20:03:25 <ttx> #startmeeting tc
20:03:26 <russellb> o/
20:03:26 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Dec 16 20:03:25 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:03:27 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:03:29 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tc'
20:03:36 <ttx> Our agenda for today:
20:03:42 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee
20:03:51 <ttx> err.
20:04:01 <ttx> #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee
20:04:09 <ttx> one should redierct to the other
20:04:18 <ttx> #topic Project structure reform specification
20:04:26 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/138504/
20:04:37 <mikal> Morning
20:04:38 <vishy> o/
20:04:41 <ttx> So... I posted patchset4 early on Friday, most of the discussion since then have been minor comments, not objections
20:04:52 <ttx> So I think this is ready for us to vote on -- would be great to come to a decision before the holiday break
20:05:04 <jaypipes> ttx: ++
20:05:13 <ttx> Any last minute question we can address in-meeting ?
20:05:33 <dhellmann> o/
20:06:34 <ttx> If none, will approve when/if that reaches a majority, or we'll discuss it again next week :)
20:06:47 <dhellmann> I have some reservations about how far we are lowering the bar for new projects. I like that we're lowering it, but I'd also like to include some things in this list like having an active team and such.
20:07:20 <ttx> dhellmann: I'd say that's for another review, when we start drafting governance documents to drive that new thing.
20:07:23 <dhellmann> I'll leave some more detailed comments on this draft, but I wanted to raise the issue because I'm worried we're pushing the pendulum too far.
20:07:43 <sdague> dhellmann: that's this work item, right?
20:07:45 <sdague> * Define new objective OpenStack project requirements (to replace old
20:07:45 <sdague> new-programs-requirements.rst) (kilo-2 milestone, assignee tbd)
20:07:47 <dhellmann> ttx: I would agree, except that this spec specifically calls out a list of things and then lists implementing that list as a work item
20:08:04 <dhellmann> I'm looking at the list on line 109
20:08:05 <ttx> dhellmann: the rules for accepting new projects will be defined in a specific document. This is just defining the direction ,
20:08:19 <russellb> in "Recognizing all our community is a part of OpenStack"
20:08:23 <russellb> so we're all looking at the same thing
20:08:28 <jaypipes> dhellmann: how does one define "active" team?
20:08:38 <sdague> yeh, I guess I took the bits in this document as high level guidance
20:08:44 <dhellmann> jaypipes: I'm not sure. How did we define it before?
20:08:53 <ttx> right, it's more the general direction we are planning to go
20:09:08 <mikal> So, talk me through the ATC bit again
20:09:09 <jaypipes> dhellmann: I don't know. :)
20:09:12 <russellb> i'd agree with dhellmann that the guidance listed seems to make a point about how low the bar is
20:09:16 <dhellmann> sdague: ok, I did not take the wording that way: "we propose that those should [be] considered 'OpenStack project' ..., as long as"
20:09:25 <mikal> I read it as saying that only projects formerly in the openstack namespace grant atc status?
20:09:25 <sdague> dhellmann: yeh, I can see that
20:09:49 <ttx> mikal: only projects in the openstack*/* namespace grant ATC status yes
20:09:55 <dhellmann> mikal: this section is talking about new base rules for bringing projects into that namespace
20:10:03 <jaypipes> mikal: I read it as "any project in the openstack/ code namespace grants ATC status"
20:10:12 <jaypipes> mikal: not "formerly"
20:10:18 <mikal> I think "those projects" is ambigious then
20:10:23 <anteaya> I am reading the same as jaypipes
20:10:31 <mikal> And perhaps should be "those projects in the OpenStack git namespaces"
20:10:31 <anteaya> mikal: I added a comment to that effect
20:10:43 <mikal> anteaya: oh yeah, look at that!
20:10:47 <anteaya> :D
20:10:54 <anteaya> mikal: I got ya
20:10:56 <dhellmann> and what I'm worried about is that by dropping the bar *too* low, we dilute what "openstack" so far that it is meaningless
20:11:11 <mikal> I definitely parse that para as saying that projects from the former program structure grant atc status
20:11:17 <dhellmann> this brings us way closer to my understanding of how the apache foundation works than I think we should go
20:11:22 <mordred> well, I think definition of the word openstack is a bit multifaceted
20:11:24 <ttx> dhellmann: but you agree that this resolution is not forcing us to vote in one way or another in the future, right ?
20:11:31 <sdague> ok, so can we do 1 of these at a time :)
20:11:33 <dhellmann> ttx: slippery slope
20:11:36 <markmcclain> dhellmann: +1
20:11:37 <ttx> this resolution describes our intent
20:11:38 <russellb> dhellmann: or at least punting to let other groups decide it
20:11:51 <russellb> distros/products, and defcore, depending on how you look at it
20:11:52 <sdague> ttx: I think a slight amount of word smithing
20:12:13 <ttx> dhellmann: I'm fine with changing a blurb if you can propose something else
20:12:17 <ttx> been doing that all week
20:12:20 <dhellmann> yeah, I think if we clarify that this list is a set of principles, and that the actual rules to be developed later should be based on but not limited to these things, I could be happy with this
20:12:43 <dhellmann> ttx; yeah, sorry, I've been fighting with setuptools all week
20:12:46 <ttx> dhellmann: propose wording and I'll integrate it
20:12:49 <dhellmann> ok
20:13:10 <sdague> s/ as long as:/ as long as they meet an objective criteria for inclusion (one of the work items below). This might include items such as:/
20:13:49 <sdague> dhellmann: do you think that would match the intent correctly?
20:14:02 <dhellmann> yeah, I like that
20:14:13 <dhellmann> can I steal it to add to the comment I'm writing?
20:14:18 <sdague> dhellmann: absolutely
20:14:37 <ttx> mikal/anteaya: if you can give me the diff around "those projects" I can take the opportunity to clarify there too
20:14:41 <russellb> though maybe it's worth clarifying ... how much more do folks see being added to that list?
20:14:57 <jaypipes> russellb: not much, honestly.
20:14:57 <russellb> maybe not defined in the spec, but curious what folks are thinking
20:15:00 <anteaya> ttx I did offer a comment with a suggested phrase
20:15:09 <mikal> ttx: I put alternate words in my comment, is that sufficient?
20:15:14 <ttx> reading
20:16:01 <sdague> russellb: I'm not sure I see much more being added, mostly clarification and specifics on 'the openstack way'
20:16:10 <markmcclain> russellb: I could envision us placing some kind of viability of the proposal
20:16:23 <ttx> mikal: sure
20:16:31 * ttx rev5s
20:16:44 <russellb> like, "we think this is sane" ?
20:16:46 <sdague> markmcclain: it's got to be objective though
20:17:01 <dhellmann> I think it will be a big mistake for us to not have any criteria beyond that current list.
20:17:07 <markmcclain> sdague: right it is objective, but if we don't do that then the results will be dictated to us
20:17:20 <russellb> yeah, this is the disagreement i was trying to expose ..
20:17:35 <dhellmann> unless by "openstack way" you mean our code review, test, requirements management, etc. policies
20:17:45 <jaypipes> what are the things that people suggest to add to that list?
20:18:09 <jaypipes> markmcclain: the idea is to have a completely objective set of requirements; i.e. the opposite of what we have today.
20:18:11 <dhellmann> jaypipes: what items from http://governance.openstack.org/reference/incubation-integration-requirements.html would you suggest we remove?
20:18:36 <ttx> anything else while I'm at it ?
20:19:19 <ttx> bah, pushed
20:19:30 <jaypipes> dhellmann: not having a major architectural rewrite. Project's scope should represent a measured progression for OpenStack as a whole. Project should have a clear plan to prevent long-term scope duplication.
20:19:31 <ttx> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/138504/5
20:19:35 <markmcclain> jaypipes: I think objective is ideal but honestly if we set teh bar so low then the board and distros will apply the subjective criteria and we're left powerless to change it
20:19:51 <jaypipes> dhellmann: the stuff about Programs.
20:20:17 <jeblair> well, that's the point of tags -- to help the board and distros and users sort through the large number of projects that are/will-be part of our community
20:20:18 <russellb> i agree with what markmcclain is saying
20:20:21 <dhellmann> jaypipes: I agree on the duplication item. I think I'm +0 on dropping the architectural rewrite. I'm less sure about the scope question; that probably should be reworded some.
20:20:35 <jaypipes> markmcclain: I don't see that happening. I just don't. We are the ones that are recommending tags for the board regarding maturity, trademarks, etc
20:20:41 <dhellmann> jaypipes: yeah, programs go away, but some of that may apply to the teams
20:20:47 <jeblair> because it's a problem now that we don't actually have a good solution for
20:21:08 <devananda> dhellmann: major integrated projects have and continue to go through architectural rewrites often
20:21:15 <devananda> dhellmann: i don't see how that should be a bar to entry
20:21:17 <dhellmann> jeblair: we can add tags without changing anything else
20:21:26 <ttx> Before discussing the next step, could we vote on the first one ?
20:21:38 <jaypipes> ttx: ++
20:21:41 <ttx> I agree that's a far more contentious item
20:21:43 <zaneb> dhellmann: I'd like to see things like using oslo (where appropriate) and the global requirements list and that sort of thing
20:22:07 <devananda> zaneb: ++
20:22:12 <dhellmann> devananda: yeah, that's why I'm +0 on dropping it
20:22:16 <mordred> ttx: I'm mildly concerned that we we wind up not having a definition for how horizontal teams are managed
20:22:21 <markmcclain> jaypipes: I wonder if our signaling via tag will be interpreted correctly when more folks live in teh openstack git namespace
20:22:33 <mordred> ttx: not, mind you, that I expect us to grow any in the near future
20:23:02 <ttx> mordred: most of them are code-backed those days, so I'd say, same as others
20:23:03 <devananda> following common/expected processes (oslo, pbr, sphinx doc, etc) - this is not explicitly called out
20:23:03 <mordred> ttx: it's possible we don't need codification there
20:23:15 <jaypipes> markmcclain: I don't think it can get much worse than the existing binary integrated-release stuff, frankly.
20:23:18 <devananda> but is what part of "follow the OpenStack way", in my opinion
20:23:18 <sdague> markmcclain: so here's the thing, distros and others are making those calls already
20:23:56 <jaypipes> mordred: why do we have to have a definition of how horizontal teams are managed>?
20:24:02 <russellb> well ... they're generally based on the integrated release, that's the base guidance
20:24:07 <mordred> jaypipes: not saying we do - only that we might
20:24:09 <jaypipes> mordred: why does the TC need to micromanage that?
20:24:11 <zaneb> devananda: ++ maybe the "OpenStack way" and the "four Opens" should be separate entries in that list
20:24:21 <jeblair> ttx, mordred: some of them currently have scope beyond "what lands in their repos"
20:24:25 <jeblair> jaypipes: ^
20:24:26 <markmcclain> jaypipes: agreed…I just want to make sure we're not abdicating power that we wont be able to get back if we realize we're wrong
20:24:45 <mordred> but largely, if we have: "will let multiple different teams potentially address the same problems" - what about when that's not desirable (we don't really want to grow two docs teams or two infra teams)
20:24:59 <russellb> mordred: i noted that on the review
20:25:09 <mordred> cool. I'll go look at that
20:25:09 <markmcclain> sdague: agreed, but we do box them in a bit because of how clear we designate stuff (even if we all agree needs work)
20:25:13 <jaypipes> mordred: because ... common sense and communication?
20:25:14 <devananda> zaneb: it gets tricky if we codify all of those. example: should every project use flask or pecan? this is not obvious. should they all use oslo? probably less contentious.
20:25:21 <russellb> mordred: i haven't gone back to respond to ttx's response though
20:25:22 <ttx> mordred: that was addressed in one of the comments. When we say "open development" that also means "collaborating"
20:25:29 <devananda> zaneb: so while it's worth describing the expectation, I don't think it's good to state specific tools
20:25:31 <sdague> markmcclain: distros and ops are going to adopt parts of openstack because we stamp it,  but because it's actually good stuff
20:25:34 <mordred> jaypipes: yah - it's entirely possible the answer is "we don't think it's a problem and will dael with it when it is"
20:25:38 <devananda> zaneb: otherwhise we'll just end up with a meta requirements list
20:25:39 <ttx> mordred: which is most cases would prevent duplicate horizontal teams if useless
20:25:46 <devananda> zaneb: and have to change it later
20:26:01 <ttx> mordred: and yes
20:26:15 <zaneb> devananda: yeah, I'd be happy with something vague ('follow the OpenStack way'), but I gather a lot of folks want only objective criteria
20:26:38 <ttx> well, since now those are more inspirational than a final list of criteria, I think we should be good
20:26:46 <sdague> zaneb: I think mostly we'll want to call out what that is in the follow up
20:26:56 <ttx> sdague: ++
20:27:00 <zaneb> +1
20:27:40 <dhellmann> right, I just want to leave room for actual discussion in that, and not paint ourselves into a corner with *this* spec
20:28:39 <ttx> I think it's appropriately vague now :)
20:28:40 <sdague> yep
20:28:56 <markmcclain> sdague: right that's what we want ops deploying it because it is good stuff, I'm wondering if tagging is delays our decision proces until too late
20:29:21 <ttx> so please cast your vote and we can start discussing what level the bar should exactly be set at.
20:29:50 <russellb> i want to give it another in depth read and consideration, i'll vote tomorrow
20:29:52 <ttx> because yes, while everyoen agrees there shoud be some bar, your mileage may vary
20:29:59 <ttx> russellb: ack
20:30:58 <ttx> I'll leave it open today anyway to give annegentle a chance to register her vote
20:31:17 <ttx> since she +1ed the previous rev and couldn't attend the meeting
20:32:14 <ttx> So, assuming this is approved, next step here is to communicate about the proposed way forward more heavily, so that it doesn't take anyone by surprise.
20:32:37 <mikal> I think we'll need to do that both sides of the holiday break obviously
20:32:39 <ttx> Then we'll probably tackle the bar height
20:32:46 <mikal> If we do it this week and next we'll miss a bunch of people
20:32:58 <dhellmann> mikal: ++
20:32:59 <ttx> mikal: yes
20:33:12 <ttx> work item says end of dec / start of jan
20:33:20 <mikal> ttx: oh, fair point
20:33:32 <mikal> What about ttx doing an openstack hour youtube thing explaining it?
20:33:38 <mikal> (in addition to email etc etc)
20:33:40 <ttx> ew
20:33:56 <fungi> you could wear a fun hat
20:34:02 <mordred> fungi: I was going to say that
20:34:03 <mikal> Sock puppets?
20:34:05 <ttx> more likely a giant handkerchief
20:34:06 <Rockyg> +1 for ttx on youtube
20:34:08 <mordred> fungi: although I was going to say pointy
20:34:38 <ttx> well, we could certainly do some IRC town hall thing
20:34:49 <fungi> resurrect the irc all-hands
20:34:50 <jeblair> i think email is quite enough
20:34:52 <ttx> so that people can throw tomatoes at me
20:34:57 <mordred> jeblair: ++
20:35:01 <fungi> yeah, an ml thread should be fine
20:35:05 <ttx> but yeah, blog+email is probably the most async
20:35:25 <jeblair> particularly because it can be drafted and comments solicited
20:35:46 <ttx> Last questions/ comments on this topic ?
20:36:39 <ttx> We can go back to it in Open Discussion, time permitting
20:36:42 <ttx> #topic A look at proposed openstack-specs
20:36:47 <sdague> ttx: thanks for all your efforts here
20:36:58 <ttx> sdague: thx!
20:37:00 <ttx> There are two openstack-specs proposals up for review:
20:37:08 <ttx> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/openstack-specs+branch:master,n,z
20:37:16 <ttx> So far I wouldn't describe them as heavily reviewed yet
20:37:38 <ttx> TC members have +2/APRV on that repo
20:37:44 <ttx> so we definitely should
20:37:58 * mikal adds those to his review queue
20:38:10 <ttx> that said, we need PTLs to review those (TC is mostly there to collect votes)
20:38:18 <ttx> not sure on the way forward there
20:38:18 <Rockyg> can you/we socialize the hog guidelines to the ops ml for a couple of weeks before finalled?
20:38:25 <ttx> I thihn the fly below radar of most teams
20:38:39 * mordred has added to watch list
20:38:39 <Rockyg> s/hog/log/
20:38:39 <ttx> "I think they fly" I mean
20:38:40 <dhellmann> ttx: should we bring it up at the project meeting?
20:38:41 <mikal> ttx: mention those reviews in the release meeting perhaps?
20:38:51 <mikal> dhellmann: jinx!
20:39:05 <ttx> dhellmann, mikal: yes, was thinking we could have some recurring item
20:39:08 <dhellmann> mikal: thought thief!
20:39:23 <dhellmann> ttx: I like that.
20:40:25 <ttx> OK, I'll make that happen, mention it in open discussion in meeting today and start doing that more regularly in futur emeetings
20:40:36 <mikal> ttx: sounds like a plan to me
20:40:51 <Rockyg> thanks!
20:40:54 <ttx> That brings us post-holiday season probably on those.
20:41:00 <ttx> Is any of those so urgent they can't wait until new year ?
20:42:12 <ttx> I guess not
20:43:07 <ttx> #action Cross-project meeting chair (so far ttx) shall put openstack-specs on the Cross-project meeting agenda as a recurring item
20:43:16 <ttx> #topic Housekeeping changes
20:43:20 <ttx> * sort oslo libraries (https://review.openstack.org/140934)
20:43:32 <ttx> For that one, I'd say, whatever is the most convenient for updates. Will approve tomorrow morning unless someone -1s
20:44:53 <ttx> #topic Open discussion
20:45:09 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
20:45:23 <ttx> Something we should be doing that we didn't do ?
20:45:45 <zehicle> o/
20:45:52 <ttx> zehicle: go for it
20:46:10 <zehicle> thanks - a reminder that for the bylaws changes, we have need for people to vote to get quorum
20:46:30 <zehicle> does not matter if they are for or against really, we need votes or everyone is effectively "against"
20:46:44 <zehicle> and the voice of the people who bother to show up will not be heard
20:47:15 <zehicle> so, please remember to "rock the vote" or similar as we get closer
20:47:49 * zehicle ends PSA
20:48:05 <ttx> indeed, that vote will need significant publicity to reach quorum
20:48:34 <zehicle> part of this vote includes lowering quorum based on historical data
20:48:45 <ttx> For the next steps of the project structure reform, from my various discussions with people I expect the most contentious item will be the definition (or lack thereof) of a compute-{core,base,thing,layer,ring}. The spec only says we will define tags, and leaves that question for the future
20:49:06 <dhellmann> zehicle: do you have a link handy to the published version of the final proposed bylaws change?
20:49:17 * dhellmann has a local meetup this week
20:49:23 <russellb> those word docs were so hard to read ...
20:49:50 <ttx> I expect the exact definition of the bar to entry to not be that contentious (famous last words)
20:49:51 <dhellmann> russellb: yeah
20:50:20 <russellb> should have been plain text, reviewed via gerrit :)
20:50:22 <sdague> russellb: who knew that ms word is a bad revision control system :)
20:50:26 <russellb> ikr?
20:50:27 <dhellmann> ttx: I think I probably want that bar a fair bit higher than a lot of other people
20:50:45 <devananda> ttx: I commend your optimism :)
20:50:45 <ttx> dhellmann: higher than Jay, as far as I can tell
20:51:02 <dhellmann> ttx: I suspect others, too, but I may be less optimistic than you :-)
20:51:37 <devananda> I probably want the bar higher than some, too.
20:51:41 <ttx> It will be easier to tackle those issues once we have an idea of where we are going (the spec) and we cut the problems into smaller pieces
20:51:42 <sdague> so, probably a worth while part of the setting the bar conversation is to make sure we keep the "why" around
20:51:49 <devananda> ttx: do you have a format in mind for that discussion?
20:52:04 <dhellmann> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/131422/1/reference/incubation-integration-requirements.rst was my earlier stab at lowering the bar a little
20:52:10 <ttx> devananda: I think we can work from proposals and counter-proposals
20:52:17 <dhellmann> sdague: ++
20:52:21 <devananda> ttx: I think seeing a few new tags in a concrete proposal would help set the conversation
20:52:25 <ttx> devananda: first ML thread, then opiniojnated proposals, then consensual proposal, then vote
20:53:16 <ttx> devananda: basically what we followed for the the spec. Except we had to insert a face-to-face-or-video explanation as step 2.5
20:53:45 <ttx> so that we get a better idea of what was consensual and what was not
20:54:00 <russellb> which i think in the spirit of openness, we may want to try to avoid that if we can
20:54:08 <ttx> agreed
20:55:33 <ttx> sdague: yes, in the end all that's left of this spec document might just be the "why" :)
20:55:41 <sdague> yeh
20:55:51 <sdague> dhellmann: I'm going to throw onto your review
20:56:17 <dhellmann> sdague: comments, and not rotten tomatoes, I hope
20:57:48 <ttx> OK, if nobody else has a comment, we can close early. I'd welcome chairing help for the next meeting if some of you can stay around. Not in the best shape to have a difficult discussion right now
20:58:21 <sdague> dhellmann: yep
20:58:31 <dhellmann> ttx: I'll be there
20:58:49 <ttx> dhellmann: cool. If I pass out, just continue and ignore me
20:58:59 <ttx> #endmeeting