15:00:04 <amrith> #startmeeting openstack-swg
15:00:05 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Aug 30 15:00:04 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is amrith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:06 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:00:08 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_swg'
15:00:17 <amrith> #chair dhellmann, gothicmindfood, ttx
15:00:17 <openstack> Current chairs: amrith dhellmann gothicmindfood ttx
15:00:21 <dhellmann> o/
15:00:22 <ttx> o/
15:00:30 <gothicmindfood> o/
15:00:30 <amrith> courtesy ping for dhellmann, gothicmindfood, ttx, jroll, johnthetubaguy, sdague, mordred, carolbarrett, nikhil, mugsie, thingie
15:00:33 <amrith> hello all
15:00:42 <jroll> \o
15:00:47 <gothicmindfood> ohhai
15:00:48 <dhellmann> #link our agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/SWGMeeting
15:00:57 <nikhil> o/
15:01:01 * jroll may or may not be in another meeting now and distracted
15:01:05 <amrith> dhellmann beat me to it!
15:01:18 <dhellmann> co-chairing ftw
15:01:36 <amrith> let's wait a minute for folks to come in
15:01:44 <amrith> #topic Review Action items from last week
15:01:53 <ttx> dhellmann: pff, anyone can #link
15:02:12 <gothicmindfood> ttx: but dhellmann #links like a #pro
15:02:17 * dhellmann deflates
15:02:19 * dhellmann puffs up
15:02:22 * amrith reads action items from last meeting
15:02:37 <shamail> o/
15:02:52 <amrith> ok, so the ping script worked
15:02:53 <gothicmindfood> I think I did my two
15:02:58 <amrith> gothicmindfood did her updates
15:03:15 <amrith> ttx pushed up a review (I'm searching for a link)
15:03:47 <dhellmann> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/
15:03:58 <amrith> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/
15:04:01 <amrith> damn
15:04:06 <amrith> he beat me to it again
15:04:07 <amrith> :)
15:04:25 <amrith> gothicmindfood updated a vision for SWG write up
15:04:47 <amrith> sorry, gothicmindfood update on vision for SWG write up
15:04:49 <CarolBarrett> Sorry I'm late
15:05:00 <gothicmindfood> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BarcelonaSWGMagic
15:05:11 <amrith> thx gothicmindfood
15:05:17 <CarolBarrett> +1
15:05:27 <amrith> sounds like we've made good progress on the things we said we'd
15:05:31 <amrith> do by this meeting
15:05:46 <amrith> gothicmindfood, do you want to update on the write-up
15:06:00 <amrith> since not everyone may have had a chance to read it
15:06:07 <CarolBarrett> I'm looking over ttx's comments on the vision. I think having both commitment and approaches is good
15:06:08 <amrith> CarolBarrett left comments I can see
15:06:45 <amrith> I have to review ttx's review in more detail. only had a chance to look at it briefly
15:06:46 <gothicmindfood> amrith: on the vision for Barcelona?
15:06:49 <alexismonville> hello
15:06:52 <amrith> gothicmindfood, yes
15:06:57 <dhellmann> hi, alexismonville !
15:07:08 <gothicmindfood> context wise - I just thought a) we needed to practice visioning and the best way to do that was with small ones
15:07:14 <ttx> just saying that 10-&5 people committing to join might be a bit too much :)
15:07:25 <gothicmindfood> and b) it might help us figure out what sorts of work is most important between now and end of October to move us along
15:07:26 <ttx> And by that I meant 10-15
15:07:37 <gothicmindfood> ttx: yeah, I just threw in a # to start a conversation around that
15:07:42 <shamail> When you say “our panel on the SWG working group”… where was this panel?
15:07:47 <gothicmindfood> not sure if we need to be # specific, but I like metrics
15:07:58 <gothicmindfood> shamail: it's a panel that just got accepted to the summit
15:08:08 <dhellmann> I share some of ttx's concern with the proposed changes. I'm having trouble seeing that as a realistic outcome. I can see that much excitement, but I'd be more comfortable with expecting a smaller # of committments
15:08:10 <CarolBarrett> shamail: the panel is planned for Barcelona and this is what we want to be able to say after it happens
15:08:19 <shamail> Got it, it read as if the panel had happened.
15:08:19 <dhellmann> shamail : it hasn't happened yet, this is for barcelona
15:08:36 <shamail> thanks CarolBarrett
15:08:36 <dhellmann> gothicmindfood is channelling her future self
15:08:39 <shamail> :D
15:08:52 <gothicmindfood> shamail: that's actually good! because that's how a vision should read! :)
15:09:28 <gothicmindfood> to recap: a vision is basically a description of a destination - complete with feelings and tastes and sounds and sights and things that are happening.
15:10:00 <amrith> I see gothicmindfood's challenge in trying to put a measurable outcome on the outcome. 10-15 may be high, fine, let's call it 5. But is "willing new and interested participants" the correct measure?
15:10:11 <ttx> "More than 5" ?
15:10:31 <ttx> "10-15 approached us and more than 5 committed ?"
15:10:35 * gothicmindfood is cool with whatever we land on
15:10:49 <dhellmann> I'd be fine just saying "several" or "a few" instead of 5
15:11:11 <ttx> I like vision, but 10-15 commitments sounds like vision under heavy drugs
15:11:47 <dhellmann> heh, it's ambitious, for sure.
15:11:52 * gothicmindfood swears she was on no drugs when she wrote this
15:11:54 <CarolBarrett> I think having a sign of interest (10-15 approach) and participation (5 commit to join team) is a good outcome
15:11:58 <gothicmindfood> (except maybe lack of sleep)
15:12:04 <dhellmann> CarolBarrett : ++
15:12:12 <shamail> Should we also want to incorporate the desire to create a curriculm for educating people on steward leadership and make an item such as “understand the approaches that resonates when explaining steward leadership and develop them into a repeatable education process”?
15:12:25 <shamail> resonated*
15:12:56 <dhellmann> how's the rewording I just did?
15:13:14 <dhellmann> CarolBarrett : I like the addition of understaing steward leadership
15:13:47 <shamail> thanks for the link gothicmindfood
15:13:55 <gothicmindfood> dhellmann: I like it!
15:14:35 <alexismonville> could we add something about "understanding the stewardwhip concetp" and being able to explain it?
15:15:42 <dhellmann> we need to be careful how we balance how much we're describing the vision for we will have done and what what other people will be doing
15:15:54 <dhellmann> *for what we will have done
15:15:56 <CarolBarrett> good point
15:16:10 <amrith> alexismonville, I added a whole sentence before that describing some of the concepts that we would like to address at the panel.
15:16:30 <amrith> does that make sense to all?
15:16:52 <alexismonville> amrith: yes :)
15:16:58 <amrith> thx alexismonville
15:17:28 <CarolBarrett> I'm good with the vision
15:17:40 <shamail> +1
15:17:59 <gothicmindfood> so - from vision sprouts action, or something, right? :)
15:18:38 <gothicmindfood> do we want to get consensus on this particular vision, or have a bit more time to spell it out/add to it over the next week or so?
15:18:39 <amrith> so, can we set a goal that we all review and put our comments on the etherpad before the end of the week (or gothicmindfood's vacation ends) :)
15:18:52 <gothicmindfood> amrith: that'd be awesome
15:19:12 * gothicmindfood would like to get this to the point where we all feel we have our own actionable items from it for Barcelona
15:19:29 <amrith> #action everyone to continue to review https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BarcelonaSWGMagic with a goal of having comments and updates in by end of this week
15:19:58 <amrith> CarolBarrett, ttx, dhellmann, nikhil, shamail, alexismonville ... is that OK?
15:20:01 <nikhil> I have a generic comment on the vision
15:20:08 <amrith> I hope I've got everyone
15:20:13 * gothicmindfood feels that "good vibes" needs to be a phrase in every vision from now on
15:20:14 <shamail> amrith: that works
15:20:16 <gothicmindfood> ;)
15:20:17 <dhellmann> amrith : ++
15:20:18 <amrith> jroll ^^
15:20:21 <nikhil> gothicmindfood: (first) thanks for putting that together
15:20:26 <ttx> +1
15:20:31 <alexismonville> amrith: ++
15:20:39 <gothicmindfood> nikhil: yw!
15:20:39 <amrith> ok, thx. nikhil your comment ...
15:20:48 <nikhil> gothicmindfood: I find the word "platform" mission and may be we'd include that this is "not" a process
15:21:04 <nikhil> oops
15:21:14 <nikhil> s/mission/missing ***
15:21:15 <nikhil> ha
15:21:23 * nikhil blames lack of sleep
15:21:39 <dhellmann> nikhil : how do you see "platform" fitting in here? there are lots of interpretations of that word...
15:21:54 * nikhil trying to think of phrasing it
15:22:13 <nikhil> dhellmann: lemme try updaing the nice version w/o divergence
15:22:22 <amrith> nikhil, could you add proposed language into the etherpad. I'm having a hard time visualizing how I'd use the word platform in this context
15:23:15 <CarolBarrett> I can see referring to SL as a methodology or a framework for how the TC and Technical Community operate
15:23:32 <gothicmindfood> nikhil: there was definitely some interesting discussion at dinner around some of this, if I gather what you're saying...
15:23:57 <gothicmindfood> one of the things that I think we need to clarify is that the SWG is *not*, as far as I understand it, implementing any change or process for OpenStack
15:24:15 <gothicmindfood> change/process/governance is a TC matter
15:24:34 <gothicmindfood> the way I kind of put it at dinner last week was that I viewed us as sort of a 'leadership coach' for OpenStack, with the TC being a customer
15:24:39 <amrith> ok, quick time check! 25m in ...
15:25:02 <amrith> do we want to continue to discuss this, or let people update it with comments. We can come back to this later if we have time.
15:25:21 <dhellmann> nikhil : it sounds like you have some specific concerns about rules that deserve more discussion
15:25:21 <gothicmindfood> amrith: I'm open - I'm also touching on our summary of last week's meeting, so, either way ;)
15:25:37 * amrith waits
15:26:02 <CarolBarrett> What's the next agenda item?
15:26:04 <gothicmindfood> nikhil: dyou want to take this offline/tinker with the vision a bit and we'll talk later?
15:26:21 <amrith> #agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/SWGMeeting
15:26:22 <nikhil> gothicmindfood: surely
15:26:33 <nikhil> amrith: I am okay to continue offline
15:26:34 <amrith> sounds good
15:26:50 <amrith> #action nikhil to tinker with the vision and update etherpad
15:26:59 <amrith> #topic Take a pass through the 'short list' and update items as required
15:27:06 <amrith> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/swg-short-list-deliverables
15:27:35 <amrith> ttx has pushed up https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/
15:27:47 <amrith> #action everyone to review this https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357260/ and update with comments
15:28:07 <amrith> so a quick recap
15:28:15 <amrith> at the last meeting(s) we boiled the shortlist
15:28:22 <amrith> and came up with some specific action areas
15:28:26 <amrith> (a) openstack principles
15:28:35 <amrith> (b) community wide goals for a release (themes)
15:28:42 <amrith> (c) recommendation that tc adopt a vision
15:28:46 <amrith> (d) improve communication
15:29:11 <amrith> There is a longer list of things below that
15:29:32 <amrith> so, ttx, anything you want to add re: (a)
15:30:03 <amrith> hearing nothing ...
15:30:11 <amrith> dhellmann, anything you want to add re: (b)
15:30:49 <amrith> netsplit?
15:31:02 * ttx thinks
15:31:09 <amrith> no netsplit
15:31:12 <dhellmann> the discussions for the goals are ongoing
15:31:22 <dhellmann> the py35 question will come up at today's tc meeting
15:31:30 <ttx> discussion on principles at TC are scheduled for next week's TC
15:31:32 <dhellmann> there were some refinements on wording up, too, let me find those
15:31:58 <dhellmann> #link approval policy for goal updates https://review.openstack.org/356699
15:32:00 <ttx> the goal is to come up with a draft we are happy with ASAP so that we can give those some air time on the ML
15:32:10 <dhellmann> #link refining the goal template https://review.openstack.org/356674
15:32:14 <ttx> probably early next week after the TC meeting
15:32:30 <ttx> then let the megathread unfold and vote on the week after next
15:33:05 <amrith> dhellmann, ttx, is there any specific ask to this group in this unfolding process?
15:33:37 <ttx> Not really. From the discussion last week, we expect two principles to be more contentious
15:33:52 <ttx> the "One OpenStack" principle and the "OpenStack first" principle
15:34:04 <dhellmann> amrith : not really, unless folks have opinions on those patches
15:34:17 <amrith> thx ttx, dhellmann
15:34:37 <amrith> anything further on the etehrpad
15:34:59 <amrith> s/etehrpad/etherpad/
15:35:46 <amrith> ... moving on ...
15:36:02 <amrith> #topic Quick recap of NYC meeting for those who weren't there
15:36:17 <amrith> so ... several of us were at @openstackeast last week
15:36:22 <amrith> and had a chance to chat about swg
15:36:35 <amrith> over dinner on Tuesday
15:36:38 <dhellmann> and eat delicious turkish food, thanks, amrith!
15:36:45 <amrith> (or was it wednesday)
15:36:50 <gothicmindfood> yeah, amrith picked a good restaurant! P)
15:36:54 <gothicmindfood> amrith: it was Tuesday
15:36:58 <amrith> someone who shall remain nameless is now barred from picking restaurants
15:37:23 <gothicmindfood> amrith: it was good, and we figured out the wine situation, no problem.
15:37:23 <ttx> amrith: we probably ended up with better wine than if they had a wine list :)
15:37:36 <amrith> there is that
15:37:37 <gothicmindfood> ttx: ++
15:37:53 <gothicmindfood> for awhile, there were actually two separate convos going on at the table
15:37:53 <amrith> so much of the conversation centered on what we'd like to see coming out of barcelona
15:37:56 <amrith> and our panel discussion
15:37:57 * gothicmindfood was only really involved in one
15:38:05 <amrith> which was, by the way, accepted
15:38:26 <gothicmindfood> yay! #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/summit-schedule/events/15243/stewardship-bringing-more-leadership-and-vision-to-openstack
15:38:38 <amrith> one of the outcomes was the vision document that gothicmindfood put together
15:39:17 <amrith> we had a little bit of discussion about who our customers were; where "our" was {swg, tc, openstack}
15:39:34 <gothicmindfood> ah - yes, our own 'servant leadership' inverted triangle discussion
15:39:48 <amrith> we talked about the inverted triangle and who the TC served, and how
15:40:19 <amrith> we talked about some feedback that I'd received when I asked people about our panel. the question I asked was this "if you went to this panel, what would you like to get out of it"
15:40:42 <amrith> I'd used some of that feedback to start thinking about what the panel should be
15:41:04 <amrith> so, without biasing this conversation, let me ask those who weren't there to also think of that question
15:41:14 <amrith> and say what they'd like to get out of the panel
15:41:25 <amrith> either now or in email later (or irc on #openstack-swg)
15:41:34 <CarolBarrett> amrith: is there an etherpad for this?
15:41:44 <amrith> CarolBarrett, there is not (at this point)
15:42:02 <CarolBarrett> OK - do you want to start one?
15:42:03 <gothicmindfood> CarolBarrett: it's sort of the barcelona vision, in a way, but amrith may also want to hvae his own for reference as he moderates
15:42:12 <gothicmindfood> amrith: if you do start one, can we cross-link it with the vision?
15:42:43 <CarolBarrett> I'm interested in the view of who the TC's customers are and what the inverted pyramid looks like
15:42:44 <amrith> gothicmindfood, why not have it at the bottom of the existing etherpad? do we need another?
15:42:45 <alexismonville> amrith: I think it is the vision
15:42:51 <nikhil> +1 to etherpad that can be used for the summit to engage audience too
15:42:54 <amrith> or in the etherpad
15:43:04 <CarolBarrett> We could start to outline the panel session in the etherpad with the vision of the outcome
15:43:05 <amrith> as a list of things that people would like to get out of the session that I started writing up top
15:43:22 <gothicmindfood> amrith: I'm fine with splitting current one up
15:43:32 <gothicmindfood> amrith: it is just about SWGMagic, after all ;)
15:43:41 * nikhil may have opinions against the inverted pyramid
15:43:52 <nikhil> (and suggestions accordingly)
15:44:28 <amrith> ... others ... what did we do at dinner?
15:44:30 <CarolBarrett> nikhil: I expect others will too
15:44:40 * nikhil nods
15:45:35 <amrith> ... and if no one else has anything to add, ... nikhil added an item to the agenda
15:45:39 <amrith> so I'd like to move to that
15:45:55 <nikhil> \o/
15:46:02 <amrith> #topic Documenting vision: when, where, who?
15:46:09 <amrith> nikhil, you're up!
15:46:19 <nikhil> I just have those 3 questions to being with
15:46:31 * nikhil is sure this will need more dinner table conversation
15:46:41 <nikhil> to log them here:
15:46:54 <nikhil> #info Should we have a vision statement for OpenStack/TC/SWG first, followed by individual teams?
15:47:03 <nikhil> #info Do project mission statement(s) overlap with vision statement(s)?
15:47:09 <nikhil> #info What should be considered provenance of vision (statements)?
15:47:41 * nikhil is open to creating another etherpad but thinks will be too distracting
15:47:52 <nikhil> begin*
15:47:54 <ttx> nikhil: IIRC during the dinner we talked a bit about that, and said vision for SWG should be first
15:48:12 <gothicmindfood> ttx: well, I also think it's something we have more control over, honestl
15:48:15 <gothicmindfood> y
15:48:18 <ttx> then for TC, then maybe for "OpenStack". It's easier to come up with a viusion in a closed group
15:48:39 <ttx> err, not closed... "limited"
15:48:41 <gothicmindfood> and it's important for that whole group to understand what a vision is and actually want to have one an dsee its value
15:48:45 <CarolBarrett> ttx: agree, having a defined scope helps to guide the mission development
15:49:02 <gothicmindfood> so - also, here, it's important to remember: mission != vision
15:49:05 <ttx> right, so it's not about imposing a vision on others, which makes me a bit careful about that "OpenStack vision"
15:49:22 <ttx> we can set a mission, we can't force a vision
15:49:40 <nikhil> :)
15:49:44 <gothicmindfood> mission is a reason for a group to exist and a generic set of guiding principles included. vision is a very explicit statement of a desired point in time
15:49:49 <ttx> so let's do the work for the SWG first, then advise the TC to do one
15:49:56 <ttx> (for the TC)
15:50:03 <gothicmindfood> and also help the TC get there however they need help
15:50:04 <alexismonville> so how could we make the OpenStack contributor to contribute to define the vision?
15:50:16 <gothicmindfood> (which in part will be by showing them how well visioning works for us)
15:50:16 <ttx> then we can rediscuss if the TC "having a vision for OpenStack" would be a great idea or not
15:50:21 <nikhil> I have some ideas on how
15:50:38 <gothicmindfood> alexismonville: I think that's a question for how the TC does theirs. Anyone who wants to come to the SWG can contribute to ours!
15:50:47 <dhellmann> alexismonville : one of the things we discussed related to that was having some examples of how to create a vision in the first place, which is another reason we wanted to start "small"
15:51:07 <alexismonville> great tahnk you
15:51:29 <gothicmindfood> dhellmann: is totally on point - starting small with things we can focus on, and showing the value of having them, I think that's the key to this whole spreading-vision-throughout-the-culture thing
15:52:27 <nikhil> so.... some specific questions (more of a reason for me asking them here):
15:52:43 * nikhil say for glance -- we've a missions statement
15:52:59 <nikhil> oops (auto edit)
15:53:05 <nikhil> ..
15:53:19 <nikhil> I wanted to start a vision for the project
15:53:39 <nikhil> which will be more aling with "shared understanding" of  the project in a point of time
15:53:45 <nikhil> align*
15:54:05 <nikhil> basically, this will be a document that has the following listed :0
15:54:07 <nikhil> :-
15:54:14 <nikhil> 1) Overall vision
15:54:18 <ttx> feels like a vision belongs to a clear team of people, a "project" might be a bit too fuzzy to have a vision on
15:54:38 <nikhil> 2) Feature lists and their generic behavior
15:54:50 <nikhil> ttx: lemme get to that (exactly why I asked it here)
15:55:08 <nikhil> 3) list of the cores who share their opinion on what the code means to them
15:55:24 <ttx> I mean, a PTL can have a vision for the project and share it. Or the Glance drivers can build a vision for Glance and share it.
15:55:43 <nikhil> may be we can ask for representatives /liaisons from ops WG, PWG, etc. to indicate it
15:55:43 <gothicmindfood> ttx: or ideally, anyone contributing to a project contributes to its vision on some level
15:55:54 <nikhil> == gothicmindfood
15:56:11 <nikhil> if a PTL shares, it's a silo
15:56:12 <gothicmindfood> nikhil: so I think maybe there's a bit of separation that needs to occur here: vision is super different than a product definition or a mission or a strategy
15:56:20 <ttx> gothicmindfood: how do you achieve that ? Lots of one-patch contributors etc
15:56:28 <nikhil> if we have a representative democracy we need superimposed visions
15:56:41 <gothicmindfood> nikhil: vision is a description of a moment in time for a group of people
15:57:02 <nikhil> ttx: for that, I think we need to elavate liaisons to core level in the influence and keep them involved in the visiion
15:57:10 <gothicmindfood> ttx: the same way we achieve code that finally lands?
15:57:25 <nikhil> (very much like ATC badge can be given even to those who have no patch to a prj)
15:57:49 <gothicmindfood> nikhil: this is really hard to do/think about for a project before getting the TC onboard, tbh
15:57:56 <gothicmindfood> nikhil: there's so much dependency.
15:58:04 <nikhil> gothicmindfood: correct, and I think we need to keep that superimposed vision documented to establish deterministic behavior in the community
15:58:38 <gothicmindfood> nikhil: but I don't think it should stop you from doing a small vision re: some place you'd like the project to be in the future to try it out with people/practice writing it
15:58:39 <amrith> I think nikhil may have a specific reason why he's asking the things he is asking (i.e. he has a specific problem he is trying to address) and I wonder what that is.
15:59:08 <CarolBarrett> time check - 2 mins left
15:59:09 <nikhil> amrith: true and there are many issues / problems :)
15:59:26 <nikhil> and think there may be some level of generalization that can be done/achieved
15:59:31 <amrith> nikhil, it may help us understand your proposal better if we knew what those were.
15:59:33 <nikhil> I wanted to start something for glance in the next week or so and share it...
15:59:38 <amrith> and as CarolBarrett says, 1m left
15:59:42 <nikhil> may be that's the best way
15:59:46 * gothicmindfood i sconfused
15:59:55 * amrith puzzled
15:59:57 <gothicmindfood> nikhil: feel free to ping me (though I'm on vacation this week) if you want to talk this out
16:00:08 <gothicmindfood> i'd love to see an actual document or something describing the problem you're trying to solve
16:00:10 <alexismonville> nikhil: I feel it needs to be connected to a higher level vision
16:00:34 <amrith> we seem to have run out of time
16:00:39 <nikhil> alexismonville: surely
16:00:40 <gothicmindfood> amrith: yup
16:00:42 <amrith> so let's go to #openstack-swg nd continue there
16:00:46 <amrith> #endmeeting