21:01:56 <ttx> #startmeeting project
21:01:57 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Oct 22 21:01:56 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:01:58 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:02:00 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'project'
21:02:04 <ttx> #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting
21:02:12 <ttx> A special meeting today, focused on the design summit scheduling
21:02:22 <lifeless> dum dum dum duuuuuuh
21:02:25 <russellb> every meeting is special.
21:02:34 <annegentle> here
21:02:37 <ttx> But first we'll do a quick release postmortem
21:02:41 <lifeless> like raindrops falling from the sky
21:02:42 <ttx> #topic Havana release postmortem
21:02:49 <ttx> So... last week we released Havana
21:02:56 <ttx> In general I think it went well
21:03:04 <ttx> All processes worked as planned
21:03:16 <ttx> We were a little too late for my taste
21:03:38 <ttx> i.e. we didn't switch to anal-rentention mode early enough
21:03:43 <ttx> I intend to discuss ways to mitigate that during the release schedule session in HK
21:03:48 <jgriffith> hey
21:03:49 <eglynn> also IIRC seemed to be slowness/breakages creeping into the gate towards the end
21:03:50 <russellb> seemed to happen < 1 week before release?
21:04:00 <eglynn> (which slowed down the merge rate significantly)
21:04:25 <ttx> russellb: we did some RC2s two weeks before final that were still a bit too significant
21:04:32 <sdague> well the breakages were all bugs in core projects, it did take a while to nail down those races
21:04:35 <annegentle> People who followed prior releases of OpenStack said these release notes were good.
21:04:43 <ttx> For a primer you can read http://fnords.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/getting-to-havana/
21:04:56 <annegentle> I can't take credit for them, but docs writers did some real digging to compile those.
21:05:04 <annegentle> with the ptls
21:05:09 <ttx> I think we lost a week at the beginning recovering from the intense feature freeze week
21:05:18 <russellb> annegentle: yep i got a lot of help, it was great
21:05:31 <ttx> so we either need to make it less intense, or add a week
21:05:37 <russellb> ttx: +1, i was fried after that
21:05:46 <annegentle> I'm not sure you can decrease the intensity, deadlines kind of do that to humans?
21:06:00 <dhellmann> o/
21:06:09 <eglynn> re. lateness and heavy RCs, reasonable flexibility was shown with FFEs IMHO
21:06:25 <ttx> Do you have any issue with the release process, or another FAIL to report while you still remember it ?
21:06:25 <sdague> right, so move the freeze back a week. The mad rush definitely burns up reviewers
21:06:26 <eglynn> ... said as a benificiary of one of those FFEs ;)
21:06:49 <ttx> sdague, russellb: that's one of the options yes
21:07:21 <gabrielhurley> from the Horizon side, I'd just like to encourage PTLs of other projects to communicate their "banner features" for a release early and often to the Horizon team so we can plan our integration accordingly
21:07:26 <sdague> ttx: I think my only regret is we didn't get parallel testing in until right near H3, and it shook out a lot of bugs, but would have been nicer earlier
21:07:29 <markwash> ttx: one improvement, we need to get you a desk so you don't have to fill out your checklists on rocks any longer
21:07:36 <russellb> gabrielhurley: good point
21:07:43 <annegentle> gabrielhurley: +1
21:07:50 <ttx> gabrielhurley: we might change the format of this meeting to make that more efficient
21:08:08 <gabrielhurley> ttx: any changes you think would help are welcome
21:08:18 <russellb> i guess that could help docs, too
21:08:29 <ttx> gabrielhurley: as in, we might just sync most of the release status offline at some other pre-arranged hour
21:08:33 <stevebaker> gabrielhurley: actually same goes for heat, regarding banner features and integration
21:08:44 <ttx> then use the meeting to communicate about cross-project
21:08:49 <ttx> and make that part short
21:08:57 <gabrielhurley> stevebaker: +1
21:09:05 <dolphm> and python-openstackclient
21:09:05 <gabrielhurley> this really goes for all the top-of-stack programs
21:09:12 <ttx> most of what happens in this meeting could happen in a 1:1 discussion between me and ptl
21:09:13 <annegentle> russellb: yep sure would
21:09:34 <ttx> and then the critical need for cross-project communication is a bit buried in it
21:09:39 <annegentle> ttx: I like that reformat of the project meeting
21:09:45 <sdague> ttx: +1
21:09:46 <russellb> yeah, sounds interesting
21:09:58 <ttx> annegentle: I intend to polish a proposal and present it in the release schedule/process session
21:10:24 <gabrielhurley> +1, I look forward to this proposal
21:10:27 <russellb> ttx: know when that's going to be yet?
21:10:30 <ttx> no point in me preparing remarks all day and pasting them in channel while we have everybody's attention
21:10:47 <ttx> russellb: probably last day, before last slot
21:10:56 <ttx> last slot would be "the future of design summits"
21:11:07 <russellb> ah, k
21:11:11 <russellb> so 2nd to last slot
21:11:21 <ttx> OK... we also have a number of known issues to backport to stable/havana
21:11:29 <ttx> I know of bug 1242855
21:11:30 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1242855 in keystone "Removing role adds role with LDAP backend" [Critical,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1242855
21:11:35 <ttx> Any other really embarrassing bug that crept in ?
21:11:52 <annegentle> ttx: I have a question about bugs post-release
21:12:00 <ttx> as in, if it had been discovered last week you would have asked for a new RC to cover for it
21:12:05 <ttx> annegentle: ask
21:12:23 <annegentle> ttx: do you mark bugs that didn't get fixed in havana as icehouse targeted? Or untarget them completel?
21:13:24 <annegentle> ttx: looking at nova, I think you mass-target to next-release
21:13:44 <ttx> annegentle: err... what do you mean by icehouse-targeted ?
21:13:56 <annegentle> ttx: Milestone
21:13:59 <annegentle> ttx: sorry
21:14:01 <ttx> icehouse1-milestone-targeted ?
21:14:10 <annegentle> ttx: right
21:14:36 <ttx> you mean, bugs that were havana-rc-potential that didn't get fixed ?
21:15:07 <annegentle> ttx: looking at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/BugTriage, it doesn't say if any particular thing happens at release
21:15:29 <ttx> nothing particular happens at release
21:15:43 <ttx> you can target some of the deferred fixes to your next milestone
21:15:51 <ttx> but that would be a manual thing
21:15:58 <annegentle> ttx: and looking at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Bugs it looks like a judgement call, Milestone
21:16:07 <ttx> the only thing I do is untag havana-rc-potential and make them havana-backport-potential
21:16:15 <annegentle> ttx: ok, so you're not using the launchpad API for moving bugs around?
21:16:20 <ttx> annegentle: no
21:16:25 <annegentle> ttx: got it, thanks
21:16:44 <ttx> If you have embarassing bugs in havana, would be great to document them all in the Release Notes so that the early upgraders know about all of them.
21:17:01 <annegentle> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/Havana
21:17:11 <ttx> and yes, bug 1242855 counts as embarassing :)
21:17:12 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1242855 in keystone "Removing role adds role with LDAP backend" [Critical,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1242855
21:17:34 <ttx> anything to add about havana ?
21:17:35 <gabrielhurley> I find that bug hilarious :-)
21:17:37 <annegentle> gabrielhurley: any specific examples for banner features?
21:17:40 * dolphm ++
21:17:50 <ttx> gabrielhurley: hiilarious bugs are also release notes material :)
21:18:10 <russellb> i don't think i have anything hilarious, or severely depressing, but I think that's good
21:18:13 <gabrielhurley> annegentle: the one that brought this to the forefront of my mind in Havana was miscommunication around the VPNaaS and FWaaS between myself and the Neutron guys that led to some FFEs and long nights for folks to get them in
21:18:20 <gabrielhurley> they did a great job getting that done, btw
21:18:27 <gabrielhurley> props to the devs who worked on those
21:18:35 <ttx> russellb: that would be one of the first release without a OMG bug discovered +1week
21:18:35 <gabrielhurley> but we shouldn't have needed to do that
21:18:45 <markmcclain> gabrielhurley: +1 those sub teams did a great job
21:19:07 <ttx> OK, time to talk Hong-Kong
21:19:14 <annegentle> gabrielhurley: good, I think you're ahead of docs there, people do seem confused about VPNaaS and FWaaS docs
21:19:25 <ttx> #topic Design Summit scheduling
21:19:26 <eglynn> what's the deadline for PTLs to review and reject/accept design session proposals?
21:19:38 <ttx> eglynn: We are trying to produce a schedule before the end of the week.
21:19:44 <ttx> Does that sound doable for everyone ?
21:19:51 <sdague> good for me
21:19:57 <SergeyLukjanov> for me too
21:20:01 <annegentle> sure
21:20:09 <ttx> Then we use the following days to fix conflicts
21:20:16 <russellb> good for me, mostly done (in an etherpad, not on the site yet)
21:20:24 <eglynn> ttx: well jd__ is on vacation this week, not sure how off-grid he is though
21:20:36 <ttx> eglynn: all week ?
21:20:50 <ttx> damn the french with all their vacation time
21:21:00 <sdague> heh
21:21:05 <eglynn> ttx: hmm, not 100% sure on that, may only be the the 1st half of the week
21:21:08 <annegentle> oui oiu
21:21:19 <eglynn> he's defo out tmrw also
21:21:23 <annegentle> wah
21:21:32 <ttx> eglynn: if not I could give you the keys if necessary
21:21:37 <lifeless> how do we check conflicts?
21:21:44 <eglynn> ttx: fair enough
21:21:49 <lifeless> I mean, do I click 'push to sched' and then ???
21:21:55 <russellb> lifeless: manually and then hope for the best i think
21:22:06 <ttx> lifeless: we can anticipate them using comments that may have been left by people. Otherwise we just post and wait for complaints
21:22:07 <sdague> ttx: so how soon will things be in place for us to start pushing things out? I'm mostly done on our schedule, and it would be good to have it out there before the QA meeting on Thurs so we can adjust
21:22:08 <lifeless> russellb: sure, but I mean in a little more detail...
21:22:13 <eglynn> BTW is it clear yet approx. how many sessions will be available to each track?
21:22:20 <eglynn> (modulo horse-trading or whatever ...)
21:22:25 <lifeless> eglynn: nowhere near enough!
21:22:32 <ttx> lifeless: also we can't please everyone, so pleasing all the PTLs as a first step is good
21:22:35 <dhellmann> can we push to sched more than once, if we do change the schedule?
21:22:50 <lifeless> there needs to be a PTL FAQ for this I think ;>
21:22:51 <ttx> sdague: we need to solve the sched question first. I'll come to it
21:22:53 <russellb> dhellmann: yep (or i was able to last time)
21:22:55 <ttx> Everyone: Do you have sessions in your "topic" that you think belong to another ?
21:23:12 <dhellmann> russellb: cool, I expected as much but wanted to be sure #n00b
21:23:13 <notmyname> dhellmann: yes, and in the past you can update the schedule even during the event
21:23:15 <jeblair> ttx: yes
21:23:16 <devananda> I had one, already re-proposed it to Ceilometer
21:23:20 <stevebaker> not really
21:23:21 <sdague> ttx: I mostly kicked those out with comments
21:23:21 <markwash> ttx: one maybe
21:23:29 <russellb> just some that we recommended to unconference, mostly
21:23:30 <markwash> (http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/220)
21:23:31 <dhellmann> ttx: I've already dealt with that, so not any more
21:23:31 <lifeless> ttx: I do
21:23:34 <ttx> jeblair: you can use this meeting to trade
21:23:58 <ttx> (or try to)
21:23:59 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, nope
21:24:01 <jeblair> markmc is not around; is there an oslo ptl proxy here?
21:24:09 <dhellmann> I'm here :-)
21:24:11 <sdague> dhellmann's the ptl now :)
21:24:11 <ttx> jeblair: that would be dhellmann
21:24:15 <dolphm> haha
21:24:15 <jeblair> gah
21:24:25 <jeblair> wrong wiki page.  ;)
21:24:29 <dhellmann> not a big deal
21:24:33 <lifeless> markmcclain: ttx: http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/314
21:24:34 <dhellmann> oh, which one do I need to update?
21:25:04 <lifeless> markmcclain: I'm gonig to chat with snaiksnat once my run of meetings are done
21:25:16 <markmcclain> ok
21:25:21 <ttx> lifeless: you scheduled it so i suspect you found room for it ?
21:25:22 <markwash> russellb: do you have any interest in this? http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/220 I think the right technical solution is a nova change rather than a glance change. I'm okay with giving it a glance slot but would love to have relevant nova folks there
21:25:29 <jeblair> dhellmann: if i deep link to http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/124 can you see that?
21:25:33 <dhellmann> russellb: I suggested that boris-42 submit some of the db changes he wants to make in the nova track, did you get those?
21:25:35 <lifeless> ttx: I'm oversubscribed by about 3:1 :P
21:25:42 <dhellmann> jeblair: yes
21:25:44 <jeblair> i never know what access people have in the summit app
21:25:45 <jeblair> coll
21:25:46 <dhellmann> jeblair: reading
21:25:52 <russellb> markwash: we'd probably reject it as something we could probably cover on the ML
21:25:52 <dolphm> jeblair: ++
21:25:53 <sdague> actually, russellb, this one seems mostly about nova unit tests - http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/317
21:25:54 <lifeless> ttx: but we'll muddle through
21:26:03 <boris-42> dhellmann what?)
21:26:03 <russellb> dhellmann: didn't get that, no, i don't think
21:26:06 <ttx> lifeless: welcome to hell
21:26:06 <dhellmann> jeblair: oh, man, why rebuild chef, puppet, etc.?
21:26:10 <boris-42> dhellmann we have only one DB session
21:26:23 <jeblair> dhellmann: and http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/318
21:26:34 <lifeless> ttx: heh, so to me the value is not in the discussion but in the face to face
21:26:39 <dhellmann> boris-42: maybe roman was going to do it? we agreed some of the sub-topics needed a different audience
21:26:46 <lifeless> ttx: plans don't survive more than a few weeks post summit anyhow
21:26:51 <dhellmann> boris-42: let's discuss later, if we need to
21:26:51 <lifeless> ttx: but thats a meta discussion
21:26:57 <russellb> dhellmann: yeah, though i suppose it applies to some other projects ... but don't think I'd give it nova track time.  it's not terribly controversial or anything, and is already well in progress
21:26:58 <boris-42> dhellmann Okay
21:27:00 <jeblair> oh! i can change the topic by clicking on it in the list
21:27:22 <dhellmann> russellb: ok, I thought the soft delete thing in particular might spark some discussion, since it wants to have nova depend on ceilometer
21:27:25 <jeblair> so the ui paradigm is 'click on the hyperlink for the aspect of the proposal you want to change'
21:27:26 <lifeless> markmcclain: so #openstack-neutron after this I guess :)
21:27:35 <ttx> sdague: you're not suposed to come up with exciting titles, otherwise you'll attract the crowd (re: "Preemptively Integrate the Universe")
21:27:42 <markwash> russellb: hmm. . this is just sort of a long-term standstill so far :-(
21:27:43 <sdague> heh
21:28:01 <sdague> well I'll let jeblair make the title boring
21:28:03 <russellb> dhellmann: oops, that was meant for sdague
21:28:05 <dhellmann> jeblair: I guess http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/318 could fit with oslo
21:28:14 <russellb> dhellmann: don't think i've seen a session related to what you're saying
21:28:20 <markmcclain> lifeless: sounds good
21:28:23 <gabrielhurley> ttx: where would you suggest that up-and-coming Programs (I'm specifically looking at the proposed UX Program) get time allotted to them in the scheduling process?
21:28:25 <sdague> russellb: heh, yeh honestly, I think 317 doesn't really need a session
21:28:31 <dhellmann> russellb: I'll leave it for boris-42 to submit
21:28:32 <russellb> sdague: agreed
21:28:36 <russellb> dhellmann: ok
21:28:41 <sdague> but I figured I'd let you know before I punted it entirely in case you disagreed
21:28:43 <russellb> boris-42: if you are submitting anything, please do it asap
21:28:50 <russellb> sdague: sure, appreciated
21:28:53 <boris-42> russellb okay
21:29:01 <ttx> gabrielhurley: they don't, unless they are invited by an existing topic -- we can't provide room for all wannabees and the line has to be drawn somewhere
21:29:03 <boris-42> russellb 30 min ok?
21:29:06 <russellb> sdague: unless you think there's some controversy or important discussion to have around it
21:29:09 <russellb> boris-42: from now?  yes
21:29:12 <lifeless> ttx: so I clicked on push to sched
21:29:14 <dhellmann> jeblair: did you want me to take http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/124 over? I don't expect I would approve of a system like that
21:29:15 <boris-42> russellb yeah from now-)
21:29:16 <ttx> gabrielhurley: there is an unconference room for random things
21:29:18 <jeblair> dhellmann: 318 bumped to oslo
21:29:19 <lifeless> ttx: and it said
21:29:22 <jeblair> dhellmann: let's ask lifeless
21:29:24 <ttx> lifeless: that should fail
21:29:26 <lifeless> Would have pushed to sched.org:
21:29:27 <sdague> russellb: not really, it's just a getting stuff done thing I think
21:29:28 <lifeless> ttx: ok
21:29:31 <gabrielhurley> ttx: I see. Way to make me choose, since http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/111 is submitted to the Horizon track...
21:29:32 <jeblair> lifeless: want http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/124 ?
21:29:36 <russellb> sdague: ok agreed
21:29:37 <ttx> lifeless: until the sched API key field is filled
21:29:39 <lifeless> ttx: so I'm confused about how we collaborate ;P
21:29:56 <sdague> lifeless: via IRC, like always :)
21:29:56 <ttx> lifeless: we need to solve the one sched / two sched question first
21:30:11 <jeblair> dhellmann, lifeless: because i'm not likely to accept 124 in infra)
21:30:12 <ttx> lifeless: then I'll enter the corresponding sched.org APi key
21:30:22 <lifeless> jeblair: sheese yeah.
21:30:36 <russellb> yeah doesn't seem infra related really, heh
21:30:37 <dhellmann> jeblair: yeah, it doesn't fit there
21:30:38 <ttx> lifeless: havign a "private" sched would let us push early, push often
21:30:39 <lifeless> jeblair: uhm, I think there are good aspects to having live configuration
21:30:49 <lifeless> jeblair: but it's a) not openstack-infra
21:31:07 <sdague> jeblair: any idea who the proposer for 124 is? honestly the last time that came up on the ML there was some talk about it being a keystone thing
21:31:10 <russellb> ooh ooh, what's b)
21:31:13 <lifeless> jeblair: and b) not a library problem per se - there's lots of consequences that that proposal doesn't think about
21:31:24 <lifeless> like graceful operation in mixed version clouds
21:31:25 <dolphm> sdague: joe brue
21:31:29 <dolphm> breu*
21:31:39 <jeblair> lifeless: oh, yeah, agreed.  i'm not evaluating the merits.  i'm just saying it's not infra.
21:31:58 <russellb> can reject it saying "consensus is we hate it"
21:32:05 <lifeless> dhellmann: oslo is as good a place as any; it's not a deployment problem per se: I think oslo is a decent place to start the discussion
21:32:18 <devananda> jeblair: reminds me of issues with the central config mgmt of NDB cluster ...
21:32:22 <lifeless> dhellmann: deployment can certainly inform the discussion (but so can all the API services)
21:32:25 <ttx> Another question: is there anyone who has TOO MANY SLOTS and wants to give them out to their neighbour ?
21:32:31 <dhellmann> lifeless: ok, I'm running out of space but we'll see
21:32:33 <lifeless> ttx: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
21:32:52 <ttx> lifeless: last summit we had Glance and Horizon giving some slots out :)
21:32:59 <lifeless> ttx: http://summit.openstack.org/scheduling/13 btw
21:33:06 <devananda> devstack has only 2 proposals?
21:33:15 <sdague> devananda: it only has 2 slots
21:33:24 <devananda> ah :)
21:33:26 <dhellmann> jeblair: I can't edit 124, but if you want to put it in oslo I'll deal with it
21:33:30 <ttx> lifeless: busy :)
21:33:32 <jeblair> dhellmann: ok, will punt to you for now then.  you can punt it to lifeless later i guess.  :)
21:33:43 <ttx> lifeless: you can edit the common title of those merged sessions fwiw
21:33:44 <dhellmann> jeblair: hehe
21:33:59 <ttx> lifeless: see "Help" at the bottom of the page
21:34:04 <lifeless> devananda: where do you see devstacks sessions ?
21:34:12 <sdague> it's conference hot potato
21:34:21 <devananda> lifeless: http://summit.openstack.org/ and click 'topic' to sort
21:34:29 <rackerjoe> russellb: http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/124 would probably make more sense in oslo and not infra
21:34:46 <jeblair> rackerjoe: it just got moved to oslo
21:34:53 <rackerjoe> cool
21:35:12 <jeblair> rackerjoe: (for consideration, not approved)
21:35:21 <rackerjoe> jeblair: understood
21:35:27 * ttx likes the session trading fair
21:35:28 <lifeless> devananda: thanks
21:35:31 <dhellmann> rackerjoe: I'll see if I can find space for it, but I was already full
21:35:56 <devananda> eglynn: since jd__ isn't here, i'd like to point out http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/197
21:36:08 <devananda> eglynn: moved from ironic track after talking offline with jd__ about it
21:36:30 <devananda> eglynn: at the time, you guys still had some free slots :)
21:36:37 <eglynn> devananda: yep, I noticed that, we definitely need to discuss those topics in detail
21:36:45 <devananda> cool
21:36:52 <eglynn> devananda: (so it were up to me, that would be a shoo-in ...)
21:37:20 <lifeless> ttx: thanks!
21:37:31 <devananda> russellb: anything in the nova track on baremetal? (i'm skimming right now)
21:37:45 <ttx> Please continue the session trading fair, but we'll address the question of one or two scheds in parallel
21:37:53 <ttx> #topic Separate or same sched.org ?
21:37:54 <russellb> devananda: nothing
21:38:09 <jeblair> ttx: #vote separate
21:38:12 <ttx> We need to decide this ASAP, since we want to start pushing stuff before the end of week
21:38:14 <russellb> #vote separate
21:38:20 <sdague> #vote separate
21:38:22 <dhellmann> #vote separate
21:38:25 <stevebaker> #vote separate
21:38:25 <ttx> So far, 9 of you said they preferred 2 scheds, and 3 of you preferred one (notmyname, annegentle, SergeyLukjanov)
21:38:26 <dolphm> #vote separate
21:38:29 <markwash> #vote separate
21:38:31 <gabrielhurley> #vote separate
21:38:31 <dtroyer> #vote separate
21:38:31 <eglynn> #vote separate
21:38:34 <ttx> 10
21:38:37 <hub_cap> #vote separate
21:38:39 <ttx> 12
21:38:41 <annegentle> #vote oneschedtorulethemall
21:38:43 <devananda> #vote separate
21:38:51 <jgriffith> #vote separate
21:38:58 <jeblair> annegentle: why rule only the mall?
21:39:05 <lifeless> ok http://summit.openstack.org/scheduling/13 seems sanish now
21:39:06 <SergeyLukjanov> #vote oneschedtorulethemall
21:39:06 <annegentle> jeblair: hee hee
21:39:09 <lifeless> #vote separate
21:39:13 <dolphm> jeblair: annegentle: castle?
21:39:18 <gabrielhurley> jeblair: that's where the cinnabon is
21:39:31 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov, annegentle, notmyname: would separate scheds work for you, or you prefer to die before we do it ?
21:39:43 <ttx> annegentle voted separate above
21:39:46 <notmyname> why separate? only to discourage looky-loos from coming by? isn't the whole point to have users and devs come together?
21:39:49 <russellb> devananda: you want to lead one?  could do it on Friday, when we're doing other hypervisor sessions ... up to you.  don't mind not having it if nobody wants to talk about it ...
21:39:55 <lifeless> notmyname: not 5000 of them
21:39:57 <notmyname> ttx: yes, we should have either separate or a unified sched
21:40:00 <russellb> devananda: maybe it makes sense that all the relevant chat is about Ironic
21:40:06 <dolphm> lifeless: not sure who that link was intended for, but i get a 403
21:40:11 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, sure, it'll work but it doesn't look very useful for attendees
21:40:23 <lifeless> dolphm: its the deployment schedule, I don't know who can look at it
21:40:28 <devananda> russellb: i think it makes sense to keep it all in ironic, and i've only got one or two to merge so far
21:40:36 <russellb> devananda: OK, sounds good
21:40:37 <lifeless> dolphm: ttx: if only ttx + me can, I think that suggests a summit bug
21:40:47 <devananda> russellb: with the plan of 'stop adding things to noa-baremetal and deprecate it', i think it 's fine not to have a sessiona bout it
21:40:58 <russellb> devananda: ack
21:41:07 <dhellmann> notmyname: having separate schedules does not in any way prevent people from coming to the summit sessions, but it does make it easier for ATCs to find summit sessions
21:41:14 <annegentle> I won't fight long or hard for it but I hate to ask that much work of people this late. It's a known problem, we try to solve it with different solutions, why rush around this week on a second sched.org
21:41:14 <ttx> notmyname: benefits for separate is: weeding out people, abilityt o use colors to difefrentiate design summit topics, and ability to push schedule early for final tweaking without messing with the "official" one
21:41:27 <dolphm> more summit.openstack.org pages need more read-only visibility
21:41:29 <notmyname> dhellmann: hmm...I didn't think the ATC discovery issue was the problem being solved
21:41:30 <lifeless> devananda: we've got a couple of small things still to go, but then it really should be stoppable.
21:41:32 <ttx> notmyname: drawback being obviously having to juggle
21:41:42 <dhellmann> ttx: can we not use separate colors if we have a single sched?
21:41:46 <devananda> lifeless: bug fixes notwithstanding :)
21:42:01 <sdague> dhellmann: you run out of useful colors pretty quick
21:42:02 <dolphm> dhellmann: can, but colors alone won't be effective
21:42:04 <ttx> dhellmann: that would make a lot of undistinguishable colors
21:42:08 <lifeless> devananda: supporting ephemeral partitions for instance; arguable on the wire but really need it :)
21:42:13 <devananda> and some of us don't see colors the same way ....
21:42:19 <lifeless> what are colours ?
21:42:29 <sdague> already 18 used on - http://openstacksummitnovember2013.sched.org/
21:42:34 <dolphm> ttx: i did like the "warm colors for technical topics, and cool colors for everything else" thing you suggested
21:42:40 <ttx> sdague: that would make 38 colors
21:42:40 <annegentle> yeah I think solving the colors issue just for ATCs is a LOT of work for just colors and just ATCs
21:42:47 <lifeless> /lots/ of people are partially color blind
21:42:47 <dolphm> but everyone will quickly look past that
21:42:52 <dolphm> lifeless: +++
21:43:10 * russellb doesn't feel *that* strongly ... just want to make sure we have the right people, and more importantly, not the wrong people in the room
21:43:16 <russellb> so if a separate sched helps that, then +++
21:43:17 <sdague> honestly, the big issue is what we saw with nova on day one last year
21:43:18 <devananda> ++ not the wrong people ...
21:43:18 <annegentle> ttx: have you re-evaluated the time sink a second sched.org is and come up with it's really not bad?
21:43:23 <russellb> because it can seriously kill productivity
21:43:31 <lifeless> there will be about 500 colour blind people in HK
21:43:32 <markwash> optimize colors for tetrachromats
21:43:41 <ttx> lifeless: yes, only admins and topic leads can see the scheduling screen
21:43:48 <devananda> russellb: it wasn't jsut on day one ...
21:43:52 <russellb> i really don't see why it's painful to have a separate
21:43:55 <russellb> devananda: ++
21:44:06 <ttx> annegentle: it's not really long to set up
21:44:12 * notmyname will use whatever is provided
21:44:18 <ttx> annegentle: especially if you borrow the artwork from the first one
21:44:24 <ttx> annegentle: there is a cost though
21:44:24 <lifeless> so there are many people that are not actually interested in directly contributing to the design work
21:44:33 <lifeless> they are usually first-time attendees - 2.5K *new* folk this time
21:44:57 <lifeless> the challenge isn't 'keep people out' it's - help the several thousand new attendees get to things that actually help them
21:45:00 <ttx> sdague: the space in HK is physically separated from the conference, requires a "full access" pass and the design summit starts on the same day as the conference, so I don't expect that many bystanders
21:45:01 <sdague> do we know what the physical layout is going to be?
21:45:11 <russellb> cost of 2nd sched <<<<< cost of disrupted sessions by having the room full of the wrong people
21:45:13 <notmyname> I don't really think it's an argument worth having. I'd prefer a unified schedule for the appearance of unity, if nothing else. I'll use whatever, and it seems that the majority wants separate schedules
21:45:19 <ttx> physically as in 500 meters away
21:45:24 * notmyname is used to being in the minority ;-)
21:45:26 <lifeless> ttx: wow
21:45:30 <markmcclain> sdague: layout isn't really important… its the titles and topics that attract
21:45:40 <ttx> lifeless: not the same building, afaik
21:45:41 * hub_cap converts that to ft
21:45:43 <devananda> ttx: nice. except for when we need to run between them due to scheduling conflicts ;)
21:45:49 <annegentle> ttx: ok if it's really not hard, it's worthwhile to try to somewhat obfuscate the ATC schedule, but I worry about our "open" claim being a bit disingenous
21:45:57 <dolphm> with two schedules, i'm still slightly worried that people will come across the "wrong" schedule for them
21:45:59 <dhellmann> this second sched won't be private or hidden, right? so people can still find the summit
21:46:01 <lifeless> ttx: I'm so going to be rushing from A to B on tuesday
21:46:10 <lifeless> OTOH the rest of the week can be drinking 101, so \o/
21:46:17 <jeblair> annegentle: wow, i don't think this makes ANYTHING less open
21:46:23 <markwash> hub_cap: technically its 100 rods, but was rounded
21:46:25 <devananda> given that it's apparently a separate building (!!) then a separate sched makes even more sense to me.
21:46:36 <markmcclain> my preference is one schedule
21:46:41 <hub_cap> markwash :)
21:46:45 <dolphm> to rule the mall
21:46:51 <russellb> vote and move on?
21:46:54 <ttx> yeah
21:46:55 <annegentle> must rule the mall
21:46:57 <lifeless> we did...
21:47:00 <russellb> heh
21:47:10 <jeblair> annegentle: we're doing everything possible to avoid having to do something that does physically prevent over-attendance
21:47:11 <ttx> #startvote How many scheds? One, Two
21:47:11 <openstack> Begin voting on: How many scheds? Valid vote options are One, Two.
21:47:12 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
21:47:17 <hub_cap> maybe we need a vote to change the previous vote?
21:47:20 <russellb> #vote Two
21:47:23 <gabrielhurley> #vote Two
21:47:23 <markmcclain> #vote One
21:47:25 <SergeyLukjanov> #vote One
21:47:27 <markwash> #vote Two
21:47:28 <devananda> #vote two
21:47:29 <stevebaker> #vote Two
21:47:30 <eglynn> #vote Two
21:47:32 <sdague> #vote Two
21:47:32 <jeblair> annegentle: i think that shows quite a commitment to being open
21:47:32 <lifeless> #vote One
21:47:34 <lifeless> erm
21:47:34 <dolphm> #vote Two
21:47:35 <hub_cap> #vote Two
21:47:36 <lifeless> #vote Two
21:47:38 <jeblair> #vote Two
21:47:39 <dtroyer> #vote Two
21:47:39 <dhellmann> #vote two
21:47:44 <annegentle> #vote One
21:47:44 * dolphm unsure of case sensitivity
21:47:46 <ttx> Oh, I forgot the abstain option
21:47:58 <jgriffith> #vote Two
21:48:00 <dhellmann> #vote Two
21:48:01 <notmyname> #vote one
21:48:13 <jgriffith> I vote no more abstain votes
21:48:13 <notmyname> #vote One
21:48:32 <ttx> 30 more seconds, you might want to vote with the right capitalization, not sure how dumb the bot is
21:48:38 <annegentle> jeblair: I didn't realize it's a separate building too?
21:48:46 <devananda> #vote Two
21:48:53 <markwash> it complains about invalid votes usually I think?
21:48:57 <jeblair> annegentle: i belive that was by design to cut down on unintended crossover
21:48:57 <dhellmann> jgriffith: +1
21:49:12 <ttx> reed: around ?
21:49:20 <ttx> #endvote
21:49:21 <openstack> Voted on "How many scheds?" Results are
21:49:21 <reed> yep
21:49:22 <openstack> Two (14): stevebaker, dhellmann, jeblair, eglynn, russellb, devananda, markwash, sdague, lifeless, gabrielhurley, dolphm, jgriffith, dtroyer, hub_cap
21:49:23 <openstack> One (4): annegentle, markmcclain, notmyname, SergeyLukjanov
21:49:42 <gabrielhurley> ttx: so, should we not push the "push to sched" button right now? I have my sessions laid out basically how I like, but want to make sure they go to the right place...
21:49:51 <ttx> reed: how far is the design summit from the rest of the conference ?
21:49:59 <reed> upstairs?
21:50:00 <ttx> reed: ISTR it's a separate building
21:50:22 <hub_cap> gabrielhurley: he said he'd be configuring the proper sched after the vote
21:50:27 * ttx tries to access maps
21:50:28 <reed> let me check
21:50:35 <hub_cap> i guess its sometime after that we can push
21:50:40 <sdague> ttx: I didn't think there were that many buildings on that part of the island
21:50:41 <gabrielhurley> hub_cap: thanks, I missed that
21:50:55 <ttx> gabrielhurley: pushing the button will do nothing at this point except show you URLs it would call if only it had an API key
21:51:00 <gabrielhurley> lol
21:51:01 <gabrielhurley> okay
21:51:08 <dolphm> i'd like to start seeing other track's schedules as soon as possible, to try and avoid competing for audience in the same time slot
21:51:17 * gabrielhurley pushes it just to be ornery
21:51:24 <ttx> I'll try to get the sched set up tomorrow, but will depend how fast Lauren can pay for one
21:51:46 <reed> can't find the maps :(
21:51:59 <ttx> dolphm: yeah, that's actually a benefit of "Two sched", being able to push WIP
21:52:02 * reed digging deeper
21:52:12 <ttx> since we don't have to make that URL very well known just yet
21:52:23 * ttx looks
21:53:05 <ttx> you can continue trading sessions while I look for conference maps
21:54:10 <SergeyLukjanov> ttx, I have a question about empty slots
21:54:16 <SergeyLukjanov> due to the https://docs.google.com/a/mirantis.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmUn0hzC1InKdDdPRXFrNjV4SW91SWF5N2gwYnRHYWc&usp=drive_web#gid=1
21:54:34 <SergeyLukjanov> there is an empty slot after savanna slots, currently we have about 14 proposals, I'm merging them now, but it'll be great to have one more slot to cover more questions
21:55:06 <SergeyLukjanov> if it's still empty :)
21:55:44 <russellb> how about we auction off the free slots
21:55:47 <ttx> SergeyLukjanov: it is. i don't want to make any jealous though :)
21:56:18 <dolphm> russellb: for what, bug fixes? dev time on bp's? what can you offer
21:56:18 <russellb> any last trading talk with nova?  i really need to go by end of hour
21:56:24 <hub_cap> lets draw straws!
21:56:24 <russellb> dolphm: heh i don't know'
21:56:29 <markwash> I could probably keep a slot free for. . other. . considerations
21:56:35 <lifeless> lol
21:56:36 <reed> ttx, the sessions will be under the same roof, different floors from the rest of the Summit
21:56:54 <ttx> reed: where can you see that ?
21:57:13 <hub_cap> reed: one floor for all summit sessions as well? you say different floors..
21:57:13 <reed> ttx, checked with Lauren :) she saw that
21:57:27 <dhellmann> eglynn: do you know if we have room for http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/318 in the ceilometer track?
21:57:31 <ttx> reed: ah. ok
21:57:34 <reed> hub_cap, one floor for the Summit, one for the Design sessions
21:57:47 <hub_cap> awesome
21:57:51 <reed> https://www.dropbox.com/s/at4wj81f84jfaqh/May%202013%20Marketing%20Meeting.pptx slides 5 and 6
21:57:59 <dhellmann> eglynn: I want to make sure it's discussed, but I think it makes sense to continue the work they started in ceilometer before bringing it into oslo
21:58:02 <sdague> so the first QA slot we're going to actually all pile into the Neutron room to do Neutron / QA crossover, so that will be physically available as long as no one schedules something that would draw QA folks
21:58:24 <eglynn> dhellmann: I don't know
21:58:31 <dhellmann> eglynn: I'll email jd__
21:58:38 <reed> #link https://www.dropbox.com/s/at4wj81f84jfaqh/May%202013%20Marketing%20Meeting.pptx
21:58:38 <eglynn> dhellmann: (but agreed it would be preferable)
21:59:08 <reed> #info the Design summit will have its own floor with restaurant in the same building as the rest of the Summit though
21:59:19 <russellb> reed: thanks!
21:59:24 <reed> #info slides 5 and 6 have the floorplan
21:59:58 <russellb> OK, I have to go.  ping me via email or on irc tomorrow if anyone needs to chat about nova sessions
22:00:04 <dolphm> anyone know if we can edit session titles / descriptions after pushing to sched
22:00:16 <russellb> dolphm: you can re-push later
22:00:17 <eglynn> dhellmann: currently 14 proposals for 11 ceilo slots, but with some obvious opportunities for merging proposals
22:00:23 <dolphm> i discovered that once you set pre-approved, session proposers are no longer able to edit anything
22:00:28 <reed> #info  its a good 8-10 minute walk from the design summit to the breakout rooms in SkyCity Marriot, and about a 5 minute walk from the Design Summit to the Expo Hall which is also where 2 of the largest breakout rooms are located (we built these rooms inside the hall)
22:00:37 <eglynn> dhellmann: (so there may be some scope ...)
22:00:37 <dhellmann> eglynn: ok, thanks, I emailed jd__
22:00:58 <reed> #info it's a huge huge space, get ready to walk a lot or pack a scooter
22:01:16 <ttx> reed: so it's the same roof, but a very large roof
22:01:21 <sdague> dolphm: you have to pop it back off the schedule, or click the pencil
22:01:29 <reed> ttx, as far as I understand it, yes
22:01:39 <reed> we really need a scooter
22:01:42 <sdague> edit modes seem to be a bit interesting
22:02:16 <devananda> reed: distance between breakout rooms in the Marriot and the Expo Hall?
22:02:28 <hub_cap> maybe they have moving walkways like in airports
22:02:42 <ttx> ok we need to leave room
22:02:53 <jgriffith> pneumatic transport tubes
22:03:01 <markwash> mortars and trampolines
22:03:02 <reed> hub_cap, nope :( chmouel will be able to train for the marathon in there
22:03:04 <ttx> we can continue this in #openstack-dev if necessary
22:03:14 <ttx> #endmeeting