20:02:26 #startmeeting tc 20:02:26 Meeting started Tue Oct 13 20:02:26 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:02:28 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:02:30 The meeting name has been set to 'tc' 20:02:33 Our agenda for today: 20:02:38 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee 20:02:44 o/ 20:02:46 #topic Welcome Mitaka membership 20:02:52 Congrats to mestery on his election and the others on their reelection 20:02:59 So we have a number of things to cover for the first meeting of a new membership 20:02:59 thanks :) 20:02:59 w0000h00000! Welcome everyone 20:03:07 welcome mestery! 20:03:07 welcome 20:03:07 First is to approve the the new membership 20:03:08 * mestery ^5s flaper87 20:03:08 * mordred hands mestery a somewhat uneaten jar of pickles 20:03:12 thanks flaper87! 20:03:13 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/233543/ 20:03:15 * mestery weeps 20:03:23 "somewhat"? 20:03:26 was +1ed by election officials, so will approve now unless there is an objection 20:03:38 * sdague thinks there must be better snacks in this place 20:03:49 ttx: do it 20:03:49 thank you jgriffith! 20:03:52 velkomm velkomm 20:04:02 annegentle: It was na honor 20:04:06 an even 20:04:06 :) 20:04:13 thanks jgriffith ! 20:04:13 alright approved 20:04:20 Then we have to pick the committee chair 20:04:27 jgriffith: thank you! 20:04:28 I'll be happy to serve again, I actually dropped the release management PTL seat to be able to spend even more time on the TC side 20:04:28 yeh, thanks for all the fish jgriffith 20:04:36 Anyone else interested ? 20:04:45 * sdague not it 20:04:50 ha... I love that I get that reference :) 20:04:53 * dhellmann touches his nose 20:04:56 * mestery also not it 20:05:01 If you'll have me, please approve https://review.openstack.org/#/c/234409/ 20:05:05 * lifeless touches dhellmann's nose 20:05:07 * mordred is only aware of one crazy frenchman in the room, and is pretty sure that's a pre-req 20:05:11 ttx: go for it 20:05:18 ttx: thank you thank you 20:05:18 * dhellmann smacks lifeless' hand 20:05:22 I'll need 7 votes on that one for formal vote 20:05:31 dhellmann: thats not how it works? 20:05:32 :) 20:05:36 * flaper87 interested in voting for ttx to be chair 20:05:37 +1 20:06:00 ok, other administrativia 20:06:03 Remember we are all invited to a joint BoD/TC meeting on Monday Oct 26, 2:30pm. I sent an email with details to the list 20:06:25 * flaper87 will be there 20:06:32 ttx: on it 20:06:33 * mestery marks his calendar 20:06:35 ttx: and you are sure you aren't off by 30 minutes like last time :) 20:06:54 thanks everyone for still wanting me for another round. Although I wonder if that's not an elaborate trick 20:07:06 I'd like to spend a few minutes collecting topics that you want to discuss at that joint meeting 20:07:14 AlanClark told me he has DCO and diversity work group update on the agenda already 20:07:23 Anything else you'd like to cover there? 20:07:41 it might be nice to ask the board if they have anything they want from us 20:07:48 lifeless: +1 20:07:48 i asked for DCO to be discussed earlier (as well) 20:07:50 sdague: it was an optimization based on past data! 20:07:51 so that we can actually vote on it 20:08:08 i posted to the foundation list about that, but no response on it ... 20:08:17 russellb: thanks for posting that 20:08:23 russellb: so no response at all? 20:08:25 russellb: yeah, we were expecting a vote in july, so we're _really_ expecting a vote in october. 20:08:26 dhellmann: none 20:08:42 russellb: Alan told me he has the DCO on the list of topics requested by the board 20:08:50 maybe that's a yes ? 20:08:57 * flaper87 shrugs 20:08:59 ttx: but if that's for the joint session, they won't be voting 20:08:59 ttx: if it's in the joint meeting, the board can't vote on it 20:09:09 oh, good point 20:09:15 since that's after the official close of board meeting 20:09:26 and last i checked, it was not explicitly listed on the board agenda 20:09:35 hmm, maybe it's just to tell us that the board adopted it in the morning ? /me is an optimistic person 20:09:40 hope so 20:09:42 sort of wondering if the legal affairs ctte call tomorrow is going to cover dco. might make sense for some of you to lurk? 20:09:45 I'd really like to see the DCO thing resolved this time\ 20:09:48 ttx: yeah 20:09:54 oh 20:09:57 (10:40) Legal: ICLA/DCO - Eileen, Mark, Nissa 20:09:57 fungi: yes, the timing was interesting, usually that's not public 20:10:02 that has appeared now 20:10:03 I heard DCO is on the list too (board, not joint session) 20:10:08 jeblair: oh great! 20:10:12 jeblair: cool 20:10:20 nice 20:10:24 jeblair: the "Legal" part doesn't seem to point to a vote but yet another exposé 20:10:31 so then i think it's fair to expect a vote based on what i know 20:10:33 but we can hope 20:10:36 * devananda sneaks in late, lurks in the back 20:10:38 I agree with russellb 20:10:46 I believe the intent is for a vote to happen 20:10:56 awesome 20:10:57 maybe it's "legal committee has come back with this thing to vote on" 20:11:04 jeblair: maybe. 20:11:05 * jeblair speculated 20:11:17 ok anyway, what else would you like to cover ? 20:11:17 * jeblair is also optimistic 20:11:18 so with a vote, will us outsiders get to know who voted for what (roll call vote), or just outcome? 20:11:24 * Rockyg hand devananda a maitai 20:11:33 sdague: you'll get to know, it's in the minutes 20:11:37 russellb: cool 20:11:44 though the minutes are usually approved in the *next* board meeting 20:11:47 I like lifeless' topic proposal 20:11:55 sdague: also if you're around, totally show up and join the peanut gallery. i will 20:11:58 mordred: if you want us to work on redefining / precising the openstack mission, it's likely to be something the board wants to know about 20:12:01 fungi: indeed 20:12:10 ttx: that's an excellent point 20:12:11 fungi: will there be room? 20:12:14 ttx: yeh, good point 20:12:15 * mestery likes peanuts and will be there 20:12:21 ttx: that would be a great topic to add to the joint meeting 20:12:29 clarkb: i intend to make room, tokyo or no 20:12:33 what is lifeless topic proposal ? 20:12:39 fungi: :) sounds like a plan 20:12:55 #info proposed topic: expanding the openstack mission 20:13:04 mordred: have background on that? 20:13:19 jeblair: mordred wants it to mention users 20:13:29 jeblair: the tl;dr is that our mission currently says nothing about users or making clouds that work similarly 20:13:31 * jeblair assumes he missed a -dev email 20:13:39 jeblair: not really 20:13:40 jeblair: the candidacy :D 20:13:44 there was a bit of it in his TC candidacy 20:13:46 it very much reads as a mission to make a toolkit that cloud providers can use to make clouds 20:13:47 yep 20:13:51 ttx: 09:07 < lifeless> it might be nice to ask the board if they have anything they want from us 20:13:54 09:07 < mestery> lifeless: +1 20:13:59 sorry, I'm here... 20:14:11 ah, i recall that now. 20:14:18 #info topic proposal: ask the board if they have anything they want from us 20:14:18 so I think we should action mordred to have some writing words before the meeting 20:14:27 sdague: +1 20:14:27 I will make some writing words 20:14:29 action mordred 20:14:31 mordred: yeah I was thinking how aged that seems now 5 years later 20:14:43 mordred is just an action 20:14:50 in the past the "ask the board what they want from us" didn't turn into much 20:14:52 * mordred is an action 20:14:56 OK. Well if you have other ideas you can push them to the -tc list today. i'll send that to Alan tomorrow 20:15:02 sdague: oh, good to know 20:15:08 I would actually think a bit of that should be the board putting things on the joint agenda 20:15:22 it was last time, iirc 20:15:31 Last item on this topic is the TC dinner, or absence thereof 20:15:34 jeblair: we added a couple too 20:15:37 maybe they don't have much to talk about either :) 20:15:40 mordred said (rightly so) that the TC hasn't changed much and we know each other already, so there isn't so much need for a formal dinner as there was before 20:15:49 I'm fine with getting an evening back for more informal arrangements, but I'm fine with a TC dinner too. 20:15:51 ttx: mordred good point 20:15:58 * russellb fine either way on dinner ... 20:16:00 so maybe something less formal ? 20:16:03 yah - and I feel like I don't actually do anything with the regular folks because I'm booked so solid all the time 20:16:07 less formal 20:16:08 oh, i din't think the point was to be introduced to people :) 20:16:12 I'll definitely have dinner after the WoW event 20:16:14 which I imagine is the same for many of you 20:16:18 WoO I mean 20:16:20 mordred: I thought you were organising w/HP one ? 20:16:22 WOO :) 20:16:23 yeah - dinner after WoW sounds like fun 20:16:29 anyhow, I'm fine any which way 20:16:31 jeblair: lol 20:16:50 lifeless: well there's also that mordred doesn't work at HP any more 20:16:52 lifeless: I was, but then we were waiting on the election, and then got to talking, etc etc 20:16:54 yeh, post woo dinner sounds reasonable 20:17:02 We could play WoW, whatevs : 20:17:03 :) 20:17:04 the dinner is one of the few times all 13 of us are in one place that isn't a formal meeting 20:17:06 ok, let's skip the formal dinner, and have a post-woo thing for whoever wants 20:17:18 I still an informal event would be a good idea 20:17:18 wfm 20:17:22 ttx: ++ 20:17:24 ++ 20:17:32 for the record, i would love a formal dinner, but i'm happy to have an informal one. 20:17:36 markmcclain: we'll be at the woo event. We'll likely be at the core reviewer party event too 20:17:40 I think so too markmcclain -- setting aside the time, mainly 20:17:41 woo posts? 20:17:43 ++ 20:17:50 i think us gathering together is a really thing. 20:18:02 woo is supposed to have enough food that it's likely post drinks rather than dinner 20:18:12 a really good thing. 20:18:14 jeblair: ++ too 20:18:15 jeblair: ++ 20:18:20 Rockyg: good to know. 20:18:22 jeblair, markmcclain : ++ 20:19:14 OK, so I'm not sure we came to a conclusion here 20:19:16 fwiw I've very much enjoyed, and thought we got lots of important discussions done ina low-stress environment, the formal dinners 20:19:23 but I'm equally happy with adhocing 20:19:39 I'm fine either way. But we need an organizer and a sponsor 20:19:42 yeh, honestly the vancouver venue was nice 20:19:52 more bar like and able to talk with more folks 20:19:59 yeah, having a space ready for 13 means more opportunity to talk than we might get ad hoc 20:20:01 and a day 20:20:07 and move around, etc 20:20:13 so post woo drinks where we can move around is goodness 20:20:24 sdague: ++ 20:20:25 sdague, ttx: I can work on finding a space 20:20:28 and invite jgriffith to join, per tradition of emeritus 20:20:29 How about we do something after the WOO event. Dinner if necessary, drinks most likely 20:20:35 ttx: ++ 20:20:46 Informal, drinks, movement. What's not to like? 20:20:48 ttx: sounds good 20:20:49 ttx: ++ 20:20:56 karaoke bar? 20:21:03 russellb: WOW! 20:21:07 love the idea 20:21:09 :D 20:21:15 flaper87 is already reheasring all week 20:21:16 not so good for the talking part 20:21:16 mestery had it, russellb escalated! :) 20:21:17 Karoke bar! 20:21:22 nooo 20:21:24 Yay! 20:21:25 * flaper87 starts warming up 20:21:25 not for chatting 20:21:26 sdague: some topics are best sung? 20:21:28 lol 20:21:36 "Don't Stop Believing" 20:21:44 #topic Cross-project track at Design Summit 20:21:49 sorry to be back on track 20:21:53 The cross-project workgroup met yesterday to curate the track contents 20:21:54 ttx: one sec 20:21:54 ttx: we all are 20:22:02 I need to know if this is something we're going to get sponsored 20:22:17 or if it will be paid individually 20:22:22 I'm fine with paying my share 20:22:35 fine with != plan of record 20:22:35 same 20:23:00 nobody has said "i'm paying", so I think that means pay your own. 20:23:03 lifeless: the post-gathering? we have agreements from humans to fund a TC gathering 20:23:04 simply because if I"m going to chase down whoever mordred was extracting moo from, to do the same, I need warning :) 20:23:12 lifeless: specifically, HP has indicated that they are happy to continue paying 20:23:25 ah, nice. 20:23:28 mordred: ok, can you loop me in, since I'm going to be the amex-on-the-ground 20:23:29 thanks HP 20:23:30 mordred: so the proposal is mordred finds a place and lifeless organizes payment? 20:23:33 lifeless: excellent 20:23:35 yup 20:23:41 thanks HP! 20:23:46 or we might make cody-somerville go over and put a card down, but yeah 20:23:48 mordred: and I suspect i need to dig up a P card for it 20:23:53 ok so 20:23:57 The result is at the bottom of: 20:23:59 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-cross-project-session-planning 20:24:00 cross project track 20:24:03 mordred: drop me a mail @hpe.com ? 20:24:03 I have two suggestions: 20:24:08 If we swap 3 and 26, mtreinish can attend 26 (and dhellmann can attend both 3 and 11) 20:24:20 ttx: annegentle also spoke up about a conflict 20:24:28 :) 20:24:32 ah I may have missed that 20:24:33 yah, 2:50 my only talk 20:24:37 ttx: it was on the ML 20:24:48 so trying to move 10 out of the 2:50 block 20:24:49 sdague: I was distracted today for some reason 20:24:53 heh 20:24:57 I'm good with swapping but I think sdague had a conflict with 26 IIRC 20:24:58 yah my kids started fighting and it was all downhill from there yesterday afternoon :) 20:25:14 * annegentle is honest 20:25:19 flaper87: I think the 3 / 26 flip is fine with me 20:25:27 sdague: cool 20:25:43 ttx: I'll swap them unless someone objects 20:25:50 swap 10 and 14 then ? but taht prevents anne from doing design summit 101 20:26:08 flaper87: wait 20:26:16 or move 10 to 2pm 20:26:19 we have the empty slot 20:26:32 ttx: damnit 20:26:35 * flaper87 rollsback 20:26:42 moving 10 to 2pm works... 20:26:49 annegentle: that work for you? 20:26:51 kills my second suggestion but meh 20:26:58 how big is the place for walking time? 20:27:01 ttx: what was your second suggestion? 20:27:05 sdague: if we should not save one of the NACKs and schedule it on the empty slot at 2pm 20:27:05 having dlm and dynamic reconfig conflict is a poor idea 20:27:11 For example one from rockyG on logging, combining 13 and 15 20:27:19 ttx: we could put it at 2:50 20:27:21 since both are about dynamically handling changing environments 20:27:29 sdague: yeah 20:27:37 flaper87: ok go 20:27:44 so, summary: 20:27:47 swap 3 and 26 20:27:50 and ? 20:27:55 isn't 14 and 19 a dhellmann conflict? 20:27:56 not sure anyone gets *that* movie reference 20:27:56 lifeless: the constraints on there make it a pretty hard flip around at this point 20:27:56 * flaper87 got lost 20:28:01 10 to morning? 20:28:07 moderating one... oslo ptl hat for other 20:28:16 lifeless: he's not oslo ptl 20:28:20 oh 20:28:22 release ptl 20:28:24 meh :) 20:28:29 swap 26 /3 move 10 to 2pm 20:28:35 roger 20:28:42 Another one that might be more important is Refstack and Tempest ... how to make the testing work... 20:28:49 sdague: yeah, I get thats a typical scheduling problem 20:28:50 lifeless: thanks for pointing that out 20:28:55 and maybe make a single logging session for RockyG at 2:50pm 20:29:06 3 26 swap 10 swap 20:29:20 jeblair: that's readable! Executed :D 20:29:26 ttx: done 20:29:27 20:29:42 Thanks! 20:29:43 jeblair: 20:29:49 RPN I see 20:30:03 * jgriffith would love to attend (delayed response) 20:30:06 * Rockyg empty snack? 20:30:15 Rockyg: :( 20:30:17 So what about putting 13+15 in the empty slot at 2:50pm ? 20:30:34 I don't think we need to preserve an empty slot at that hour 20:30:43 ttx: could we move 14 there and add 13+15 at 11:15? 20:30:54 ttx: if we can get treinish, I'd prefer working out how to go forward with tempest fw for refstack... 20:30:54 yeh, I was going to just suggest what dhellmann said 20:30:58 dhellmann: that works 20:31:08 flaper87: did you get that or should I swap? 20:31:16 sounds good to me 20:31:22 on it 20:31:26 flaper87: ty 20:31:45 Rockyg: I think it's less of a cross-project thing though 20:31:48 there will be a partial conflict with DLMs [lifeless] 20:31:49 Rockyg: so we've got "Supporting DefCore and Interop testing" already at 12:05 20:32:14 ttx Ah, thanks. Need to make time with QA session... 20:32:15 if not covered there there are refstack slots and QA slots where that might fit 20:32:31 Alright, looks like we have a winner 20:32:37 Who volunteers to push that one to Cheddar ? I can add them as admin for the track 20:32:49 * dhellmann touches flaper87's nose 20:32:53 Not covered yet and really important - QA and Refstack... 20:32:56 hahaha 20:33:11 I can do it 20:33:14 ttx: I can do it if no other volunteer 20:33:18 Rockyg: sorry, there are no slots from what I can see 20:33:20 * Rockyg sawts at something tickling my nose 20:33:27 ok, there is another volunteer, so flaper87 wins 20:33:28 flaper87: I'll add you asap 20:33:37 ttx: thanks 20:33:42 like during the next topic 20:33:45 #topic Kick off N naming 20:33:48 sdague: care to drive this one ? 20:33:56 sure 20:34:25 we're making plans now for things in M, N, and even sometimes O 20:34:39 we should get some names out there instead of people inventing things, which get confusing later 20:34:45 flaper87: you reached Level 4 Warrior class. 20:34:45 yay! 20:34:46 * markmcclain thinks there was neutron discussion about completing a feature in X 20:35:05 N naming should just go by the current rules, and there is a sub point to change the rules to make O go 20:35:06 * dhellmann thinks x is closer than markmcclain thinks 20:35:11 * flaper87 is honored and ready for the battle 20:35:33 so, who's got the batton to drive the naming? 20:35:43 dhellmann: it was halfway serious... since some deprecation timelines stretch to P 20:35:45 for N cycle 20:35:47 sdague does! 20:35:53 +1 20:36:01 sdague: thank you for volunteering? 20:36:06 sdague: thanks! 20:36:09 sdague: thanks! 20:36:10 russellb: no, I don't think so. I think after the rules changes last time mordred and jeblair signed up for such things 20:36:22 we can probably find minutes even 20:36:28 I can do it again if people would like 20:36:39 I think sdague's memory serves him 20:36:44 well, even 20:36:45 but is also happy to share the love if other people want it 20:36:56 mordred: nice try :) 20:37:00 * russellb happy for whoever is up for it to do it 20:37:19 * dhellmann wonders if N will be the "not it" release 20:37:23 N is in Texas, might end up being even more dangerous than the Japanese one 20:37:24 heh 20:37:34 mordred and jeblair do such a nice job, it woudl be shame to not let them do it again :) 20:37:36 nixon texas is a town 20:37:40 just saying 20:37:48 oh boy 20:37:54 sdague: I'll just go on record now as saying that I find that offensive ;-) 20:38:02 dhellmann: hey, just saying 20:38:14 sdague: alright, do you want to mention the rules change ? 20:38:19 ok, so, are we doing this? 20:38:33 sure so mordred has the action to run with N naming asap? 20:38:39 lets make it a thing 20:38:39 +1 20:38:45 yes, it's action mordred day 20:38:55 #agreed mordred to handle N naming process asap 20:38:59 thanks, mordred ! 20:39:01 ok, so sub bullet 20:39:06 well, so, actually 20:39:16 I believe me handling it is a patch to that file 20:39:21 yep, first step is to propose a governance change 20:39:26 mordred: and collect 20:39:39 so it's great that we've agreed, but let me make a patch and submit it first 20:39:53 ok so - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/232489/ 20:39:55 sub bullet 20:40:07 lets not put an artificle restriction on when we can start naming 20:40:10 we have a place for O 20:40:33 and we're already hit code change discussions for O min libvirt release 20:40:40 so I'd like us to name it 20:40:43 so on this one I think we need to know the name of the next two releases at any time 20:40:48 IIUC, it was intended to ensure that the folks participating in the release had a chance to name it, so it wasn't about folks leaving but about folks joining, and it wasn't artificial it was intentional 20:40:56 "as soon as we know the location" is a bit open-ended 20:40:58 that said, I agree it's useful to drop it 20:41:03 I have been scouting locations for 2018 20:41:14 dhellmann: right, I do see that, but I also think we're planning more than one cycle out 20:41:21 I'm fine with "next 2 which means we need to pick O as soon as Liberty is out 20:41:21 ttx: you progressive thinker you 20:41:27 as long as we know where the summit is 20:41:30 and the shifting term for the N+1 release is confusing to new folks 20:41:34 sdague: yep, I agree, I just wanted the framing to be accurate in the minutes 20:41:44 yeah and we're heading towards an N release anyway 20:42:07 ttx: do you think the locatoins will be announced with so much time in advance? 20:42:10 because we want to land code on O libvirt requirements nowish in official repos, so the distros have a year to get ready for us 20:42:17 I'd like to propose decoupling from the summit, but will do so in a follow-up. Would that be amenable to our end-goals to have some fun, engage those working on releases? 20:42:19 we normally know the locations for the next 2 20:42:35 I'm good with limiting it to just 2 but it may not be necessary 20:42:46 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/232489 currently has 11 +1s 20:42:48 flaper87: more and more we'll know the locations in advance. We have known about next 3 (Tokyo; Austin; Barcelona) back in YVR 20:42:54 annegentle: decoupling from summit, meaning not tying names to geography? 20:42:58 decouple from location entirely even, or choose a location related to a contributor 20:43:17 annegentle: wait until we reach Z maybe 20:43:26 sdague: ok, let me approve 20:43:31 ttx: heh, go through 26 first, sure. that's only 8 years away 20:43:59 sdague: approved 20:44:14 (I abstained, I hope it still works) 20:44:32 sdague: anything else on that topic ? 20:44:54 nope 20:45:03 #topic Workgroup reports and new members 20:45:10 We have two established workgroups: comms and next-tags 20:45:14 Anyone interested in joining/leaving those groups ? 20:45:25 Also I've been toying with the idea of assigning mentor TC members to projects which application has been deferred to mitaka 20:45:34 That is Compass, Fuel, kiloeyes, Monasca, Kosmos and Juju charms 20:45:41 We deferred all of them waiting for more activity or more alignment with the OpenStack way 20:45:50