14:03:47 <mattjarvis> #startmeeting Public Cloud WG
14:03:48 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jan  4 14:03:47 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is mattjarvis. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:03:49 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:03:51 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'public_cloud_wg'
14:04:09 <mattjarvis> firstly could everyone add their names to the ether pad attendees https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/publiccloud-wg
14:05:33 <zhipengh> hello
14:05:35 <mattjarvis> still quite a few down on the first meeting - hope others will join later
14:05:38 <mattjarvis> hi zhipengh
14:05:50 <zhipengh> happy new year :)
14:06:01 <mattjarvis> same to you :)
14:06:37 <yankcrime> o/
14:06:44 <mattjarvis> hello nick
14:06:55 * yankcrime really should put this in his diary
14:07:00 <mattjarvis> #topic Time length for chair voting
14:07:34 <mattjarvis> just a quick note, it's the participants section at the top of the ether pad, some folks are using the one from the last meeting
14:07:43 <mattjarvis> so, on to voting for chairs
14:08:04 <mattjarvis> the Doodle poll has now been open for 15 days
14:08:22 <mattjarvis> and we have 21 participants
14:08:46 <mattjarvis> are we happy to close the poll now, or does anyone want to run longer ?
14:09:44 <mattjarvis> any thoughts either way ?
14:10:01 <tobberydberg> Fine to close for me
14:10:13 <zhipengh> i think we could close the polls now or by the end of this week
14:10:22 <mattjarvis> ok, let's put it to a vote then ( if I can remember the IRC fu )
14:10:23 <zhipengh> i think we could close the polls now or by the end of this week
14:10:55 <rmart04> Have you got a link for that poll, didn’t see it on the etherpad
14:11:11 <rmart04> can flick through the mailing list
14:11:13 <tobberydberg> http://doodle.com/poll/s63r5s4ghyucmnqu
14:11:15 <yankcrime> i reckon a couple of weeks would usually have been sufficient, but given it's been holiday season leaving it to run until the end of the week seems reasonable to me
14:11:32 <mattjarvis> http://beta.doodle.com/poll/s63r5s4ghyucmnqu#table
14:11:39 <rmart04> thanks
14:11:41 <mattjarvis> yankcrime, that seems reasonable
14:12:02 <mattjarvis> so lets vote for the end of the week
14:12:02 <zhipengh> agree yankcrime
14:12:13 <mattjarvis> #vote
14:12:43 <mattjarvis> #startvote close the chair poll on Friday 4th Jan ? Yes, No
14:12:44 <openstack> Begin voting on: close the chair poll on Friday 4th Jan ? Valid vote options are Yes, No.
14:12:45 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
14:12:50 <mattjarvis> #vote Yes
14:13:10 <yankcrime> #vote yes
14:13:14 <tobberydberg> #vote Yes
14:13:19 <zhipengh> #vote yes
14:13:39 <tobberydberg> ...even though Friday is the 6th ;-)
14:13:58 <mattjarvis> sorry my bad :(
14:14:12 <mattjarvis> correction for the logs - Friday is the 6th Jan
14:14:16 <seanhandley> #vote yes
14:14:17 <tobberydberg> Hehe, np
14:14:29 <zhipengh> we don't need a recount :P
14:14:33 <mattjarvis> #endvote
14:14:34 <openstack> Voted on "close the chair poll on Friday 4th Jan ?" Results are
14:14:36 <openstack> Yes (5): zhipengh, yankcrime, mattjarvis, seanhandley, tobberydberg
14:14:49 <mattjarvis> ok, carried :)
14:14:57 <mattjarvis> I will close on Friday
14:15:22 <mattjarvis> #topic Work output to create definitions and consituency on wiki page
14:15:38 <mattjarvis> it would be good to get this put to bed now, we have some content added to the etherpad
14:17:28 <mattjarvis> is everyone happy with the definitions section ? ( under Who is our Constituency )
14:17:59 <mattjarvis> and I think we all agreed that we wouldn't necessarily be bound by the Marketplace
14:18:50 <mattjarvis> one issue with not having the MP as part of the definition is that we now include operators who don't have the Powered by OpenStack certification
14:18:56 <yankcrime> i like the NIST definition tbh
14:19:01 <mattjarvis> +1
14:19:33 <yankcrime> not sure i agree with the 'full api access' statement though
14:19:42 <zhipengh> I agree that we should not be bound with MP
14:19:56 <mattjarvis> yankcrime, can you explain a bit more ?
14:20:00 <yankcrime> could be public operators that can't provide 'full api access' for one reason or another, but those reasons could be of wider value
14:20:31 <zhipengh> full api access meaning full OpenStack API access ?
14:21:30 <serverascode> full api might not be the right phrase, publicly accessible api is what is meant?
14:21:42 <mattjarvis> I think the intention of that statement was about OpenStack API's as opposed to proprietary wrappers
14:21:56 <yankcrime> in which case you'd be excluding rackspace surely
14:21:57 <mattjarvis> serverascode, yes I think so
14:22:01 <zhipengh> some of the apis will not be publicly accessable in nature (for public clouds)
14:22:02 <yankcrime> serverascode: that'd be ok
14:22:22 <tobberydberg> Public accessible native OpenStack APIs
14:22:48 <mattjarvis> tobberydberg, +1
14:23:00 <mattjarvis> would you mind updating the ether pad with that suggestion ?
14:23:01 <zhipengh> +1
14:23:06 <tobberydberg> Sure!
14:23:10 <rmart04> Happy wih the definition, aggree with YC.
14:23:18 <zhipengh> just don't restrict it to only native APIs
14:23:24 <yankcrime> i think "publicly accessible apis" is sufficient
14:24:36 <mattjarvis> ok, I think there is enough there to create a definition and constituency section on the wiki
14:24:50 <mattjarvis> would anyone like to take an action to take that and create something on our wiki page ?
14:25:06 <mattjarvis> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/PublicCloudWorkingGroup
14:25:36 <mattjarvis> lol, ok I will take that as an action
14:25:37 <yankcrime> i'm happy to write something up
14:25:41 <mattjarvis> sold
14:25:43 <yankcrime> lol
14:26:08 <mattjarvis> #action yank crime to create a consituency/definitions section on the wiki based on the content in the etherpad
14:26:35 <zhipengh> we need to agree the content in the etherpad, right ?
14:27:09 <mattjarvis> sorry, yes let's make sure we are in agreement on that
14:27:23 <mattjarvis> we are just talking about the Who is our Consituency section
14:28:13 <mattjarvis> #startvote are we happy with the content in the constituency section being used to seed the wiki ? Yes, No
14:28:15 <openstack> Begin voting on: are we happy with the content in the constituency section being used to seed the wiki ? Valid vote options are Yes, No.
14:28:16 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
14:28:21 <mattjarvis> #vote yes
14:28:26 <mattjarvis> #vote Yes
14:28:52 <rmart04> #vote Yes
14:29:01 <yankcrime> #vote yes
14:29:01 <zhipengh> #vote yes
14:29:10 <tobberydberg> #vote Yes
14:29:19 <serverascode> #vote yes
14:29:35 <mattjarvis> any more ?
14:29:48 <mattjarvis> #endvote
14:29:49 <openstack> Voted on "are we happy with the content in the constituency section being used to seed the wiki ?" Results are
14:29:50 <openstack> Yes (6): rmart04, yankcrime, mattjarvis, tobberydberg, zhipengh, serverascode
14:30:03 <seanhandley> #vote yes
14:30:11 <mattjarvis> #topic Discuss purpose and goals
14:30:19 <seanhandley> Damn. Need to be quicker on the draw.
14:30:32 <mattjarvis> sorry :(
14:30:35 <seanhandley> resounding yes anyway :)
14:30:53 <seanhandley> my bad - I'll be quicker
14:31:08 <mattjarvis> so I think we have a pretty good definition of purpose in the section titled "Splitted concept of representation"
14:31:21 <mattjarvis> which Mariano from Enter provided I think
14:31:59 <mattjarvis> and there is also some concepts under " Purpose of the publiccloud-wg" at the bottom
14:32:23 <mattjarvis> could I ask that we all review both of those sections, add any new thoughts, and then we'll vote on adding that to the wiki also ?
14:32:52 <tobberydberg> Agree that "Splitted concept of representation" looks good!
14:32:54 <mattjarvis> I'll give everyone a couple of minutes to look at those sections
14:33:14 <mattjarvis> I think they probably need merging together and a bit of editing, but I agree
14:34:03 <zhipengh> true that
14:34:51 <yankcrime> lgtm
14:36:24 <mattjarvis> ok, so lets vote on moving that section forward
14:36:45 <mattjarvis> #startvote are we happy with the content we currently have to describe the purpose of the WG ? Yes, No
14:36:46 <openstack> Begin voting on: are we happy with the content we currently have to describe the purpose of the WG ? Valid vote options are Yes, No.
14:36:47 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
14:36:50 <mattjarvis> #vote Yes
14:36:53 <yankcrime> #yes
14:36:57 <yankcrime> #vote yes
14:37:02 <zhipengh> #vote yes
14:37:08 <seanhandley> #vote yes
14:37:22 <tobberydberg> #vote Yes
14:37:39 <serverascode> #vote yes
14:38:18 <mattjarvis> any more ?
14:38:34 <mattjarvis> #endvote
14:38:35 <openstack> Voted on "are we happy with the content we currently have to describe the purpose of the WG ?" Results are
14:38:36 <openstack> Yes (6): seanhandley, yankcrime, mattjarvis, tobberydberg, zhipengh, serverascode
14:38:56 <mattjarvis> would anyone else like to take an action to distill those sections down into a Purpose section on the wiki ?
14:39:06 <mattjarvis> I am happy to do so
14:39:15 <zhipengh> I could help
14:39:31 <mattjarvis> please feel free zhipengh
14:39:51 <mattjarvis> how about you take a first pass, and we can collaborate if needed afterwards ?
14:40:07 <zhipengh> no problem
14:40:09 <mattjarvis> #action zhipengh to distill Purpose sections down into a section on the wiki
14:40:15 <mattjarvis> tx :)
14:40:38 <mattjarvis> so the last thing I wanted us to talk about today was about goals
14:41:03 <mattjarvis> there are obviously the overarching things which we have outlined under purpose
14:41:41 <mattjarvis> but taking input from others, the most successful working groups have set themselves achievable sets of goals within the release cycle timeframe
14:42:12 <mattjarvis> here is what David Flanders sent to me this week regarding this :
14:42:16 <mattjarvis> �First task is really to get two dedicated co-chairs who are going to be committed to bringing the group together via the regular drum-beat of IRC meetings.  Second is having a good scoping document 9slides) to announce at the forum(summit) along with 1-3 small activities.  That is about as much as you can hope for, a good start with some clear trajectories."
14:42:47 <mattjarvis> this sounds like a reasonable set of milestones to work towards initially
14:43:10 <tobberydberg> agree
14:43:22 <zhipengh> agree
14:43:22 <mattjarvis> we obviously have the first underway, the second is tied up with some of the work we've just done on creating wiki content and defining things
14:44:22 <mattjarvis> does anyone have any further thoughts on the third ?
14:44:59 <mattjarvis> it's worth reading the "Things which public cloud have achieved this year" section on the etherpad
14:45:13 <mattjarvis> which does focus a lot on the app dev stuff, but still valid points
14:45:56 <mattjarvis> personally I'd be looking for SMART goals
14:46:04 <mattjarvis> and fairly small scope for the first iteration
14:47:33 <mattjarvis> one thing that did seem achievable and fairly self contained was to produce some case studies
14:47:41 <mattjarvis> which could then become part of a larger white paper
14:48:22 <zhipengh> how should we categorize the cases ?
14:49:16 <mattjarvis> I was thinking that if we could provide 3-4 case studies for large customers who use public cloud openstack and why they use it - along with any challenges that customer creates for the provider ?
14:49:27 <mattjarvis> I can definitely think of 2 customers from DataCentred who would be interesting
14:50:03 <zhipengh> I could have some from OTC customers I think
14:50:10 <mattjarvis> if the selection could be cross-industry that would also be interesting I think
14:50:44 <mattjarvis> so customers from different sectors
14:51:28 <zhipengh> we should also decide on a template for the case study document
14:51:42 <tobberydberg> Like your suggestion Matt
14:51:46 <zhipengh> what sections we should include in it for example
14:52:24 <mattjarvis> zhipengh, I agree
14:52:35 <mattjarvis> could you add that to the ether pad so we capture it
14:52:49 <yankcrime> deffo agree with case studies that speak to openstack's strengths for public cloud in general
14:53:00 <mattjarvis> coming back to Flanders suggestions - I think what we are talking about here is what he has under section e.
14:53:33 <mattjarvis> I think we could also contribute to section d. - update, testing and screencasts of how various cloud app interfaces work atop openstack
14:53:52 <mattjarvis> and to section c.
14:54:04 <mattjarvis> participation at the summit OpenStack Academy* acting as mentors during the 'Training Games' and self-paced 'Cloud App Labs' lounge
14:55:27 <tobberydberg> Yes, participating and the OpenStack Academy with resources to execute sessions, labs or hackatons?
14:55:59 <mattjarvis> tobberydberg, yes exactly
14:56:06 <tobberydberg> Yes, participating and provide the OpenStack Academy with resources to execute sessions, labs or hackatons?
14:56:16 <tobberydberg> ...some lost words...
14:56:36 <mattjarvis> and also that would play into doing some work on section d. so that we ensure things actually work reliably across clouds
14:57:16 <mattjarvis> so we are coming up to the hour now
14:57:24 <mattjarvis> does anyone have any final thoughts for this weeks meeting ?
14:58:13 <mattjarvis> I suggest we add the case study discussion to the agenda for next meeting, as it seems we are all fairly in agreement
14:58:37 <yankcrime> yeah, agreed
14:58:39 <seanhandley> sounds good mattjarvis
14:58:55 <tobberydberg> agree
14:58:58 <zhipengh> agree
14:59:04 <mattjarvis> thank you all for your input - I think we've made progress this meeting. By next time we should have some additional wiki content and some other chairs !
14:59:14 <yankcrime> thanks mattjarvis
14:59:20 <mattjarvis> #endmeeting