17:31:39 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting Networking Advanced Services
17:31:40 <openstack> Meeting started Wed May 28 17:31:39 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:31:41 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:31:43 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_advanced_services'
17:31:51 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices
17:32:08 <SumitNaiksatam> we have a packed agenda
17:32:26 <SumitNaiksatam> i will like to address some process issues towards the end of the meeting
17:32:26 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: there is no news there :-)
17:32:29 <SumitNaiksatam> in the open discussion
17:32:35 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: :-)
17:32:47 <SumitNaiksatam> lets get rolling
17:32:59 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Juno planning and feature tracking
17:33:10 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan
17:33:31 <SumitNaiksatam> last week we decided to start using this table as record of our priorities
17:33:40 <SumitNaiksatam> and what we want to track first in this meeting
17:33:46 <SumitNaiksatam> a couple of items got added to that table
17:34:23 <SumitNaiksatam> in addition, the PTL has set milestone dates on the blueprints
17:34:35 <SumitNaiksatam> Juno 1 blueprints (as set by PTL):
17:34:44 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://launchpad.net/neutron/+milestone/juno-1
17:34:53 <SumitNaiksatam> Juno 2 blueprints (as set by PTL):
17:35:05 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://launchpad.net/neutron/+milestone/juno-2
17:35:30 <SumitNaiksatam> most of what we are tracking in this meeting was earlier slated for Juno 1
17:35:46 <SumitNaiksatam> however, if you see above, it has now been pushed to Juno 2
17:36:00 <regXboi> @Sumit: I assume we can ask about items that are "not set" during the individual project updates?
17:36:07 <SumitNaiksatam> my understanding is this is on account of the fact that the blueprint specs have not been approved yet
17:36:30 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: i am not sure i completely got that, but please go ahead
17:36:52 <regXboi> Looking at the table I see certain items that are marked "Not Set" for Milestone
17:37:05 <regXboi> I wanted to ask if we could bring those up during the individual project updates
17:37:14 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: oh yeah, definitely
17:37:18 <regXboi> thanks
17:37:30 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: the expectation is that each task owner should set these
17:37:42 <regXboi> ok
17:37:47 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: and we should track them here
17:38:03 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: if these are not set during this week, we have to investigate why
17:38:22 <regXboi> sound good - thanks for the answer
17:38:25 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: we cannot track things without milestones being set (we already well into Juno 1 now)
17:38:50 <SumitNaiksatam> ok, so summary from the above links, we have already been pushed into Juno 2
17:39:12 <SumitNaiksatam> realistically, this was going to be the case
17:39:20 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: items with BPs not yet approved are no worth setting milestones
17:39:33 <SumitNaiksatam> however, we have to make sure that we make enough progress in Juno 1 as well
17:39:54 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: we should set the milestones as to how we would want to pursue them
17:40:14 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: and accordingly socialize with the PTL and the bigger neutron core team
17:40:21 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: ok
17:40:26 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: if they do not agree, we can reconcile with that
17:40:43 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: but as taks owners, the initial esitmate has to come from you
17:40:51 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: do others agree?
17:41:05 <SumitNaiksatam> question for everyone, rather
17:41:16 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: ok, agreed. I'll set them after meeting
17:41:22 <SumitNaiksatam> ok
17:41:47 <SumitNaiksatam> so i propose that we go through each individual task items on the agenda
17:41:55 <SumitNaiksatam> and then circle back to the process discussion
17:42:07 <SumitNaiksatam> i want to spend some time on it
17:42:16 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Service base definition and Insertion
17:42:31 <SumitNaiksatam> we are still in spec review: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93128
17:42:44 <SumitNaiksatam> is Kanzhe here?
17:42:55 <SumitNaiksatam> i know s3wong is not
17:43:08 <SumitNaiksatam> kevinbenton: do you know if kanzhe is around?
17:43:25 <SumitNaiksatam> looking at the review, does not seem like much progress
17:43:39 <SumitNaiksatam> if kanzhe, joins we can circle back to this
17:43:55 <SumitNaiksatam> anything anyone wants to bring up on this?
17:44:00 <regXboi> SumitNaiksatam: that was the first place I wanted to circle back on
17:44:08 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: sure, go ahead
17:44:12 <regXboi> specifically the HEAT line
17:44:24 <SumitNaiksatam> yeah
17:44:37 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: you skipped the flavor framework, no?
17:45:17 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: yes i will come to it
17:45:29 <cgoncalves> Kanzhe: :-)
17:45:30 <regXboi> I believe Kanzhe has joined
17:45:32 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: go ahead
17:45:42 <Kanzhe> sorry, got stuck in a diffferent meeting.
17:46:08 <regXboi> I'm looking through the BP and wondering if we need to put some more detail relating to heat to get from "Not Set" to a milestone
17:47:15 <regXboi> or is it here and I'm missing it?
17:47:22 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: is the Heat owner identified for this?
17:47:46 <Kanzhe> About ServiceInsertion? not yte.
17:47:49 <Kanzhe> yet.
17:47:54 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: ok
17:48:26 <Kanzhe> Should I give a quick update?
17:48:34 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: can i request that we scope this, and identify the owner by next week?
17:48:54 <Kanzhe> Yes.
17:48:59 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: thanks
17:49:09 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: you want to participate in that?
17:49:22 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: please reach out to Kanzhe if you do (for this item)
17:49:34 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: yes please go ahead with the update
17:49:34 <regXboi> If I can shake free, I will
17:49:41 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: :-)
17:50:04 <Kanzhe> Stephen, Kevin, and I had a meeting to break up the work.
17:50:38 <Kanzhe> The current plan is to submit servicePort early next week. I am the owner.
17:50:46 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: ok
17:50:56 <Kanzhe> Kevin will finish external port, then start serviceBase class.
17:51:07 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: its great to have the implementation going in parallel
17:51:16 <Kanzhe> Stephen will look into integration with LB and DB migration.
17:51:27 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: great
17:51:37 <Kanzhe> CLI and Horizon will come after that.
17:51:39 <SumitNaiksatam> i would however suggest that we also pursue getting the gerrit spec approved
17:52:07 <SumitNaiksatam> we need to put a timeline on getting the gerrit specs approved
17:52:18 <Kanzhe> Yes. cgoncalves, thank you for your review comment.
17:52:22 <SumitNaiksatam> and in this meeting figure out how we can get there (or if we cannot)
17:52:23 <regXboi> poo in reading the gerrit spec - is serviceport === serviceattachmentpoint?
17:52:48 <Kanzhe> regXboi: yes. :-)
17:52:55 <regXboi> thanks
17:53:16 <cgoncalves> Kanzhe: hope I've provided some useful reviewing
17:53:18 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: can you identify a date that we would like this gerrit spec to get approved?
17:53:30 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: and put that date on the table
17:53:41 <SumitNaiksatam> we will discuss during the open discussion on how to get there
17:53:50 <Kanzhe> Next wednesday?
17:54:08 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: we will discuss today
17:54:10 <Kanzhe> SumitNaiksatam: sure.
17:54:20 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: thanks for your review
17:54:32 <SumitNaiksatam> any more questions for Kanzhe right now?
17:54:52 <Kanzhe> cgoncalves: I am still going through your comments. May reach out to you if I have any question.
17:55:06 <regXboi> I'll see if I can add a comment about the === question above to the review because that helped clarify it for me
17:55:10 <cgoncalves> Kanzhe: sure!
17:55:21 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: thanks
17:55:22 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: i know the gerrit spec approval is blocking you, apart from that are there any techincal blockers?
17:55:39 <Kanzhe> SumitNaiksatam: not at the moment.
17:55:49 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: ok good
17:56:01 <Kanzhe> Both stephen and Kevin are out this week.
17:56:10 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: ok
17:56:12 <Kanzhe> I expect more progress next week.
17:56:44 <SumitNaiksatam> going forward, i would like to use this forum, for discussing not only reviewer input, but the blockers for a particular task owner, so be prepared when we discuss your item
17:56:58 <SumitNaiksatam> ok next item
17:57:09 <SumitNaiksatam> i wanted to discuss flavors later, since its takes more time
17:57:14 <SumitNaiksatam> but since cgoncalves brought it up
17:57:24 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Flavors
17:57:33 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90070
17:57:37 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: there?
17:57:44 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: i know you were on vacation
17:57:50 <enikanorov> yep, i'm here
17:58:03 <enikanorov> i'm addressing comments of the spec
17:58:04 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: are you getting enough reviewer attention?
17:58:08 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: ok thanks
17:58:18 <enikanorov> i also need to discuss the scheduling (or 'selection' process)
17:58:32 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: can you populate the table: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan with the milestone dates?
17:58:38 <enikanorov> as on design session there was mark mcclains opinion on how to implement it
17:58:44 <enikanorov> SumitNaiksatam: ok
17:59:02 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: yes definitely, we discussed a bit of that last well, when you were not present
17:59:20 <enikanorov> oh, i need to find logs then
17:59:27 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: do you think a separate meeting on just that topic with mark and whoever else is interested, will help?
17:59:32 <enikanorov> can you provide a short summary of that discussion?
17:59:54 <enikanorov> mark has asked me to start an email thread
18:00:00 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: we felt that STF would serve the purpose, and were not clear on what the objections were :-)
18:00:07 <enikanorov> actually i'm fine with any of implementation option
18:00:18 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: sure, you can start the implementation thread
18:00:24 <enikanorov> ah, you're talking about STF
18:00:36 <enikanorov> that's a different matter
18:00:47 <enikanorov> did Gary try to talk to Mark on that?
18:00:58 <garyduan> No. I have not
18:01:05 <garyduan> I am not sure what his concern is
18:01:23 <enikanorov> my current understanding is that STF has only drawback of public provider attribute
18:01:25 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov garyduan: for both these, i would recommend that we get together in a dedicated IRC meeting, and decide on an agreed upon path forward
18:01:28 <enikanorov> once we remove that it should be fine
18:01:47 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: other blueprints has dependency on flavors
18:01:56 <enikanorov> SumitNaiksatam: understand
18:02:11 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: so we need to get the plan fleshed out at the earliest
18:02:25 <enikanorov> ok, i'll try to sort this out sooner
18:02:44 <SumitNaiksatam> #action enikanorov garyduan SumitNaiksatam to set up an IRC meeting to discuss flavors backend scheduling and STF
18:02:44 <pcm_> SumitNaiksatam: +1
18:02:54 <enikanorov> ok, good plan
18:03:08 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: lets have a plan by next meeting, and lets have the milestone dates populated
18:03:25 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: we will pull the PTL into the next meeting and get an agreement on the plan
18:03:40 <enikanorov> will do
18:03:44 <SumitNaiksatam> questions for enikanorov?
18:04:12 <SumitNaiksatam> enikanorov: thanks for the update
18:04:22 <SumitNaiksatam> Kanzhe: thanks for the earlier update as well, i forgot to mention
18:04:34 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Traffic steering
18:04:43 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92477
18:04:51 <SumitNaiksatam> i believe we have one +1
18:05:19 <SumitNaiksatam> pcm_: thanks for reviewing
18:05:31 <pcm_> SumitNaiksatam: np
18:05:47 <SumitNaiksatam> does anyone want to discuss anything specific in the spec here?
18:06:04 <cgoncalves> I'm sorry I've havent addressed yet the clarification on the BP on there this blueprint differs from the service chain one
18:06:14 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: ok
18:06:28 <cgoncalves> it's on my TODO list, high priority
18:06:42 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: i believe you have prototype code as well, to back your spec?
18:06:54 <mandeep> cgoncalves: The service chain blueprint does address this as a potential implementation, so can refer to that (if it helps)
18:07:34 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: you're right. I'm quite new to Neutron code architecturing but I've learnt a few things during this past days
18:07:41 <cgoncalves> mandeep: ok
18:08:07 <regXboi> cgoncalves: one clarification...
18:08:08 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: and with that, I've been looking at the ML2 and GP PoC code
18:08:21 <cgoncalves> regXboi: shoot :-)
18:08:27 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: i saw your message
18:08:35 <regXboi> I assume that the list of lists of ports implies that I can pick one from each list
18:08:35 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: thats a slightly different topic
18:09:24 <cgoncalves> regXboi: each port_chain lists are independent from other port_chain lists
18:09:24 <regXboi> I'm reading into the port chain data model
18:09:47 <regXboi> that's not exactly how I read this
18:09:58 <regXboi> a port chain includes a list of lists of ports
18:10:27 <regXboi> there is no indication that I could find how that is to be interpreted
18:10:41 <regXboi> I have an educated guess :)
18:11:12 <cgoncalves> regXboi: ok, fair point, will surely need to be clarified on the BP
18:11:17 <regXboi> thanks
18:11:21 <regXboi> I'll add a comment now
18:11:21 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: i agree, it was a little confusing for me at first as well (the list of lists)
18:11:48 <cgoncalves> regXboi: thanks for bringing that up. I'll document that and get back to you
18:11:50 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: this gives more flexibility, but difficult to interpret in an unambiguous way
18:11:54 <cgoncalves> regXboi: better yet. thanks
18:12:17 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: any techincal blockers, or help that you seek from the rest of the team?
18:12:48 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: in terms of code?
18:13:01 <regXboi> comment so added
18:13:12 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: both in terms of the spec and the code
18:13:23 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: if so, I think the email I sent to -dev on the GP mapping driver thread also applies here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-May/035976.html
18:13:37 <cgoncalves> regXboi: tks
18:13:57 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: i dont see a direct correlation, but i might be missing something
18:14:09 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: we can go back to the mailer for that
18:14:18 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: thanks for the update
18:14:20 <SumitNaiksatam> moving on
18:14:23 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Service Chaining
18:14:32 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93524
18:14:45 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont think this got much reviewer attention yet
18:14:48 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: ?
18:15:06 <mandeep> yes not much, but nachi reviewed
18:15:21 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: ah ok, thanks nachi
18:15:23 <mandeep> He has requested for a use-case, and I am adding that
18:15:29 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: ok thanks
18:15:40 <SumitNaiksatam> any questions for mandeep?
18:15:44 <mandeep> There were a couple of other helpful commnets as well, and
18:15:53 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: good to know
18:16:06 <mandeep> I will be updating the name "ServiceChain" to "ServiceChainSpec"
18:16:13 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: are you blocked on anythig?
18:16:23 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: apart from the reviewer feedback
18:16:34 <mandeep> For the now, the goal is to get the spec reviewed by a few more people
18:16:41 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: ok
18:16:53 <SumitNaiksatam> let me keep this rolling, got to cover a few more items
18:16:57 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: thanks for the update
18:17:02 <mandeep> ok
18:17:07 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic L3 Agent Framework
18:17:11 <regXboi> mandeep: let me know after you add a use case and I'll take another look
18:17:13 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/91532
18:17:19 <mandeep> regXboi: will do,
18:17:23 <SumitNaiksatam> i dont think toshi is here
18:17:29 <SumitNaiksatam> but i want to put this on the radar
18:17:53 <SumitNaiksatam> i have sent him an email, hopefully he will be able to participate and provide updates in the future
18:18:16 <SumitNaiksatam> if anyone else wants to proxy for him that will be great (else i will take it up to sync up with him)
18:18:24 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Tap as a Service spec
18:18:34 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96149/
18:18:43 <SumitNaiksatam> vinay_yadhav: thanks for proposing the spec
18:19:05 <SumitNaiksatam> since this just landed, i am guessing that not many people got a chance to go through it
18:19:20 <vinay_yadhav> i made some more changes to it and commited it but it went as another commit and not as a patch
18:19:26 <vinay_yadhav> i had one person review it
18:19:45 <vinay_yadhav> i guess other can start the review process too
18:19:46 <SumitNaiksatam> vinay_yadhav: nice, lets give people some more time, and we can circle back to this next week
18:19:50 <anil_rao> I will be adding my review comments too shortly.
18:19:57 <vinay_yadhav> thanx
18:20:00 <SumitNaiksatam> anil_rao: great, thanks
18:20:14 <SumitNaiksatam> vinay_yadhav: i believe you also have a -dev thread going on this
18:20:23 <vinay_yadhav> i need to start it
18:20:27 <SumitNaiksatam> all please respond there in the interim
18:20:41 <vinay_yadhav> i will do that soon
18:20:54 <SumitNaiksatam> vinay_yadhav: thanks
18:21:01 <vinay_yadhav> any pointer on how to start the dev thread
18:21:03 <regXboi> I'm a little concerned that the data model isn't complete, but I'll look at it and drop email/comments if need be
18:21:15 <vinay_yadhav> just on the mailing list
18:21:17 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: yes please
18:21:27 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic NFV and Service VM updates
18:21:39 <SumitNaiksatam> i believe the NFV meetings have not started
18:21:47 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV
18:22:11 <SumitNaiksatam> and neither stephen or isaku is here today to provide the update on service VMs
18:22:16 <SumitNaiksatam> i will wing it
18:22:25 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Group Policy Requirements
18:22:32 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: quick one minute update?
18:22:58 <banix> nothing beyond new patches submitted
18:23:06 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: ok
18:23:23 <SumitNaiksatam> stephen sent an update on the services’ integration that he has tried
18:23:32 <SumitNaiksatam> but i will skip it for now
18:23:37 <SumitNaiksatam> might take more time
18:23:43 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: thanks
18:23:48 <SumitNaiksatam> sorry for rushing
18:24:01 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
18:24:18 <SumitNaiksatam> so firstly, an action item for all the task owners -
18:24:56 <SumitNaiksatam> #action Kanzhe enikanorov cgoncalves mandeep vinay_yadhav toshi to put milestone dates in https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan
18:25:10 <vinay_yadhav> ok
18:25:14 <Kanzhe> +1
18:25:28 <SumitNaiksatam> we will need the table with your estimated dates to be populated by next meeting
18:25:42 <vinay_yadhav> sure
18:25:49 <enikanorov> sure
18:25:55 <SumitNaiksatam> and we will discuss the feasibility of achieving that next week, hopefully by pulling the PTL in
18:26:04 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: where devstack fits best? client or have its own row? I'm guessing the latter
18:26:07 <SumitNaiksatam> mestery: agree ^^^ ?
18:26:17 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: agreed
18:26:32 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: you can add a separate item for devstack
18:26:32 <mandeep> ok
18:26:52 <SumitNaiksatam> in fact, please do, thanks for bringing that up
18:26:59 <SumitNaiksatam> its a separate line item
18:27:05 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: +1
18:27:07 <SumitNaiksatam> and needs to be tracked
18:27:09 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: ok, thanks for clarifying
18:27:32 * mestery reads scrollback.
18:27:57 <SumitNaiksatam> mestery: we were just saying that we would like to pull you into the meeitng next week
18:27:58 <mestery> SumitNaiksatam: +1 to that idea I think.
18:28:07 <SumitNaiksatam> mestery: to look at our estimates
18:28:09 <mestery> SumitNaiksatam: That should be fine, yes.
18:28:09 <SumitNaiksatam> mestery: thanks
18:28:12 <mestery> SumitNaiksatam: thanks!
18:28:32 <SumitNaiksatam> secondly, if you see the recurrent theme during the meeting is that we are blocked on the spec reviews
18:29:00 <SumitNaiksatam> and people have asked this several times as to how we can speed this up
18:29:14 <SumitNaiksatam> i would like explore a process that we can make this a little more detereministic
18:29:53 <SumitNaiksatam> so my first suggestion is that we identify a team of “assigned-reviewers” for this advanced services’ sub team
18:30:13 <SumitNaiksatam> this can be both +1 and +2 reviewers
18:30:29 <SumitNaiksatam> you can volunteer your name for this and we will put it on the wiki
18:30:41 <banix> SumitNaiksatam: thats what is being done by ML2 subteam
18:30:47 <regXboi> SumitNaiksatam: I'm only +1, but throw my name in
18:30:58 <SumitNaiksatam> but it means that every week you will need to at least review all the specs that we have identified as priority items
18:31:14 <SumitNaiksatam> so we want to hold this team accontable
18:31:20 <SumitNaiksatam> *accountable
18:31:48 <SumitNaiksatam> currently we have only a few specs that we are tracking as priority
18:31:53 <SumitNaiksatam> so its should not be as much
18:31:56 <banix> and probably more importantly on a known schedule i think
18:31:58 <SumitNaiksatam> does everyone agree?
18:32:07 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: yes absolutely
18:32:28 <SumitNaiksatam> so the schedule will be driven by the dates we put on the milestones in teh table
18:32:31 <banix> agree; lets add that to the table maybe?
18:32:43 <SumitNaiksatam> banix: absolutely, was going to say that
18:33:06 <SumitNaiksatam> so on that same wiki page, we will add a section at that top, which will have the reviewer’s names
18:33:28 <SumitNaiksatam> if you want to be included, please add your name to: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan
18:33:46 <SumitNaiksatam> i will put a section “Reviewers” at the top
18:34:06 <regXboi> SumitNaiksatam: feel free to put regXboi in - I'll fill in my details later
18:34:16 <regXboi> that way it won't be empty :)
18:34:36 <SumitNaiksatam> every week, this reviewer team should tell us if we are on track for to approve a particular patch (either spec or code) in time for the milestone set
18:34:39 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: sure
18:34:50 <SumitNaiksatam> and if we are not on track, what is the blocker
18:34:55 <Kanzhe> SumitNaiksatam: +1
18:35:24 <SumitNaiksatam> i would not like the task owners to waste their time, if a particular feature is not going to be reviewed in time or has no chance of merging and getting approved
18:36:20 <SumitNaiksatam> secondly, i would also like to identify at least 4 cores who can shepherd each blueprint
18:36:34 <regXboi> unfortunately, there I can't help you :(
18:36:35 <mandeep> 4 cores?
18:36:43 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: yes
18:36:58 <mandeep> That is a significant request ... but it would be nice to have
18:37:07 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: since on bigger blueprints, sometimes its not enough to just have two, sometimes cores go MIA :-)
18:37:18 <mandeep> ;-)
18:37:30 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: yes, my suggestion is that we identify at least four cores for each patch
18:38:05 <SumitNaiksatam> mandeep: that increase our chances of making progress
18:38:23 <SumitNaiksatam> at the end of the day, this is all best effort, so we cant force anyone
18:38:31 <SumitNaiksatam> but we can try and plan
18:38:35 <mandeep> I agree. I was just worried if that will make it impossible if we ca not find that many core reviewers
18:38:52 <mandeep> But this is a good idea
18:39:06 <SumitNaiksatam> so if you are a taks owner, please try to identify cores upfront who can help with your patch
18:39:12 <mandeep> ok
18:39:22 <SumitNaiksatam> if you cannot identify more than 2 cores, then lest bring this up in the meeting, and we can assess
18:39:50 <SumitNaiksatam> all the above were suggestions to make deterministic/predicatable progress
18:40:01 <SumitNaiksatam> thoughts/suggestions/opinions?
18:40:07 <SumitNaiksatam> i know we have run out of time
18:40:20 <cgoncalves> SumitNaiksatam: +1 for this masterplan of yours
18:40:56 <SumitNaiksatam> cgoncalves: ok
18:41:26 <SumitNaiksatam> #action SumitNaiksatam to add reviewers section at the top of https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan
18:41:34 <SumitNaiksatam> ok anything else?
18:42:09 <SumitNaiksatam> if you have further thoughts on making the process better, please do chime in on the maling list or in the next meeting
18:42:17 <SumitNaiksatam> alright, lets call it wrap
18:42:21 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks all for attending
18:42:27 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting