16:00:49 <cmurphy> #startmeeting keystone
16:00:50 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Oct  8 16:00:49 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is cmurphy. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:51 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:54 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'keystone'
16:00:58 <vishakha> o/
16:00:59 <gagehugo> o/
16:01:04 <cmurphy> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/keystone-weekly-meeting agenda
16:01:14 <bnemec> o/
16:03:48 <lbragstad> o/
16:04:13 <cmurphy> hey everyone
16:04:23 <cmurphy> #topic New roadmap platform
16:04:34 <cmurphy> #link https://tree.taiga.io/project/keystone-ussuri-roadmap/kanban
16:05:00 <cmurphy> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-October/009942.html
16:05:24 <cmurphy> since we reached our limit with trello i started a new board on the platform that kmalloc discovered, so far i like it a lot
16:05:48 <lbragstad> ++ happy to be on an open platform
16:06:10 <gagehugo> nice
16:06:16 <cmurphy> it should be publicly visible but to add team members i need emails, i didn't necessarily want to assume everyone wants to use the one they use for gerrit/lp/mailing list so haven't added everyone yet
16:06:18 <vishakha> ++
16:06:47 <cmurphy> so send me emails so i can invite you and assign yourselves to the things you're already working on
16:06:56 <cmurphy> and feel free to move things around and edit things
16:07:14 <cmurphy> also if anyone wants admin rights to play around with it i can make that happen
16:07:56 <cmurphy> and let me know how you like it and if you want to change it
16:09:58 <lbragstad> i haven't played with it extensively, but it looks promising so far
16:10:46 <bnemec> I used it very briefly with tripleo ci, but mostly I think I was just annoyed by having yet another platform to track things on. :-)
16:10:57 <bnemec> Since you're dropping trello that won't be a problem.
16:11:27 <lbragstad> do other openstack projects use tiaga?
16:12:57 <cmurphy> not that i'm aware of
16:13:28 <cmurphy> i experimented with storyboard too but ran into issues (and filed a bug report)
16:13:40 <lbragstad> nice
16:13:48 <cmurphy> the experience with taiga has been really smooth
16:13:52 <vishakha> cmurphy: Should I also email you the things to add on tiaga ?
16:14:02 <bnemec> I only know of https://tree.taiga.io/project/tripleo-ci-board/timeline
16:14:19 <cmurphy> vishakha: just send me the email address you want me to use to invite you
16:14:27 <vishakha> cmurphy: okay
16:14:34 <cmurphy> everyone who was on the old trello board should also be on the new taiga board
16:15:06 <lbragstad> cmurphy is the plan to have a new board for each release?
16:15:21 <lbragstad> using the same format/process we had with trello?
16:16:27 <cmurphy> lbragstad: that's how i laid it out for now, but there's also an option to enable "sprints" so in theory we could keep the same board and have each cycle be a "sprint"
16:16:43 <cmurphy> that felt a little clunkier when i was playing with it though
16:16:46 <cmurphy> but definitely an option
16:17:03 <lbragstad> nice
16:17:12 * lbragstad wonders if milestones could be sprints
16:17:28 <cmurphy> we could do that too
16:18:04 <lbragstad> that's an interesting way to organize work, i'm not sure if trello has that concept
16:18:51 <cmurphy> not natively afaik, it has due dates and there's probably plugins to enable something like it
16:19:23 <lbragstad> yeah, true
16:19:27 <lbragstad> but... money...
16:19:31 <cmurphy> lol yeah
16:21:36 <cmurphy> we could talk about this during our cycle planning at the ptg if we want
16:21:49 <lbragstad> sounds good
16:23:29 <cmurphy> any other questions or concerns?
16:25:50 <cmurphy> #topic PTG(s)
16:25:58 <cmurphy> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/keystone-shanghai-ptg
16:26:24 <cmurphy> no one's given me any feedback on the timing or agenda so i'm considering it more or less finalish
16:27:19 <cmurphy> i realized there was only a list of names of people who could/could not attend the real ptg so i started a new list for people planning on attending the virtual ones
16:27:39 <cmurphy> so please add your name so i know how many people think they will make it
16:29:42 <cmurphy> that's all i had to say about it, anyone else have thoughts on it?
16:31:30 <cmurphy> #topic review requests
16:31:47 <cmurphy> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686828/
16:31:54 <cmurphy> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/682266/
16:31:56 <lbragstad> o/
16:31:59 <cmurphy> o/
16:32:17 <lbragstad> i tried overhauling the rbac docs we had
16:32:29 <lbragstad> specifically for operators
16:32:55 <lbragstad> my goal with that patch is to allow operators to fully understand what they get out of the box with rbac in keystone
16:33:36 <lbragstad> i think there is more stuff to do and i'd like to generate a list of executable APIs per role+scope persona, but i don't think i'll have that done for a while
16:34:00 <lbragstad> i'm hoping we can backport that doc to stable/train that way operators have something to go on when they consume that release
16:34:10 <lbragstad> since we fully support it in keysotne
16:34:45 <cmurphy> that's awesome, will take a look
16:35:25 <lbragstad> thanks - the other is just test cleanup that's finally passing
16:36:10 <cmurphy> i think you linked the wrong one
16:36:17 <cmurphy> 682266 is merged
16:36:37 <lbragstad> fixed - sorry
16:36:44 <lbragstad> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/686297/
16:37:33 <cmurphy> will have another look at that
16:38:14 <lbragstad> thanks
16:38:48 <cmurphy> #link https://review.opendev.org/677585
16:38:58 <cmurphy> still need reviews for access rules in ksc so we can add it to osc and horizon
16:40:01 <cmurphy> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/676648/
16:40:15 <cmurphy> oh i guess i'm on the hook for that one
16:40:59 <lbragstad> i'll take a look at the ksc patches
16:41:07 <lbragstad> i was going to do that and it slipped
16:41:17 <cmurphy> ty
16:41:27 <lbragstad> yep - thanks for the ksa reviews
16:42:16 <cmurphy> #link https://review.opendev.org/686306
16:42:23 <cmurphy> #link https://review.opendev.org/686305
16:42:50 <lbragstad> i looked at those but i wasn't sure if they were ready for feedback, yet?
16:42:51 <cmurphy> i had started a conversation with gmann and put up some ideas on how we could bring rbac testing to tempest
16:43:32 <cmurphy> lbragstad: ready for feedback on the general idea and organization at least
16:43:40 <lbragstad> ok
16:43:43 <lbragstad> cool
16:43:59 <vishakha> Nice
16:44:22 <cmurphy> would be great if the team had a look and we can discuss it more at the ptgs and the forum session
16:45:06 <cmurphy> and this is an easy one https://review.opendev.org/687096
16:45:53 <cmurphy> anyone else have reviews to highlight?
16:47:08 <bnemec> TIL that keystone.openstack.org is a thing.
16:47:12 <vishakha> should I drop the patch for keystone tempest plugin pdf patch? https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685026/
16:47:48 <cmurphy> vishakha: imo we don't need it
16:48:59 <vishakha> cmurphy: ok. Is it fine to have pdf for  ldappol and pycadf?
16:50:20 <cmurphy> bnemec: same with nova.openstack.org etc ;)
16:50:35 <cmurphy> vishakha: hmm so we do publish docs for pycadf https://docs.openstack.org/pycadf/latest/
16:50:44 <cmurphy> but they seem to be developer-focused
16:50:51 <cmurphy> not really useful to users
16:51:07 <cmurphy> ldappool we don't publish and i think those docs are also developer-focused
16:51:37 <cmurphy> bnemec: do you see any value in producing pdfs for pycadf?
16:52:22 <bnemec> Unless the docs have a user-focused section I'd say no.
16:52:30 * bnemec has been largely ignoring the pdf goal
16:52:48 <bnemec> I can't remember if that's because it doesn't apply to Oslo libs or if I just assumed Stephen would take care of it. :-)
16:53:13 <cmurphy> lol
16:53:50 <cmurphy> the feedback from akihiro on https://review.opendev.org/#/c/685026/ is that it's not really needed for most libs
16:54:12 <cmurphy> i think keystoneauth and keystonemiddleware are user/operator-facing enough that it's worthwhile for them but i don't think the same applies to our other libraries
16:54:57 <bnemec> Agreed.
16:55:16 <vishakha> cmurphy: okay.  Agreed it will be useless to have pdfs for the other libraries
16:55:35 <bnemec> I suppose if someone were trying to consume pycadf auditing info in a disconnected env they might want docs for it.
16:56:49 <cmurphy> one way to look at it is that the point of the goal was for packagers and distros to be able to generate pdfs for their own documentation, if a distro asks why pycadf doesn't have pdfs then we can address it at that point
16:57:38 <cmurphy> vishakha: thanks for working on them and helping us get it clarified :)
16:58:05 <vishakha> cmurphy: yw :)
16:58:19 <cmurphy> #topic open floor
16:58:29 <cmurphy> two minutes left if anyone wants to bring anything else up
17:00:01 <cmurphy> okay thanks everyone
17:00:04 <cmurphy> #endmeeting