21:00:57 <CarolBarrett> #startmeeting product_working_group
21:00:58 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Jan 23 21:00:57 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is CarolBarrett. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:59 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:01:01 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'product_working_group'
21:01:06 <shamail> hi everyone
21:01:10 <leong> o/
21:01:16 <CarolBarrett> Hi Folks - Who is here for the product wg meeting?
21:01:25 <MeganR> Hi
21:01:30 <shamail> o\
21:01:48 <CarolBarrett> Hi
21:01:55 <CarolBarrett> You can find the agenda here
21:01:58 <CarolBarrett> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/product-team
21:02:27 <kencjohnston> o/
21:02:37 <CarolBarrett> Hi kencjohnston
21:02:46 <kencjohnston> howdy CarolBarrett
21:03:03 <CarolBarrett> Let's get going and we'll catch up others as they join
21:03:13 <CarolBarrett> #topic Update
21:03:29 <CarolBarrett> I want to start out by sharing an update from me
21:03:29 <GeraldK> o/
21:03:59 <CarolBarrett> After 35+ yrs in the Technology Industry, I have decided it’s time for a change and will be retiring from Intel.
21:04:12 <CarolBarrett> My last day at Intel will be February 2nd
21:04:21 <kencjohnston> Noooo.... boooo!
21:04:28 <kencjohnston> Also, thank you, and congrats. :)
21:04:29 <Arkady_Kanevsky> I will lurk today
21:04:35 <shamail> Congratulations Carol, thank you for everything you have done!!!!!!
21:04:51 <CarolBarrett> OpenStack, and this team in particular, has been a highlight of my career. I've enjoyed getting to know and working with you all.
21:04:59 <CarolBarrett> Thanks!!
21:05:00 <MeganR> You will be so missed and I completely agree with shamail and kencjohnston
21:05:13 <CarolBarrett> Thanks MeganR!
21:05:13 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Thank you Carol!
21:05:17 <GeraldK> thanks Carol for your work. it was a pleasure we met.
21:05:21 <kencjohnston> CarolBarrett: +1 to working and getting to know you
21:05:31 <CarolBarrett> It's been a pleasure Arkady
21:05:47 <shamail> CarolBarrett: +1 same here
21:06:03 <CarolBarrett> Leong has agreed to take on the co-leadership of this WG along with Shamail
21:06:21 <GeraldK> Feb 2nd, that's pretty soon...
21:06:43 <CarolBarrett> I know that am leaving this important work in capable hands and wish you all, individually and as a group, continued success!
21:07:13 <shamail> This group would not have had the success it has without your leadership.  From Enterprise needs in OpenStack to sharing a common goal of increasing adoption by collaboration amongst community members.  Your impact/contribution well resonate for years to come.
21:07:36 <shamail> In the OpenStack community, not just PWG.
21:07:52 <CarolBarrett> Shamail - Thank you for your kind words! And I look forward to watching from the bleachers, what comes next!
21:08:20 <CarolBarrett> We've got a lot on our agenda, I'm going to move along...
21:08:31 <CarolBarrett> #topic Boston Summit
21:08:33 <leong> carolbarrett: thanks for your fantastic work and contribution in PWG + OpenStack!
21:08:47 <CarolBarrett> Thank you Leong!
21:09:07 <CarolBarrett> Shamail - Do you want to give an overview of the Forum?
21:09:13 <shamail> Sure
21:09:28 * shamail scrambles to find a link he planned to have on hand
21:09:43 <shamail> #link http://superuser.openstack.org/articles/openstack-forum/
21:10:08 <shamail> Tom shared a bit more details on the format of the upcoming Forum event in Boston
21:10:11 <CarolBarrett> #link http://superuser.openstack.org/articles/openstack-forum/
21:10:32 <shamail> There will be three main categories for sessions (project, cross-project, and strategic)
21:11:02 <shamail> Examples of a project session might be: How many people are using cells or plan to and what are the main considerations
21:11:29 <shamail> Cross-Project could be “Tell us about your experiences with scaling OpenStack clouds, what can we work on next"
21:11:34 <Arkady_Kanevsky> what is definition of strategic
21:11:59 <shamail> Strategic could be “How do we increase contributors in various key initiatives” or “Have we defined our mission clearly”, etc
21:12:33 <shamail> These are all examples but you can see the broad set of session types as well as the fact that we would need attendance from developers, users, operators, etc to make them a meaningful exchange
21:13:03 <Arkady_Kanevsky> OK. and do we expect that we will user stories to drive strategic initiative?
21:13:15 <shamail> Furthermore, the meaningful exchange is great but we would want to ensure that the community is able to document needed next steps/outcomes, etc. to make the attendees feel like their needs were heard
21:13:31 <leong> arkady_kanevsky: that would depends on the user-story..
21:13:38 <leong> some user-story would be related to cross-project
21:13:44 <shamail> Arkady_Kanevsky: User stories must likely will fit into the “cross project” category but some could be strategic
21:13:45 <leong> e.g. rolling-upgrade
21:13:51 <kencjohnston> shamail: +1 to documenting and providing ongoing feedback
21:14:15 <shamail> That is a quick overview of the event, in summary, think of the forum as being the place to discuss and define/refine requirements
21:14:28 <shamail> with the entirety of the community invited/participating
21:14:32 <kencjohnston> shamail: perhaps you are getting there, but how are we proposing to collect and track feedback
21:14:33 <shamail> Any questions on the event itself?
21:14:41 <shamail> kencjohnston: Great segue :)
21:14:48 <kencjohnston> :)
21:14:59 <Arkady_Kanevsky> agree on exposing lack of a project as cross-project need thru user-story.
21:15:04 <shamail> That is one of the open items that we discussed and believe our team can help with based on our skill sets.
21:15:28 <Arkady_Kanevsky> Feel uncomfortable to bring strategic issue thru user story.
21:15:39 <shamail> We were brainstorming on various ideas but then decided that it is probably best to have a small group of people from our team go off and make a plan to share with the rest of the team and the user committee
21:15:57 <kencjohnston> shamail: Sign me up :)
21:16:13 <shamail> There are some ideas on how to best help with collecting and tracking feedback but let’s come together to build a plan we can share
21:16:16 <shamail> kencjohnston: deal!
21:16:44 <leong> i think the foundation is hoping PWG can help to formalize a process to document the requirements as discussed at Forum
21:17:05 <shamail> Here’s the proposal: Who is interested (besides Ken, Leong, and I) to develop a proposal on how to optimize for feedback?  We should be able to share high-level thoughts with the UC at their next meeting 1/30
21:17:08 <kencjohnston> leong: shamail Agreed, that is a good role for us to play.
21:17:23 <shamail> we can then collaborate with the UC to help them craft a proposal to take to the overall steering team for the Forum
21:17:29 <kencjohnston> 1/30 is next week...
21:17:54 <shamail> It is
21:18:18 <kencjohnston> OK, well we better get to work.
21:18:21 <shamail> kencjohnston: the plan would be to share that we think we need a plan around capturing feedback and some of the reasons why.
21:18:29 <leong> +1 kencjonston
21:18:55 <MeganR> I am interested in helping
21:18:55 <shamail> We can even share some prelimenary ideas but we are really there to see if the UC agrees and if they think they can delegate to us
21:19:00 <CarolBarrett> I think the UC discussion  could be more of an overview of Forum direction, potential role for UC & its work groups and next steps planned by PWG
21:19:07 <shamail> CarolBarrett: +1
21:19:07 <leong> shall we set up sometime to discuss that this week?
21:19:08 <CarolBarrett> shamail +1
21:19:18 <shamail> leong: I think so
21:19:26 <kencjohnston> leong: +1
21:19:36 <shamail> Okay, I will contact leong, kencjohnston, MeganR to find a time that works
21:19:38 <CarolBarrett> Is the work group: Kencjohnston, shamail, leong, MeganR?
21:19:50 <GeraldK> put me in aas well
21:19:58 <leong> in general, i believe we need support from PWG members here, such as being a coordinator for the Forum sessions
21:20:08 <CarolBarrett> GeraldK - Thanks
21:20:32 <CarolBarrett> #action Kencjohnston, shamail, leong, MeganR, GeraldK Create a draft proposal for PWG participation in Forum and bring to this team for discussion
21:20:44 <shamail> leong: Do you mind leading the scheduling?
21:20:55 <leong> ok.. i will setup doodle link
21:21:07 <shamail> I have another thing I have to schedule so I don’t want to confuse the topics, thanks.
21:21:39 <leong> sure! assign that AR to me
21:22:01 <CarolBarrett> #action leong Setup working session for the PWG Forum planning team
21:22:05 <CarolBarrett> done!
21:22:36 <CarolBarrett> Anything else about the PWG sub-team or the UC discussion on the 30th?
21:23:20 <shamail> Nothing at this time
21:23:38 <CarolBarrett> OK, let's talk about Boston Submissions then
21:23:47 <CarolBarrett> #topic Boston Summit Submissions
21:24:34 <CarolBarrett> The deadline for submitting sessions is coming up. There are 3 sessions that I am aware of that need to be submitted: PWG BoF, PWG Working Session, Roadmap Session
21:24:54 <CarolBarrett> Volunteers to submit 1 or more of those?
21:24:59 <shamail> I think we’ll plan to submit the roadmap session again (thoughts HeidiJoy?)… Anyone else interested in co-presenting?
21:25:06 <kencjohnston> CarolBarrett: Woudl these sessions be  at the Summit or the Forum?
21:25:09 <shamail> CarolBarrett: I’ll be glad to do the roadmap one
21:25:23 <CarolBarrett> #action Shamail to submit the Roadmap session for Boston
21:25:25 <kencjohnston> CarolBarrett: I'll do the BoF session
21:25:48 <CarolBarrett> kencjohnston: all of these will be in the Summit, but excellent question about what we'd want to submit for the Forum
21:26:00 <kencjohnston> And BOF is both a "this is what we are about" and a "join us at the forum"?
21:26:02 <CarolBarrett> #action kencjohnston submit the PWG BoF session for Boston
21:26:13 <CarolBarrett> kenjohnston: Yes
21:26:16 <shamail> kencjohnston: The submissions for Forum have not started yet, I anticipate we will propose sessions there too but we can discuss as soon as we know specifics.
21:26:22 <kencjohnston> CarolBarrett: +1
21:26:34 <kencjohnston> shamail: Agreed, I think the deadline is mid-march
21:26:34 <CarolBarrett> shamail +1
21:26:51 <CarolBarrett> Leong: Will you submit the PWG working group session?
21:27:37 <leong> i'm sure i can, however, before i do that, anyone else want to volunteer? :)
21:27:50 <CarolBarrett> There is a 3 submission limit!
21:28:05 <kencjohnston> I feel like the Working Group should be from one of the co-chairs
21:28:14 <kencjohnston> but I"m happy to do it.
21:28:18 <leong> Kei (Fujitsu) and I plan to propose another session as well (further discussion at today regional meeting)
21:28:40 <leong> no problem....i can go ahead and submit the Working Group session :)
21:28:46 <shamail> thanks kencjohnston, I will be at 3 session limit
21:29:05 <CarolBarrett> #action Leong Submit the PWG working session for Boston
21:29:39 <CarolBarrett> What other proposals are people making? And what other ones do you think should be made??
21:30:03 <HeidiJoy> This submission should go through the usual channels (CFP process) but note that we as a PWG also have the opportunity to fill 32 slots with project updates, which are not through the regular CFP process, so there is some wiggle room.
21:30:04 <kencjohnston> I'll be doing an OSIC Roadmap review submission
21:30:31 <kencjohnston> HeidiJoy: Project updates? Can you say more about that?
21:31:16 <shamail> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/product_working_group/2017/product_working_group.2017-01-16-21.00.log.html#l-210
21:31:18 <HeidiJoy> It was what I brought up last week: 32, 40-minute slots for PTLs to provide updates and Q&A time on their project. I have an email coming to the PWG shortly requesting further input. No need to discuss now.
21:31:51 <kencjohnston> HeidiJoy: Thanks.
21:34:02 <kencjohnston> Next topic?
21:34:12 <CarolBarrett> Ok....
21:34:23 <CarolBarrett> #topic Simplifying User Story Submission
21:34:30 <CarolBarrett> Shamail - You're up again!
21:34:34 <shamail> Thanks!
21:35:11 <shamail> The topic of simplifying our workflow/user story submission process was established as an overall goal for the PWG in this cycle.
21:35:50 <shamail> With things like the Forum, collaboration with other communities (e.g. OPNFV, etc.) and our role in helping aggregate needs from the UC WGs it is fairly critical at this point
21:36:29 <shamail> In the future, it would be great if we could get more people submitting stories themselves and working with us to help refine content as needed, figure out how to move things to the next stage, etc.
21:36:43 <shamail> I had volunteered to lead this goal for the cycle
21:36:58 <shamail> and would greatly appreciate help from the team in brainstorming possible solutions: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PWG-story-submission-ideas
21:37:00 <shamail> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PWG-story-submission-ideas
21:37:28 <CarolBarrett> You can also find the link to the etherpad on our Wiki under Ocata Goals
21:37:33 <shamail> We have created an etherpad to capture possible ways to simplify the process and I would like you to add additional ideas
21:37:52 <shamail> We can revisit this in a week or two to start discussing a few of these in more detail for feasability
21:38:18 <shamail> Tom had also mentioned that he would be glad to send little pieces of information that he gets from his conversations with users to our mailing list
21:38:45 <shamail> It would be great if we could also capture those so they don’t get lost over time and we could eventually see trends or match them to user stories
21:39:49 <CarolBarrett> Shamail: Do you want to set a date for a follow-up discussion in this meeting?
21:39:54 <shamail> Let’s brain storm for now but the two areas we have been thinking about are: “Can we help ensure information that is not fully ready to become a user story yet could be captured/stored somewhere as a backlog item” and “Can we make the process of submitting and adhering to our format/template easier so that others can contribute directtly?"
21:40:20 <shamail> Let’s target the 6th for this one since we have a lot of things to do before next week
21:40:30 <leong> +1 shamail on the action plan
21:40:36 <shamail> I will be glad to send a reminder via ML next week
21:41:25 <shamail> That’s all for now on the topic… any questions/comments?
21:41:28 <CarolBarrett> #action Team add your thoughts to the etherpad for User Story Simplifcation
21:41:54 <CarolBarrett> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/PWG-story-submission-ideas
21:42:15 <CarolBarrett> #action Leong,Shamail add a topic to the 2/6 team meeting to review and discuss the etherpad ideas
21:42:47 <CarolBarrett> Anything else on this topic?
21:43:45 <CarolBarrett> Ok - then let's move along
21:43:49 <CarolBarrett> #topic Opens
21:43:56 <kencjohnston> I had one.
21:44:03 <CarolBarrett> go ahead kencjohnston
21:44:16 <kencjohnston> GeraldK started a thread about some confusion in our template between User Story and Use Case
21:44:25 <kencjohnston> Great call out GeraldK, thank you.
21:44:44 <kencjohnston> I've got a patch up that I THINK correct the confusion. Please review - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/424228/
21:45:13 <leong> the patch is a small change but affect many files...
21:45:23 <GeraldK> thanks kencjohnston. it is one option to solve the confusion.
21:45:33 <shamail> kencjohnston: +1 and great recommendation GeraldK
21:46:11 <kencjohnston> leong: Correct, and to be clear, I suggested an option other than GeraldK's original because the impact was lower.
21:46:57 <shamail> The question I have is that isn’t the “as a <persona>…” format generally called a user story in practice?
21:46:58 <shamail> #link http://www.boost.co.nz/blog/2012/01/use-cases-or-user-stories/
21:47:10 <shamail> Is user story == use case or is usage scenario == use case?
21:47:31 <GeraldK> the only "imperfection" of this solution is that we call the individual 1 sentence user stories "use cases".
21:47:59 <GeraldK> shamail: you are right. this is what is called a user story.
21:48:03 <shamail> user stories are lighter in my opinion whereas use case gives much more context (environment, giving variables definition, etc.)
21:48:09 <kencjohnston> GeraldK: shamail +1
21:48:16 <kencjohnston> But that would have us rename our entire repo
21:48:20 <kencjohnston> :)
21:48:31 <shamail> What if we replace usage scenario with use case
21:48:39 <GeraldK> but then, we also decided to call the overall document with all content a "user story" which then inside consists -among other things- of many user stories
21:48:50 <shamail> Would that not align with the necessary change and making the terms less interchangable?
21:48:56 <shamail> Yeah
21:49:04 <shamail> kencjohnston, GeraldK: I see the issue :|
21:49:21 <leong> the issue: "a user story within a user story"
21:49:30 <shamail> What would rename the repo to (ideally)?  That is always an option as well.
21:49:52 <kencjohnston> My suggestion, merge the "make it less confusing" patch, and then we can deliberate on the "make it use the standard terms" patch.
21:50:09 <shamail> kencjohnston: +1
21:50:12 <kencjohnston> shamail: ideally we would call them "OpenStack Use Cases"
21:50:14 <shamail> We could add it as a midcycle item
21:50:14 <GeraldK> ideally, I would rename what we call "user story" (i mean the whole thing) to something like "requirement specification". but then this is similar to our discussion team vs WG, folks know about our user stories in that sense as we used it in the past
21:50:35 <leong> +1 kencjohnston shamail
21:50:48 <andyu> +1
21:50:49 <shamail> requirement specification is too tactical and there is an implied implementation in the community when using “requirement"
21:51:03 <GeraldK> kenjohnson: -1 to merge the patch if we already forsee different terms to be used soon
21:51:03 <shamail> I agree with merging the less confusing patch for now
21:51:22 <kencjohnston> GeraldK: Foreseeing and merging can take months...
21:51:26 <shamail> it wont be soon GeraldK and the changes can be done incrementally
21:51:30 <HeidiJoy> +1 to considering renaming "user stories." In design we'd call it a "creative brief" - maybe in lieu of the word "requirement" consider "user needs" or "request" ... or similar?
21:51:33 <shamail> At the earliest, we would discuss in March
21:51:54 <HeidiJoy> +1 would love to discuss in person at midcycle
21:51:55 <shamail> the larger rename I meant
21:52:03 <GeraldK> i am concerned if we change and then change again folks would get even more confused...
21:52:05 <leong> let's merge the tentative change and we can discuss at midcycle in more details
21:52:15 <HeidiJoy> I've encountered a lot of confusion on the definition of "user story" however.
21:52:16 <leong> meanwhile giving the team time for ideas
21:52:37 <shamail> HeidiJoy: +1, especially in our community since we also have https://www.openstack.org/user-stories
21:52:51 <HeidiJoy> ^^ exactly
21:53:07 <andyu> +1 heidijoy
21:53:25 <kencjohnston> GeraldK: +1 for bringing it up, it is a glaring point of confusion.
21:53:33 <GeraldK> heidijoy: would creative brief replace the 1 sentence user stories or the big documents?
21:53:43 <CarolBarrett> #action Shamail, Leong, Cores Merge patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/424228/
21:53:43 <shamail> So what is the majority here?  Option #1: Review “less confusing” and discuss rename in Midcycle or Option #2 dont make any change for now and discuss at midcycle?
21:53:57 <GeraldK> shall we setup an Etherpad to discuss the various options?
21:54:03 <shamail> My vote is for #1
21:54:07 <andyu> what is being called a user story here will ultimately result in many user stories to implement (in an agile framework)
21:54:10 <shamail> GeraldK: please add it to the midcycle etherpad
21:54:15 <CarolBarrett> #action Shamail, Leong Include a topic at the Midcycle for further discussion on User Stories naming and structure
21:54:31 <leong> #1
21:54:32 <CarolBarrett> Shamail: +1
21:54:41 <shamail> GeraldK: Add section in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/MIL-pwg-meetup
21:54:42 <CarolBarrett> Other Opens?
21:55:14 <shamail> andyu: +1
21:55:19 <shamail> None from me
21:55:28 <MeganR> I'm good
21:55:32 <CarolBarrett> Next week, we want to get an update on location planning for our Midcycle. If you had previously indicated that you might have a location, pls be ready with an update
21:55:46 * shamail sad because we only have one more meeting with CarolBarrett :[
21:55:52 <kencjohnston> None from me.
21:55:55 <CarolBarrett> You can put it in the midcycle  planning etherpad, which can be found on our Wiki
21:55:58 <MeganR> Very sad!!
21:56:18 <CarolBarrett> I'll miss you guys....
21:56:42 <jamemcc> Jamey McCabe from LCOO (large contributing openstack operators) WG here.  I'll put this in the Midcycle planning Document:
21:56:43 <HeidiJoy> <3 We'll miss you too! <3
21:56:51 <jamemcc> It was a proposal to the member companies of LCOO that we could go to Milan to have our own Face to Face and also have sessions with PWG, however seems that we can't get a large enough group (in fact not likely more than 3 members could send staff).  As a result we'd like to see if we could have some joint session with PWG soon after.
21:57:12 <shamail> jamemcc: Is virtual okay?
21:57:12 <jamemcc> We are hoping to talk in general about our process but also about our User stories comign out of our roadmapping process that we hope to get help with. All this in prep for the Queens Forum.  One proposal is Telconference hosted by AT&T.
21:57:18 <CarolBarrett> Hi Jamey - good to see you here. Pls make additions to the etherpad!
21:58:22 <leong> jamemcc: or shot an email to maillist to start the discussion
21:58:50 <CarolBarrett> Let's wrap-up and get 2 mins back. We will pickup the midcycle topic next week or via the ML.
21:59:03 <CarolBarrett> Bye
21:59:07 <MeganR> Bye!
21:59:11 <CarolBarrett> #endmeeting