20:02:02 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:02:03 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Dec  9 20:02:02 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:02:04 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:02:07 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:02:12 <ttx> Hi everyone
20:02:15 <mikal> Heya
20:02:18 <ttx> Our agenda for today:
20:02:36 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:02:58 <ttx> FWIW I transitioned the wiki pages so that they now reference governance.openstack.org
20:03:04 <ttx> rather than duplicate info
20:03:16 <russellb> neat
20:03:22 <ttx> #topic Project structure reform spec
20:03:31 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/138504
20:03:42 <ttx> That was posted last week, I want to collect as much feedback as possible before pushing another version of the draft (probably tomorrow)
20:03:55 <ttx> There was some very recent TC member feedback I haven't had time to fully parse yet
20:03:58 <mikal> I have to say its very well written
20:04:09 <ttx> but so far I see no comment I can't address in a new draft
20:04:14 <mikal> Its the best explaination of the problem we're trying to address that I've seen so far
20:04:17 <jaypipes> o/
20:04:34 <ttx> There is an open question about the missing "impact for incubated projects" section that I wanted to discuss
20:04:37 <jeblair> yes, i don't see any major problems with it, and it's really clear
20:04:40 <mikal> ttx: what do you see being the path for that document?
20:04:47 <mikal> ttx: do we approve it and then show the community?
20:04:54 <mikal> ttx: or do we want them to see it before we approve it?
20:05:00 <ttx> new patchset, vote, then implementation using further changes
20:05:20 <mikal> ttx: so, shouldn't there be a "explain" phase before implementation?
20:05:28 <mikal> ttx: so that the community isn't surprised?
20:05:30 <dhellmann> +1
20:05:30 <ttx> well, we would socialize the spec for sure
20:05:37 <ttx> for incubated projects, Solution 1 is to create an "incubated" tag in the original transitional taxonomy to reflect the current process. That's what earlier drafts proposed but I left it out of patchset 1
20:05:55 <ttx> Solution 2 is to drop the incubation concept at the same time we introduce the new structure, and just consider all currently-incubated projects "openstack projects"
20:05:56 <mikal> I think we should actually pause
20:06:06 <jeblair> i think implementation comes with explanation (like code should come with docs :)
20:06:09 <mikal> Stop and tell people what we decided, why, and talk it through if needed
20:06:14 <mikal> Before doing any implementation
20:06:19 <dhellmann> +1
20:06:30 <mikal> jeblair: people wont notice implementation until its done and then they'll feel rolled
20:06:36 <ttx> mikal: sure, we should explain. I kind of wanty jay to start working on the code backend for the project taxonomy though :)
20:06:43 <mikal> jeblair: given implementation is mostly in a repo people don't watch closely
20:06:50 <ttx> On incuabted projects: For sake of seamless transition and baby steps, I think I'm leaning towards solution 1, and get rid of incubation as a second step -- but I'm fine with solution 2 too.
20:06:54 <mikal> ttx: oh, yeah, I'm fine with that
20:07:02 <jeblair> mikal: i think actual implementation is not a patch
20:07:05 <jeblair> grr
20:07:09 <mikal> ttx: we just shouldn't announce that Nova is the only OpenStack project until we've explained
20:07:18 <mikal> ttx: I am fine with Jay coding the backend for that while we explain
20:07:19 <ttx> mikal: heh
20:07:21 <jaypipes> ttx: add it to my todo list
20:07:35 <jeblair> is not just a patch to the repo, it's a plan for how to actually do all that, including announcements, timetables, etc
20:07:59 <jeblair> anyway, we're probably violently agreeing
20:08:02 <mikal> So, a silly question as well...
20:08:03 <ttx> yes, implementation is more than just repo changes
20:08:12 <mikal> Does "gets a room at the dsign summit" become a tag as well?
20:08:14 <ttx> there will be ML posts and all
20:08:23 <mikal> Or how to we allocate the somewhat limited space at the summit in the new world order?
20:08:30 <ttx> mikal: so that's a good question. I'm working on the Vancouver summit
20:08:42 <ttx> trying to secure more space
20:08:54 <jeblair> ttx: can you get 450 rooms?
20:09:03 <ttx> I was leaning toward 500.
20:09:05 <mikal> Yeah, you'll never have enough space
20:09:06 <jeblair> some of them can be really small
20:09:15 <mikal> We need some other way of working out who gets one
20:09:26 <mikal> There will always be smaller projects who have to miss out
20:09:44 <ttx> but there may be some prioritization in order. the Foundation organizes the event, so maybe it can prioritize
20:09:49 <jaypipes> I think that is a technical problem to solve external to the debate about project structure reform.
20:09:54 <ttx> or we could defer to TC to prioritize
20:10:05 <ttx> I want to have an idea of how much space we have and draft ideas first
20:10:17 <ttx> jaypipes: yes
20:10:22 <jeblair> there's subjective criteria (tc/foundation prioritizes), but there's also some objective things we can do
20:10:22 <mikal> jaypipes: probably, but it is a question a lot of people will immediately ask, so if we can address it before its asked that makes us look thinky
20:10:47 <jeblair> ttx: you already do prioritization of the time slots we have; i wonder what happens if you extend those ideas out to more projects?
20:10:52 <ttx> As far as the spec goes, I'll push a new patchset tomorrow, hopefully we'll be able to vote on it this week and close it next week
20:11:02 <mikal> For example we talked about a "widely deployed" tag. Perhaps we ask the Foundation to prioritize widely deployed projects for summit space.
20:11:19 <jaypipes> mikal: thinky or not, it's a problem that can derail this entire discussion
20:11:34 * markmcclain first thought was the openstack room lottery
20:11:44 <ttx> jeblair: Another idea is to limit the number of sessions in "large rooms" and favor smaller groups in parallel.
20:12:15 <vishy> what about a size requirement for room
20:12:16 <sdague> so I do think that exact room segmentation is going to be massively driven by venue
20:12:23 <vishy> and stick everyone else into a shared space
20:12:25 <devananda> I suspect that a discussion of how we allocate time slots to projects as the list of projects grows will indirectly also lead to a discussion around mid cycles if we start splitting the summit time up between more projects
20:12:48 <sdague> and it seems weird to come up with all those fine grain rules ahead of time when our current model is basically to come up with a split plan about 3 weeks before the summit
20:12:50 <ttx> sdague: yes, that's why I want to have venue details first
20:12:54 <vishy> rank projects by number of active contributors, more contributors == more space
20:12:58 <devananda> vishy: ++
20:13:12 <ttx> vishy: I actually used patchset proposed as a metric last time
20:13:23 <ttx> as a measure of collaboration needs
20:13:25 <sdague> I personally don't think there is a math formula here either that solves this
20:13:40 <ttx> but then I also used "historic" values
20:13:43 <sdague> this is actually going to be able talking with projects and figuring out their needs during the summit
20:13:44 <devananda> ttx: do/can we have a count of ATCs attending the event, not just total count per project?
20:13:55 <jaypipes> like I said... derail the discussion.
20:14:00 <sdague> jaypipes: ++
20:14:04 <sdague> I think this can go offline
20:14:06 <ttx> yes, this is not really the topic for today
20:14:07 <mikal> jaypipes: sorry
20:14:16 <mikal> jaypipes: all I was saying is we should think about it
20:14:21 <mikal> Let's stop trying to fix it now
20:14:22 <devananda> sdague: ++ to tabling this for now
20:14:23 <sdague> I also think the tags work item should probably be a subgroup
20:14:26 <mikal> And let ttx come back with a proposal
20:14:32 <ttx> mikal: it's very much on my mind. There is a venue visit this week
20:14:37 <dhellmann> sdague: ++ to talking to projects about needs
20:14:48 <ttx> i should have space constraints in 10 days.
20:14:49 <ttx> etc.
20:15:27 <ttx> Once the spec is approved that doesn't mean our job is over. It's actually just starting
20:15:56 <sdague> so back to mikal's other point, of socialization time
20:16:04 <ttx> since it's more a framework for change than a change in itself.
20:16:19 <sdague> what kind of time frame do people feel comfortable with there?
20:16:28 <ttx> I'll probably turn the second draft in to a blog post for larger communication
20:16:45 <ttx> approval next week, pause until new year ?
20:16:50 <jaypipes> mikal: no need to apologize :)
20:17:01 <mikal> New year at the least
20:17:11 <mikal> We shouldn't make large governance changes over the holiday season
20:17:16 <dhellmann> yeah, several weeks
20:17:16 * jaypipes would love to see a vote next week.
20:17:17 <mikal> (as a general rule)
20:17:23 <ttx> mikal: which of those is a large change ?
20:17:30 <mikal> jaypipes: a vote on any topic, or just this one?
20:17:45 <mikal> ttx: changing from an integrated release to somehting else seems like a large change to me...
20:17:53 <ttx> mikal: we don't change that.
20:17:55 <jaypipes> mikal: this one in particular -- i.e. ttx's second draft of this proposal
20:18:11 <mikal> ttx: we can vote on it, but then we should start the "explain" phase in the new year
20:18:14 <ttx> mikal: the integrated release will still very much survive until end of Kilo.
20:18:25 <sdague> maybe that's what this needs
20:18:29 <ttx> any change to the integrated release would come in a subsequently proposed change
20:18:37 <sdague> a view of the timeline of how this would evolve
20:18:40 <ttx> but not affect kilo
20:18:43 <mikal> Yes
20:18:48 <ttx> sdague: the "impact" section touches on that
20:18:49 <mikal> Clearly I have misunderstood the plan
20:18:51 <jaypipes> honestly, I don't really see a reason to not allow votes on new project inclusion pretty much right away.
20:19:08 <ttx> jaypipes: yes, I don't think there is anythign warranting a long pause in there.
20:19:34 <mikal> ttx: I just re-read that section
20:19:34 <jaypipes> I mean, the holidays and all are going to be pretty light anways, so I suppose waiting until the start of the year is Ok, too
20:19:35 <ttx> mikal: the change sets up a framework to describe something more complex
20:19:48 <mikal> ttx: I think it wouldn't hurt to have more of a proposed timeline there
20:19:49 <ttx> mikal: but we still import the "integrated release" concept in it
20:20:11 <mikal> ttx: yeah, I get that integrated release becomes a tag
20:20:11 <ttx> before we deconstruct it, but that's a larger change that we'll discuss afterwards
20:20:17 <sdague> jaypipes: by votes on new projects, you mean provide the objective project criteria, right?
20:20:22 <dhellmann> ttx: but it's *clear* that we intend to change that, and so I think having everyone understand the whole process for that change will make things go more smoothly
20:20:23 <sdague> or did I miss something
20:20:26 <mikal> ttx: I still think that people will immediately want their project included in openstack/ etc etc
20:20:52 <jeblair> mikal: i think if people do, we need to wait until we've hashed out the details
20:21:00 <mikal> Anyways, we can take that discussion to a review of this proposal I think
20:21:03 <ttx> mikal: sure. Not saying we'll rush anything. Just saying that the larger changes are actually still ahead of us
20:21:14 <mikal> ttx: agreed
20:21:26 <ttx> and will likely result in more heated discussions
20:21:29 <mikal> ttx: all I'm saying is that we should accept that the Holiday period is going to be quieter
20:21:34 <jeblair> i think we should vote on the spec next week, start implementing it in the new year, but until we've actually implemented it, we should not rush to pretend that we have :)
20:21:46 <jeblair> otherwise we will just be very confused
20:21:50 <sdague> jeblair: that seems sane
20:21:50 <ttx> the trick here is to set the framework up first, so that those discussions don't end up slowing us down in other directions
20:22:11 <sdague> I think it does make sense to create things as milestones with guessed on months when we want to have them done by
20:22:16 <sdague> instead of just todos
20:22:33 <ttx> i.e. we can start describing openstack projects better, even if agreeing on a compute base (or absence thereof) will take us a long time
20:22:41 <sdague> maybe that would make it more clear to folks on sequencing or the like
20:23:01 <ttx> sdague: I can add a timeframe aspect to the implementation part
20:23:12 <sdague> because I expect that will be a point of confusion, and we do have a history in our community of thundering herds once an idea sparks
20:23:16 <sdague> see: specs repos
20:23:53 <sdague> ttx: great
20:23:59 <ttx> sdague: just add a comment about that so that I remember to add it
20:24:08 <sdague> yep
20:24:15 * ttx doesn't trust his memory after 9pm
20:24:17 <mikal> Cool
20:24:22 <markmcclain1> cool
20:24:38 <ttx> my question on incubation still stands though
20:24:57 <ttx> should we import initially the "incubation" concept
20:25:11 <ttx> or just drop the incubation concept at the same time we introduce the new structure, and just consider all currently-incubated projects "openstack projects" ?
20:25:21 <jeblair> #2
20:25:34 <mikal> Herm
20:25:36 <markmcclain1> 2
20:25:36 <vishy> kill incubation imo
20:25:38 <dhellmann> yeah, I don't see any reason to carry it over artificially if we're not going to actually incubate any projects
20:25:39 <mikal> I need to think more about that one I think
20:25:39 <ttx> it's arguably more of an active change to pick #2
20:25:40 <sdague> yeh, I'd just drop it
20:25:46 <ttx> but then the writing is on the wall
20:26:08 <russellb> +1 to just dropping it, unless it still has some kind of real meaning
20:26:27 <ttx> russellb: it would be the first one we drop. Can be same change, or subsequent change
20:26:43 <jeblair> heh, i don't think we'd ever have time to implement the rest if we kept it :)
20:26:44 <russellb> ok, sure
20:26:45 <zaneb> would it make sense to wait until we have some other tags in place?
20:27:14 <zaneb> and prioritise reviewing incubated projects for whether they can have those tags applied
20:28:17 <devananda> what would it mean to retain that tag, when we've stated an intent to remove it?
20:28:19 <zaneb> (just concerned that there will be a temporary vacuum for incubated projects in which they're not receiving guidance about how to move forward)
20:28:32 <ttx> retain it means we need to define it
20:28:50 <devananda> zaneb: a fair point, but I feel like that's actually where we're at
20:28:58 <ttx> and apart from "legacy procedure artifact in becoming integrated" I don't know what we can put there
20:29:34 <devananda> zaneb: cross-project teams are in the process of defining/communicating/creating those tools for projects which they don't directly support
20:29:44 <devananda> until that work is done, there *is* a vacuum
20:29:47 <jeblair> i think the guidance to new projects is: go be part of the community and make some good software :)  [which is really the point of doing all this, i think]
20:29:51 <devananda> at least, that's my perception
20:30:00 <sdague> jeblair: yeh, that's my pov
20:30:14 <ttx> devananda: yes, and this is nothing new
20:30:17 <dhellmann> yes, I don't think it's likely we're going to be holding any incubation reviews while also trying to rewrite this process
20:30:19 <devananda> jeblair: is that any different for currently-incubated projects, vs. non-incubated projects?
20:30:27 <devananda> dhellmann: exactly
20:30:30 <ttx> most horizontal teams have been reinventing themselves over those last cycles
20:30:37 <ttx> because there was just no other way
20:30:38 <sdague> devananda: no, and I think that's kind of the point
20:30:48 <devananda> jeblair: (that's a rhetorical question, if it wasnt' obvious :) )
20:31:48 <ttx> OK, so you guys seem to lean towards #2.
20:32:01 <ttx> I'll draft a "impact for incubated projects" in the rev2
20:32:06 <anteaya> ttx women too
20:32:13 <ttx> to spell the consequances out.
20:32:28 <ttx> well, our female member is not present, and I was addressing TC members
20:32:36 <anteaya> sorry
20:33:02 <Anne> Here but on my phone just to make sure you use gender correct pronouns :)
20:33:07 <ttx> damn
20:33:20 <ttx> guys and gals maybe
20:33:22 <devananda> heh
20:33:33 <devananda> ttx: may I suggest "ya'll" :)
20:33:36 <sdague> folks
20:33:37 <mikal> I think gals requires a certain hair style doesn't it?
20:33:40 <sdague> folks is always good
20:33:41 <mikal> Y'all is safer
20:33:43 <russellb> y'all
20:33:55 * ttx just finished Ancillary Justice, for those interested in pronouns
20:33:56 <jaypipes> sdague: sorry, yes, that's what I meant.
20:33:57 <markmcclain1> +1 to y'all
20:34:08 <jeblair> or even just "you" :)
20:34:08 <ttx> y'all it is
20:34:14 <russellb> progress
20:34:31 <sdague> anyway, the only other thing is I think the work items should probably have a point person assigned to each one
20:34:33 <dhellmann> this meeting is starting to feel like an ent moot
20:34:37 <sdague> so they aren't nebulous
20:34:43 <sdague> and get lost
20:34:44 <zaneb> +1 y'all. none of this ya'll business ;)
20:35:08 <ttx> sdague: ok. I own most of them, except the taxonomy website which is jay's
20:35:12 <devananda> dhellmann: LOL
20:35:21 <ttx> I suspect TC members will start proposing tags though
20:35:28 <ttx> and own them to completion
20:35:42 <sdague> ttx: ok, so lets be explicit about it then
20:35:44 <mikal> I want the "funniest project" tag. I will administer that one
20:36:05 <ttx> Anything else missing ?
20:36:09 <russellb> mikal: i support your candidacy to administer that tag.
20:36:10 <sdague> I also left a comment on that :)
20:36:37 <mikal> I also want to put in a bid for "most hygenic project"
20:36:41 <ttx> OK, let's move on to next topic then. I have a surprise topic for open discussion too
20:36:42 <mikal> But anyways...
20:36:56 <ttx> #topic Housekeeping changes
20:37:03 <ttx> * Add new advanced services repositories for neutron (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/138479/)
20:37:11 <ttx> That is supporting the advanced services split in Neutron, acked by PTL. Will approve tomorrow morning unless someone opposes it
20:37:20 <ttx> * Move hacking under the QA program (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/138499/)
20:37:31 <ttx> This one has all the approvals lined up, will approve it now
20:37:57 <ttx> * Add Castellan project to Barbican program (https://review.openstack.org/138875)
20:38:07 <ttx> This one is proposed by the PTL. I'll approved it tomorrow morning unless someone opposes it
20:38:24 <ttx> * Completed the gerrit-powered-agenda project split (https://review.openstack.org/139944)
20:38:47 <ttx> This one is just reflecting a project split and rename that has already occurred. Now has jeblair's +1 as Infra PTL... Will approve if I get that and nobody complained before tomorrow morning
20:39:16 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:39:28 <ttx> Early look at potential L names: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Release_Naming#L_naming
20:39:30 <russellb> http://peakery.com/lemming-peak-canada/
20:39:33 <russellb> BOOM
20:39:36 <markmcclain1> +1
20:39:43 <marun> :D
20:39:48 * mikal votes for Lemming as well
20:39:53 <russellb> credit to marun for finding that
20:39:54 <jeblair> russellb: nicely played
20:40:07 <ttx> how come wikipedia doesn't know about it
20:40:16 <ttx> though I guess that can be fixed too
20:40:18 <mikal> russellb: you need to add that to the wiki page me thinks
20:40:21 <anteaya> ttx sorry I tipped your hand, sitting in the same room as these folks
20:40:32 <mestery> +1 for Lemming
20:40:36 * dhellmann imagines the fun we could have if we call it Limerick
20:40:46 * dtroyer likes the four letter name trend we have going…
20:40:46 <jeblair> lemming is even in BC
20:40:52 <russellb> jeblair: yes!
20:40:55 * ttx checks that this thing actually exists
20:41:05 <mikal> Langley should be quietly dropped as well
20:41:15 <mikal> I don't think a CIA themed release is in our marketting best interests
20:41:16 <ttx> <redacted>
20:41:17 <dhellmann> mikal: ++
20:41:26 <salv-orlando> I still think Loonie should be listed in "Other symbols"
20:41:29 <jgriffith> lemming, lemming, lemming
20:41:34 <mikal> Heh
20:41:37 <devananda> ++lemming
20:41:46 <russellb> alternative google maps link: http://goo.gl/7uZ49O
20:41:50 <ttx> I must admit that Lemming is even a BC landmark
20:42:00 <ttx> which makes it a strong contender
20:42:05 <sdague> :)
20:42:11 <anteaya> mikal: now you have to find a munchkin in tokyo
20:42:23 <jaypipes> perhaps we can take a day trip up there and throw ourselves off.
20:42:26 <ttx> But then we had "Lizard" which is cool too !
20:42:30 <mikal> anteaya: I am asking the city to rename something right now...
20:42:35 <jeblair> take a moment and imagine the universe where we release "OpenStack Love".
20:42:38 <vishy> lemming!
20:42:39 <ttx> it's cold bloodeed and... ok.ok.
20:42:40 <mikal> jaypipes: ummm, no roads that I can see
20:42:43 <anteaya> mikal: that will work
20:42:52 <ttx> OpenStack Liberty!
20:43:13 <ttx> now we need to be dropped on Lemming Peak by helicopter
20:43:33 <mikal> Mirantis do good parties
20:43:39 <mikal> I'm sure they're up to helicoptering the TC around
20:43:41 <jgriffith> mikal: LMAO
20:43:49 <ttx> can't cost much that then TC dinner
20:43:55 <ttx> more*
20:43:56 <mikal> ttx: LOL
20:43:59 <jgriffith> ha!
20:44:07 <jgriffith> true statement
20:44:37 <mikal> OMG
20:44:40 <mestery> jeblair: lol
20:44:47 <mikal> We have to argue about mountains for the next 15 minutes?
20:44:54 <ttx> no
20:45:06 <jeblair> mikal: it's in the charter
20:45:10 <ttx> can someone edit https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Release_Naming to add lemming
20:45:12 <mikal> ttx: you accept the wisdom of the peanut gallery then?
20:45:27 <russellb> sure, i can
20:45:32 <ttx> what other names would you like as backup ? We need to do some namecheck trademark thing
20:45:33 * russellb takes the wiki page lock
20:45:51 <ttx> so better include 3 names
20:45:53 <anteaya> laurentian
20:45:57 <ttx> lizard
20:45:57 <anteaya> laurier
20:46:01 <ttx> lizard
20:46:07 <ttx> spock
20:46:19 <markmcclain1> so we want to pick the 3 worst names right?
20:46:36 <jeblair> lizard, lulu, love
20:46:44 <markmcclain1> Longueuil, Lasqueti, Llangorse
20:46:52 <anteaya> spock five: http://ibackpackcanada.com/spock-five-the-new-canadian-currency/
20:46:58 <fungi> eek, that last one is a little too welsh
20:47:12 <mikal> My wife suggests "Lemon"
20:47:15 <ttx> markmcclain1: trouble is, the namecheck on lemming might just return 1
20:47:27 <ttx> so we need a decent backup
20:47:44 <mikal> I like lightning from the wiki list...
20:47:47 <kevinbenton> Lawn
20:47:55 <russellb> Love isn't bad
20:47:57 <marun> +1 for love
20:48:05 <dhellmann> London would be in keeping with our "not where you think it is" theme
20:48:06 <ttx> mikal, kevinbenton: needs to at least pretend to be in BC
20:48:20 <mikal> ttx: lightning is on your wiki list
20:48:23 <markmcclain1> dhellmann: ++
20:48:28 <mikal> Lightning (Peak)
20:48:29 <ttx> yes, but not lemon ?
20:48:36 <mikal> Oh, yeah
20:48:40 <mikal> We can ignore my wife there
20:48:40 <ttx> lightning is neat, A bit too neat
20:48:41 <russellb> lightning sounds so cheesy, but i kinda like it too
20:48:47 <dhellmann> +1 for Love; +1 for Lolo
20:49:00 <mestery> Still +1 for Lemming, but +1 for Love as well
20:49:04 <mikal> Lipton is a brand of tea...
20:49:08 <markmcclain1> +1 for Lanz
20:49:10 <mestery> How can you not be +1 for Love?
20:49:10 <ttx> unlikely to pass, yes
20:49:20 <ttx> Spread the OpenStack Love!
20:49:29 <russellb> in all seriousness, not sure about the negative connotations of lemming, but it's just so funny because it's been used so much already
20:49:32 <mikal> Love is going to be so cheesy
20:49:45 <mestery> Imagine the parties for OpenStack Love!
20:49:49 <russellb> mestery: yes!
20:49:53 <mikal> Yeah, lawsuit right there
20:50:07 * fungi can see the complaints already
20:50:13 <jeblair> mikal: you are such a cynic, but i love you anyway
20:50:19 * dhellmann imagines hippies
20:50:22 <mikal> jeblair: we can hug it out later
20:50:28 <anteaya> there be hippies in bc
20:50:31 <ttx> OK, I guess I can compile this to a list of candidates for our staff to check
20:50:36 <ttx> Anything else ?
20:50:38 <mikal> Longview has some ok connotations
20:50:39 <marun> Leather
20:50:43 <marun> There's ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leather_Peak
20:50:47 <russellb> oh dear.
20:50:58 <mikal> Sigh
20:51:00 <ttx> marun: yes, it's on the list
20:51:08 <kevinbenton> Lower Post
20:51:12 <ttx> err or at least it was.
20:51:20 <ttx> may have removed it because it's not BC
20:51:25 <marun> also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_Mountain
20:51:29 <anteaya> Lynx
20:51:41 <ttx> Lucid Lynx?
20:51:44 <mikal> anteaya: you clearly havne't seen the creepy lynx ads in australia
20:51:49 <anteaya> I have not
20:51:56 <anteaya> just seen Canadian lynx
20:51:56 <ttx> mikal: youtube
20:52:01 <marun> ttx: 'leather peak' is on the border of alberta and bc
20:52:18 <ttx> marun: I blame Google
20:53:38 <mikal> anteaya: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAx-NP4T9CY (I do not endorse this product)
20:53:55 <jeblair> i do also like london to go along with juno and havana
20:53:59 <clarkb> Lanz
20:54:03 <clarkb> it has a Z therefore it is cool
20:54:17 <dhellmann> jeblair: ++
20:54:22 <ttx> Other topic: we'll discuss joehuang's cascading at next week cross-project meeting -- I wasn't at that cascading/cells cross-project session in Paris. Who was ?
20:54:27 <russellb> seems we have several decent options, so that's cool
20:54:34 <mikal> ttx: I wasn't I had a clash
20:54:35 <russellb> i was
20:54:41 <mikal> ttx: I thnk John / Dan Smith were though
20:54:53 <russellb> yep, would be good to invite them
20:54:58 <ttx> so is that getting any traction is the real world ?
20:55:00 <mikal> I certainly understood that Cells v2 was the Way Forward though
20:55:09 <russellb> ttx: not afaict, no
20:55:21 <russellb> mikal: their proposal aims to address some stuff cells doesn't
20:55:27 <russellb> but it was still far from clear to anyone in the room
20:55:36 <ttx> feels like joehuang didn't get a strong enough "no" answer and is pushing for a cross-project effort yo adopt cascading all over
20:55:49 <mestery> Bold move for sure :)
20:56:09 <ttx> well, I just don't see it happening if it's in parallel without strong support from everyone
20:56:25 <mestery> Agreed
20:56:29 <russellb> i didn't really pick up *any* support in that room, honestly
20:56:44 <ttx> but then I guess it's a topic for next week, just wanted to see who had an opinion and could help drive that discussion to some conclusion
20:56:52 <russellb> a big part of it is just approach to the whole thing
20:57:05 <dhellmann> should we address it on the mailing list thread before the meeting?
20:57:11 <ttx> well, that would help
20:57:16 <markmcclain1> dhellmann: ++
20:57:18 <russellb> dhellmann: we could, they did post a follow up on there
20:57:22 <russellb> i was so caught off guard by their post though
20:57:26 <ttx> I can't really oppose his claims of support as I wasn't in that room
20:57:30 <russellb> it was so far off from the conclusion i got from the meeting
20:57:38 <dhellmann> it would be best coming from someone who was there -- the best I could do is ask about the outcome of the meeting
20:57:43 <mikal> Yeah, I feel a bit like ttx
20:57:49 <mikal> I wasn't there, so I don't really know what people concluded
20:57:56 <mikal> There was an etherpad though, right?
20:58:04 <russellb> well, i guess i can take an action to respond sometime this week
20:58:07 <ttx> but that definitely doesn't match what people told me happened there
20:58:13 <sdague> I also wasn't there, I just heard 2nd hand that there was a lot of confusion
20:58:18 <ttx> "polite listening" was more it
20:58:28 <russellb> right
20:58:45 <russellb> polite listening and lots of "i don't get it"
20:58:50 <ttx> OK, so yes, if we could try to start the discussion on the ML before next week...
20:58:53 <edleafe> I was there, and no, there wasn't any support I heard
20:59:06 <ttx> that would make next week meeting easier
20:59:16 <mikal> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-crossproject-scale-out-openstack
20:59:18 <ttx> Also if someone wants to chair that one, they can
20:59:19 <mikal> If that helps...
20:59:21 <ttx> :)
20:59:39 <russellb> ttx: won't be around?  or?
20:59:43 <russellb> just saying, chair the topic?
20:59:45 <ttx> i'll be around :)
21:00:05 <ttx> No, I anticipate a painful "get real" discussion
21:00:08 <sdague> so johnthetubaguy, dansmith, alaski would all be good to invite there
21:00:15 <fungi> we wanted to start sharing around the meeting chair duty for the cross-project meeting
21:00:35 <ttx> fungi: unfortuinately I also signed up for until new year
21:00:35 <dhellmann> sdague:  johnthetubaguy is the one who keeps putting it on our agenda and then not showing up to talk about it
21:00:48 <fungi> ttx: lack of foresight?
21:00:59 <ttx> ok, time is out
21:01:09 <ttx> thx everyone
21:01:09 <ttx> #endmeeting