtaylor> I would rather be able to participate, even at a lower bandwidth, that not be able to go due to travel budget
17:45:41 * sambetts doesn't see much gained for a 8+ hour flight over a virtual midcycle
17:45:54 <krtaylor> ++
17:46:13 <dtantsur> yeah, oversees flight with its prices just for 2-3 days... I won't even remember you all due to jet lag :D
17:46:30 <mat128> I'd be down to try a virtual meetup, considering I wasn't part of the last one and heard it went well
17:46:45 <devananda> dtantsur, sambetts: arguing at a white board and then drinking together afterwards :)
17:47:10 <jlvillal> EU could have a midcycle at the same time ;)
17:47:23 <jroll> right, so "beer at night" is the primary reason for physical that I hear these days
17:47:31 <NobodyCam> if we go virtual it might be good to have a screen share of some kind
17:47:35 <jroll> and I don't think that's valuable enough to artificially exclude half of our cores
17:47:51 <jroll> (half is a straw man number to be clear)
17:47:59 <dtantsur> also note that it's likely that both design summits the next year will be in NA ;)
17:48:14 <jroll> so s/half/a significant portion/
17:48:41 <krtaylor> IMHO, physical is less open, favors participants that have deep travel budgets
17:49:04 <cinerama> i'm more of a visual person so sometimes i get a bit lost in the audio-only stuff
17:49:06 * mgould can drink beer during the virtual sessions, if it would help...
17:49:16 <krtaylor> lol
17:49:24 <lucasagomes> krtaylor, +1 (mgould +1 there too)
17:49:27 <jroll> mgould: that most certainly happened last cycle :)
17:49:29 <NobodyCam> mgould: lol
17:49:49 <jroll> I'm going to open up discussion in case folks have other topics, feel free to continue this one as well. I'll send an email to the list later today.
17:49:50 <mariojv> cinerama: i agree about the visual aspect being important; i was wondering if there's a video service where we could hold enough people
17:49:53 <jroll> #topic open discussion
17:49:55 <cinerama> i also think that strengthening relationships between folks is an important thing that comes out of summit and midcycles, even if that doesn't directly map to a technical goal
17:50:02 <jroll> mariojv: not with free software :(
17:50:21 <dtantsur> mgould, I was drinking whiskey the last time :)
17:50:25 <mgould> mariojv, we looked into this and couldn't find a solution that was both scalable enough and open-source :-(
17:50:32 <mgould> dtantsur, me too :-)
17:50:34 <mariojv> i see, that's unfortunate.
17:50:47 <sambetts> hangouts works for break out sessions up to a point
17:52:07 <devananda> jroll: one other thing to consider, the proposed changes to summit and introduction of the new "PTG" event may replace midcycles in a year
17:52:27 <NobodyCam> nothing for Open Discussion?
17:52:37 <rloo> are we looking at July for the midcycle?
17:52:54 <lucasagomes> sambetts, yeah, I think that if we need to use video (to share screen or something like that) we can get a group of people that is working on specific problem and start a hangout to deal with it
17:53:42 <jroll> devananda: yep
17:53:53 <jroll> rloo: likely, maybe early august. we didn't get to the "when" :)
17:54:11 <devananda> lucasagomes: most of the collaboration tools like that are proprietary / platform-specific
17:54:32 <rloo> jroll: ok. early aug is out for me so my vote wouldn't count if it was for then.
17:54:46 <jroll> devananda: lucasagomes: which is okay if it's a focused group of folks that all accept that. just not ok for the main event
17:54:52 <lucasagomes> devananda, yeah. But I was thinking about having a video chat (if needed) only with a sub group of the people working on a specific problem
17:54:55 <devananda> lucasagomes: this is one of the big challenges with a virtual midcycle: we have folks on so many different platforms, some with high network latency
17:54:56 <lucasagomes> say people working on grenade
17:55:17 <lucasagomes> jroll, yes, not for the main event
17:55:41 <lucasagomes> well can talk about it on the ML
17:55:49 <devananda> some folks may be excluded due to technology, if the chosen communication medium is not open
17:55:59 <devananda> even if they want to join that subgroup
17:56:08 <NobodyCam> bluejeans is web based no?
17:56:11 <devananda> there's no perfect answer
17:56:38 <dtantsur> NobodyCam, it requires a plugin
17:56:39 <lucasagomes> devananda, +1 for the concerns
17:56:44 <jroll> tl;dr if we choose a technology, it needs to be stallman-compatible and low-bandwidth, else someone gets excluded
17:56:45 <NobodyCam> :(
17:56:56 <devananda> jroll: exactly
17:56:59 <jlvillal> lucasagomes: Does Red Hat have an approved video conference system?
17:57:15 <jlvillal> Since they tend to be the most open source pure.
17:57:26 <lucasagomes> jlvillal, nop :-( we use bluejeans
17:57:26 <mat128> jlvillal: blue jeans
17:57:31 <jlvillal> k
17:57:32 <clarkb> asterisk can do it but our install needs an upgrade?
17:57:37 <rloo> sigh. so if it is physical, folks will be excluded. if it is virtual, we want low-bandwidth so people aren't excluded.
17:57:47 <clarkb> if people are interested pabelanger can probably provide more infos
17:57:54 <rloo> and either way, folks in different time zones are/maybe excluded.
17:58:03 <NobodyCam> *Two* Minutes
17:58:10 <rloo> who really wants to be in the mid-cycle? :)
17:58:12 <NobodyCam> clarkb: I would love more info
17:58:20 <mat128> Can't believe in 2016 we dont have anything to host 50 participants and a video stream
17:59:01 <jroll> computers are the worst
17:59:04 <jroll> :)
17:59:07 <mat128> rloo: I want to assist, physical or virtual
17:59:15 <jroll> one minute left, shall we?
17:59:27 <NobodyCam> ++ thank you all great meeting
17:59:40 <jroll> #endmeeting