19:00:06 <catherineD> #startmeeting refstack
19:00:07 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Mar 21 19:00:06 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is catherineD. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:08 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:00:10 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'refstack'
19:00:47 <dliu> hello Catherine
19:01:11 <catherineD> dliu: hello welcome to IRC meeting
19:01:24 <dliu> thank you :-)
19:02:06 <pvaneck> o/
19:03:45 <dliu> o/
19:04:48 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: rockyg: you there?
19:05:12 <rockyg> o/
19:05:49 <alexandrelevine> o/
19:06:13 <catherineD> alright
19:06:15 <catherineD> #link meeting agenda and notes, please feel free to add items https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-16-03-21
19:06:51 <catherineD> #topic Make puppet pull releases from Pypi
19:07:09 <catherineD> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/281737/
19:07:22 <catherineD> pvaneck: any update?
19:07:28 <rockyg> Congratulations to catherineD and alexandrelevine for their PTL wins
19:07:43 <rockyg> (had to get that nonsequitur in)
19:07:50 <catherineD> rockyg: Thx
19:07:51 <pvaneck> will hopefully be merged today after having addressed some comments
19:07:53 <alexandrelevine> rockyg: Thank you.
19:08:25 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: Congrats
19:08:39 <catherineD> pvaneck: that is great!
19:08:59 <catherineD> any question on this topic?
19:09:06 <dliu> Congrats
19:09:11 <alexandrelevine> rockyg: Where did you get this info about elections?
19:09:39 <alexandrelevine> rockyg: I thought they'll talk tomorrow in the TC meeting.
19:10:04 <rockyg> They will. And if you can, you should attend.
19:10:42 <catherineD> #topic Vendor user management implementation
19:11:02 <catherineD> #link Add user management REST API  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/285714/
19:11:09 <rockyg> But, it's pretty much a slam dunk after all the email back and forth.  And sorry for the hassles.  I should have pinged you when I pinged catherineD to get your nomination in, but I wasn't sure it was you for EC2
19:11:09 <alexandrelevine> rockyg: I will, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something now that you are congratulating already. I thought it's not quite decided yet.
19:11:26 <alexandrelevine> rockyg: Thanks anyways :)
19:13:10 <catherineD> ready for the discussion on Add user management REST API  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/285714/   ?
19:13:16 <alexandrelevine> yes
19:13:47 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: for that patch .. I think it need a couple of unit tests ...
19:14:48 <alexandrelevine> catherineD: Unfortunately at least until end of March, probably a little more we don't have any resources for that.
19:15:22 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: do you mind you someone else on the team help landing that?
19:16:11 <alexandrelevine> catherineD: Which team? RefStack team? Of course
19:16:19 <sslypushenko> Hi, all! o/
19:16:20 <catherineD> yea RefStack team
19:16:27 <catherineD> sslypushenko: Hi
19:16:48 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: OK
19:16:55 <rockyg> Hye sslypushenko !
19:16:55 <alexandrelevine> catherineD: I think it'd be fair to let this review in and add unit tests in the next one right after. Do you think it's possible?
19:16:59 <dliu> sslypushenko:hi
19:18:31 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: I think it is best to add unit test ...
19:19:05 <sslypushenko> catherineD:  +1
19:19:06 <catherineD> that is IMO
19:19:36 <alexandrelevine> ok
19:19:48 <catherineD> moving on
19:19:49 <pvaneck> I can add the unit tests onto the patch in a bit. won't take long
19:20:07 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: Andrey still be the owner of the patch
19:20:11 <catherineD> pvaneck: thx
19:20:12 <sslypushenko> we should keep unittest coverage at 100%
19:20:12 <alexandrelevine> it's ok
19:20:33 <catherineD> #topic List RefStack Users
19:21:11 <catherineD> #link     Catherine sent email to community  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/2016-March/001066.html
19:21:19 <catherineD> Got some feedbacks
19:21:30 <catherineD> also some comment on the Security meeting
19:21:50 <catherineD> #link     Security team meeting  http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/security/2016/security.2016-03-17-17.00.log.txt
19:22:55 <catherineD> In general, people are hesitating in listing the entire user list ...
19:23:34 <alexandrelevine> funny comment.
19:23:53 <catherineD> that leading us to the next topic on how to add user reliably
19:24:24 <catherineD> Let's concentrating on this with Alex's recommendations
19:24:54 <catherineD> #topic Alex's recomemdation on adding user to vendor
19:25:06 <catherineD> I am in favor of option 4.2
19:25:47 <catherineD> in the future, when we have email notification iimplemented ... we could go with both option 4.2 and 4.3
19:26:13 <catherineD> but for now ... the most possible implementation at this stage is 4.2 IMO
19:26:26 <catherineD> what do you think?
19:27:30 * rockyg is digging through my mailboxes to find the email
19:28:03 <pvaneck> I'm down for whatever keeps us moving
19:28:23 <alexandrelevine> Easiest would be 4.1
19:28:48 <alexandrelevine> And email is preserved so I don't see what's wrong with it.
19:28:49 <catherineD> 4.1 gets us back to the discussion of list users ...
19:29:20 <alexandrelevine> There is no problem with list of users. There is a problem with private data, which is email as I thought. I heard that name is not that private.
19:30:36 <alexandrelevine> After all it's clearly written in the openstackid, isn't it?
19:31:02 <catherineD> we sent an email and get feedback for not list uers ... are we ignor the feedbacks?
19:31:17 <catherineD> I am just saying that for this release I want to avoid list users
19:31:57 <catherineD> so 4.2 give us an option that 1) we do not keep discuss about list user 2) it does not expose any privacy data
19:32:13 <catherineD> I just need us to move on ...
19:33:22 <alexandrelevine> ok
19:33:45 <alexandrelevine> why is it still an option for today then?
19:33:51 <rockyg> catherineD, reading those emails again, it seemed to be ok to list full name and openid, just not other info.
19:34:38 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: what is it still an option for today?
19:35:07 <alexandrelevine> catherined: 4.1
19:35:16 <catherineD> rockyg: I am not sure that is the case ... the fastest way to get us out of this is to not "list user"
19:35:43 <rockyg> oops.  My bad.  Only members of org. can list users of same org.
19:36:04 <sslypushenko> rockyg:  Don't think so
19:36:34 <sslypushenko> I think we can allow to any user list name+openID for other any user
19:37:01 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: here is one of the answer
19:37:16 <catherineD> In my opinion, listing users should work as follows:  - Any user can list the users of the organizations (s)he belongs to.
19:37:24 <catherineD> that is from http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/2016-March/001067.html
19:37:44 <catherineD> that means that only user in a vendor can list user in that vendor
19:38:49 <catherineD> again team, please read the email threads ... to get us moving let's implement something else ...
19:38:55 <sslypushenko> catherineD:  But how we will add user to vendor?
19:38:56 <rockyg> sslypushenko, I agree with you, just not in the email.
19:39:11 <catherineD> sslypushenko: we will use option 4.2
19:39:25 <catherineD> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refstack-meeting-16-03-21
19:39:30 <sslypushenko> oh! thx
19:40:06 <catherineD> a user will request to be added to a vendor ... since the user asks to be added ... he/she will provide all the necessary info
19:40:19 <sslypushenko> It is complicated
19:40:38 <sslypushenko> Do we really want this complication&
19:40:40 <sslypushenko> ?
19:40:59 <catherineD> sslypushenko: it is ... but eventually we will implement something like that any way when we get our notification framwork implemented
19:41:16 <catherineD> what I invision is for now
19:41:24 <sslypushenko> got it
19:41:24 <catherineD> user willl log in
19:41:27 <rockyg> Should be very similar to the vendor approval process with vendor admin instead of foundation admin
19:41:46 <catherineD> and in his profile we will provide a link for request to be add to a vendor
19:42:08 <catherineD> for private vendor .. he.she will need to get a vendor id from the vendor
19:42:09 <rockyg> Vendor users shouldn't be that many people
19:42:13 <sslypushenko> but... I'm not sure that RefStack is ready to become so complicated tool
19:42:23 <catherineD> for public vendor they can choose from a list
19:42:50 <catherineD> for what I just discribe ... I think it is doable
19:43:04 <sslypushenko> catherineD:  Everything is doable)
19:43:16 <catherineD> to add a link on the user profile to request for being added to a vendor
19:43:18 <sslypushenko> It depends only on time and money)
19:43:35 <catherineD> sslypushenko: I understand
19:43:36 <rockyg> Another option would be to have a "create user" utility for the vendor admin
19:44:28 <sslypushenko> But in other hand...
19:44:32 <rockyg> Then there would be nothing in Refstack until the vendor admin has enough info from his company to create the account
19:44:50 <catherineD> I think the only option is 4.2 (which is complicated but doable) which does not ignore user feedback and does not expose private data
19:45:09 <sslypushenko> Now any openstack.org member can find openstackid for all openstack.org members
19:45:29 <sslypushenko> what the point to hide it in RefStack&
19:45:36 <sslypushenko> ?
19:46:12 <catherineD> sslypushenko: that is what we  ask of the community ... the feedback is do not expose
19:46:13 <rockyg> sslypushenko, smaller group of people are in the Refstack list.  But, really, if admin creates the user, all the issues go away.
19:47:20 <catherineD> we aill have to follow up with them onm reason ... but now that we have asked we need to respect the opinion ... meanwhile we can proceed with alternative
19:48:11 <sslypushenko> catherineD:  let it be so
19:48:30 <catherineD> yea I am torn here :-)
19:48:34 <catherineD> Thx
19:48:45 <catherineD> now that we ask community
19:48:56 <catherineD> moving on ..
19:48:58 <sslypushenko> Your point of view is also sounds reasonable
19:49:31 <catherineD> thank alexandrelevine: to include option 4.2
19:49:38 <alexandrelevine> catherineD: np
19:49:56 <catherineD> moving on
19:50:08 <catherineD> #topic Vendor registation
19:50:29 <catherineD> #topic spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/274837/
19:51:04 <catherineD> the spec has merged ... just need implememtation
19:51:40 <catherineD> I really hope for us to have vendor resgistration before the summit ...
19:52:14 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: Andrey going to be tired up until end of March?
19:53:52 <alexandrelevine> catherineD: At least
19:54:02 <catherineD> alexandrelevine: ok
19:54:06 <alexandrelevine> catherineD: But he might have the code already
19:54:08 <catherineD> we have 7 mins left
19:54:25 <catherineD> let move to topic 7
19:54:36 <catherineD> #topic Pending review
19:54:36 <rockyg> catherineD, I need your input for the product roadmap!
19:55:04 <rockyg> And that's for item 8
19:55:09 <catherineD> 7.1.1, 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 are all ready to merge
19:55:54 <catherineD> rockyg: did you put RefStack i18n discussion(optional discussion choice). ?
19:56:09 <dliu> catherineD: I put
19:56:10 <catherineD> rockyg: that is 8.1
19:56:22 <dliu> just for open discussion
19:57:13 <dliu> but seems we don't have time today
19:57:15 <catherineD> rockyg: I have ahard time on product roadmap .. since we did not meet this cycle target
19:58:02 <catherineD> in fact we are far from the target ... I have a hard time to plan beyond Newton
19:58:26 <rockyg> doesn't matter targets.  matters that lots got done3 and the plans for next cycle
19:58:53 <catherineD> rockyg: next cycle is OK ... but not beyond that
19:59:09 <rockyg> Newton plan is good enough.  and pointer to spec that pretty much lays out all the work that needs to be done for at least two cycles.
19:59:27 <alexandrelevine> Have to run. Bye everybody
19:59:39 <catherineD> rockyg: I will send you our plan .. sorry it take some time becaue I want to push some for this cycle ... we still have a month
19:59:45 <catherineD> thank you all
19:59:45 <pvaneck> I feel like i18n should wait until we are in a more stable state with vendor registration being complete
19:59:59 <catherineD> pvaneck: I think so
20:00:05 <catherineD> #endmeeting