21:02:42 <ttx> #startmeeting project
21:02:43 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Nov 11 21:02:42 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:02:44 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:02:46 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'project'
21:02:50 <ttx> Our agenda for today:
21:02:54 <ttx> #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting
21:03:05 <ttx> #topic Design Summit feedback
21:03:14 <ttx> First I'd like to ask you for feedback on last week
21:03:23 <ttx> Did the format (cross-project + scheduled + meetup) work well for you ?
21:03:37 <ttx> would you rather have more of one or the other ?
21:04:03 <dhellmann> the cross-project time was good for me. Oslo didn't have meetup time, but our team went to meetups for other projects so I think that was useful.
21:04:04 <eglynn_> mostly good IMO
21:04:11 <eglynn_> I would have liked fewer clashes of the newer project sessions (e.g. zaqar) with the cross-project track tho'
21:04:17 <morganfainberg> It felt like the cross-project sessions were largely conflicting booked. but otherwise it was good
21:04:17 <asalkeld> maybe I am getting old, but I was exhausted for the friday session
21:04:45 <morganfainberg> the meetup format was very nice to have, though it wont eliminate the need (at least for Keystone) to have a mid-cycle.
21:05:09 <ttx> Did you make use of program pods or were they always taken by someone ?
21:05:10 <eglynn_> IMO the contributor meetup worked well up to about ~3pm on Friday
21:05:16 <eglynn_> (when folks started getting zombified and running outta steam)
21:05:16 <dhellmann> were the meetup sessions productive, or were there too many non-contributors in the room?
21:05:31 <david-lyle> format was an improvement
21:05:39 <asalkeld> eglynn_, yeah that was me
21:05:51 <eglynn_> dhellmann: productive I think, few radomers in the ceilo case
21:05:51 <morganfainberg> dhellmann, i think the bigger issue with the meetup was tiredness and doubled-up rooms. not really non-contributors there
21:06:03 <eglynn_> *randomers :)
21:06:06 <morganfainberg> dhellmann, the latter being a limit of the space we had.
21:06:10 <david-lyle> meetup worked well for Horizon, some random faces, but not a distraction
21:06:11 <asalkeld> dhellmann, we had a bunch - but they were quiet and sitting on the floor
21:06:38 <david-lyle> used pods, shared tables at times
21:06:39 <ttx> I think the unpredictable agenda and the concurrency of meetups kept most distraction away
21:06:59 <eglynn_> the "pod" table was less used during the week in our case, with the expectation of the meetup coming on the Friday
21:07:09 <ttx> so that worked well, but I agree that didn't work so well late afternoon
21:07:14 <asalkeld> I didn't use the pods at all
21:07:17 <morganfainberg> ttx, the pods were nice, but often were camped because of "good wifi" on the last couple days. the pods were nice - and i want to see them continued. - the dev lounge might need to be bigger so non-pod talk / camping can occur there.
21:07:22 <ttx> in Vancouver I expect all meetups to go in parallel
21:07:34 <ttx> since we'll have more space
21:07:40 <nikhil_k> people were happy with the glance sessions however, the contributor's meetup was way late on friday
21:07:53 <nikhil_k> folks too tired
21:08:01 <ttx> Do you think there is still value in "scheduled sessions" ?
21:08:08 <dhellmann> I felt like there was a bit more hallway noise than usual. I'm not sure what we could have done with the layout this time around, or if there really was more noise
21:08:10 <nikhil_k> yes
21:08:22 <eglynn_> ttx: yes, concentrates the mind in advance ... usually better prep'd
21:08:28 <nikhil_k> we'd a pre-summit scheduled sessions on a video conf for glance
21:08:29 <morganfainberg> ttx, you mean the scheduled meetup sessions or scheduled sessions like "topic XXX"?
21:08:41 <nikhil_k> that combined with regular sessions worked out quite well
21:08:42 <ttx> scheduled sessions (Wed/Thu)
21:08:45 <eglynn_> dhellmann: auto-closing doors would have been good :)
21:08:55 <dhellmann> yeah, scheduled sessions are definitely useful for oslo, since most of our contributors were in and out
21:09:06 <asalkeld> eglynn_, they were auto opening
21:09:08 <dhellmann> eglynn_: yeah
21:09:09 <morganfainberg> I think the scheduled sessions are still important.
21:09:16 <asalkeld> +1
21:09:22 <ttx> so in summary, you wouldn't change anything ?
21:09:24 <david-lyle> +1
21:09:37 <eglynn_> ttx: yeah, I think we need to keep those, otherwise individual's schedules become very difficult to manage
21:09:48 <david-lyle> maybe less concurrent cross-project tracks
21:09:50 <asalkeld> it is still nice to be able to go to other project sessions that are relevant
21:10:06 <eglynn_> (since the meetup schedule was so free-flowing, you kinda had to be there all day)
21:10:12 <david-lyle> or if you're going to have a future of openstack type session, have it stand alone
21:10:25 <ttx> hm, ok
21:10:28 <morganfainberg> david-lyle, +1
21:10:34 <nikhil_k> and it was too distracting for many a folks as there were many parallel conversations
21:10:34 <eglynn_> ttx: what's the conference/design-track "overlap" pattern in Vancouver? ... same as Paris?
21:10:36 <asalkeld> i guess a compromise is to have a mixture of the two
21:10:40 <morganfainberg> "future of openstack" session will trump everything else.
21:10:41 <dhellmann> david-lyle: maybe a governance track? :-)
21:10:55 <fungi> i thought it all worked out reasonably well for the infra/qa/rm track stuff. least amount of overlap i've ever had to contend with in my session schedule
21:10:59 <david-lyle> dhellmann: _1
21:11:01 <david-lyle> +!
21:11:04 <morganfainberg> dhellmann, that would work very well
21:11:04 <ttx> eglynn_: unclear. I think conf will go Mon-Thu, designsummit Tue-Fri
21:11:21 <david-lyle> can't type, but I agree
21:11:41 <nikhil_k> If we can avoid important sessions after Friday afternoon it would be great
21:12:02 <nikhil_k> especially in happening cities
21:12:37 <eglynn_> I didn't love the double-sessions ... it didn't feel like we got through twice the material
21:12:46 <ttx> One option would be to have a lot of smaller rooms, that are more freely scheduled, and try to attract random people elsewhere
21:12:50 <morganfainberg> ttx, largely i'd refine cross-project and dhellmann's suggestion of the governance track (maybe a couple early sessions with no overlap) would be the big changes. Overall format didn't really feel like the issue on any real front.
21:13:24 <eglynn_> morganfainberg: +1 to no overlap on contenious governance sessions
21:13:55 <ttx> eglynn_: I feel like having 300 people in the room instead of 200 won't make a more useful discussion though
21:13:56 <asalkeld> yeah, i couldn't go to any of those
21:14:23 <dhellmann> ttx: I think the point is that some people wanted to be able to listen to that discussion, even if they weren't going to contribute
21:14:27 <morganfainberg> or simply reserve governance stuff to "small directed groups" and the mailing list
21:14:37 <morganfainberg> for the larger discussion
21:14:53 <eglynn_> ttx: though growth challenges session clashing with say keystone sessions (IIRC) seemed a bit arbitrary
21:14:57 <ttx> I felt like the pods were overwhelmed because a lot of small circles of people wanted space around a whiteboard
21:15:03 <david-lyle> but some of the people that could be helpful in the room weren't able to attend
21:15:09 <ttx> which is good
21:15:23 <ttx> (the circles, not the inability to attend)
21:15:30 <morganfainberg> ttx, yes whiteboard space was at a premium
21:16:00 <ttx> I felt like most sessions ended up being 10 people discussing with 20 people observing and 190 people leeching wifi
21:16:23 <asalkeld> then you can't access the etherpad
21:16:30 <ttx> so I was wondering if rooms of 30 didn't make more sense than rooms of 300
21:16:39 <asalkeld> maybe
21:16:59 <morganfainberg> ttx, i think you're going to end up with the SD summit problem then. even if you convince people to leech wifi elsewhere
21:16:59 <ttx> then you have flexibility, but you need to solve the scheduling
21:16:59 <dhellmann> in many cases, I think that would work
21:17:07 <asalkeld> but how do say "sorry mate go away, this other guy needs your spot"
21:17:16 <dhellmann> right
21:17:17 <eglynn_> ttx: as long as the 20 engaged ppl can get a seat, yeah that would make sense
21:17:19 <morganfainberg> but i think 30 is too small is my point
21:17:26 <morganfainberg> but def. 300 is too many
21:17:55 <eglynn_> large dev lounge with good coffee *and* good wifi could be the answer
21:18:10 <ttx> asalkeld: if someone books table 1 at 2pm, you can more easily remove the people staying there
21:18:25 <asalkeld> ttx sure
21:18:26 <ttx> the problem we had was the most tables were unmarked
21:18:39 <asalkeld> but that was more about the small rooms for sessions
21:19:04 <ttx> ok -- let's move on, if you have more feedback feel free to send me an email (or post on the ML)
21:19:05 <asalkeld> maybe we are allowed to priortise by contribution
21:19:30 <ttx> #topic 1:1 weekly sync times
21:19:38 <ttx> I sent you an email asking for your availability on Tuesdays
21:19:45 * morganfainberg checks email.
21:19:49 <ttx> Please answer to me ASAP so I can propose something in time for the syncs next week.
21:19:58 <asalkeld> I replied a couple of minutes before the meeting
21:20:18 <ttx> Note that you can also delegate that duty to a release management liaison, to free up some of your time.
21:20:50 <ttx> #topic Stable branch liaisons
21:21:01 <ttx> During the Stable branch session and the infra/relmgt meetup, we decided to switch stable branch approval to per-project teams
21:21:15 <ttx> Currently it's the same unique team which is core for all stable
21:21:32 <ttx> The first step is to designate a stable branch liaison, someone responsible for the stable branch backports and reviews for each project
21:21:45 <ttx> By default that would be the PTL, but I strongly encourage you to delegate that to someone specific
21:21:52 <asalkeld> ok
21:21:58 <ttx> I'll post to the ML on that in a few days, but please start thinking who could fill that role in your teams
21:22:00 <asalkeld> I still don't have +2 for that
21:22:02 <morganfainberg> i think i have someone specific in mind.
21:22:29 <eglynn_> responsible for doing backports, or responsible for encouraging the team to backport their own fixes?
21:22:33 <ttx> The per-project stable-core team would be the liaison + stable-maint-core, then the liaison can ask for more to be added
21:22:52 <ttx> eglynn_: encouraging the team, then review the backports proposed
21:23:02 <eglynn_> ttx: cool, that makes sense
21:23:23 <ttx> we'd explain the stable branch policy to all the people proposed to make sure that the rules are followed
21:23:35 <ttx> and if they are ok with those, we'd add them
21:23:50 <ttx> that makes sure that we get time to present how stable branch rules work
21:24:11 <ttx> which was the major objection to switching to per-project teams
21:24:29 <ttx> exceptions to the stable rules would still be raised to stable-maint-core
21:24:36 <ttx> (like th erecent [stable ] thread on -dev
21:24:50 <asalkeld> ok
21:24:58 <ttx> anyway, I'll post to the ML about this, but you can already look for candidates :)
21:25:09 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
21:25:18 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
21:26:17 <asalkeld> nothing from me
21:26:23 <ttx> I expect us to be back at full speed next week
21:26:27 <fungi> nothing from infra afaik
21:26:33 <morganfainberg> nothing from keystone.
21:26:39 <eglynn_> nowt from me
21:26:45 <ttx> Thanks for coming!
21:27:08 <ttx> ok then, I'll close in 30 seconds
21:27:17 <ttx> unless someone pushes the button
21:27:52 <ttx> #endmeeting